HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/06/25 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JUNE 25, 1997 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Commissioner Bethel j
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Macias__ Commissioner Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 28, 1997
June 11, 1997
June 11, 1997, Adjourned Meeting
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15798 -
FRIEDMAN - A request to subdivide 19.26 acres of land into 45 lots
for the purpose of single family home construction in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, located west of the 1-15 Freeway and south of Highland
Avenue - APN: 227-071-32. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued
from May 28, 1997) (TO BE CONTINUED TO JULY 23, 1997)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 97-09 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct a
106,301 square foot mixed use public storage facility (93,957 square
feet of storage, 6,000 square feet of retail, 3,552 square feet of office,
and 2,792 square feet of manager's quarters/office) on 3.8 acres of
land in Subarea 1 (Community Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard. APN: 207-571-76,
77, and 78. Associated with this application is Variance 97-01, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 97-01, and Tree Removal Permit
97-11.
VARIANCE 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce
required side yard setbacks for a mixed use public storage facility from
5 feet to 0 feet, to increase the maximum allowed building coverage
from 40 percent to 43.7 percent, to reduce required landscape
coverage from 15 percent to 10 percent, and to increase the maximum
allowed building height within 100 feet of a residential district from 25
feet to 29 feet on 3.8 acres of land in Subarea I (Community
Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8363
Foothill Boulevard. APN: 207-571-76, 77, and 78. Associated with
this application is Conditional Use Permit 97-09, Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan Amendment 97-01, and Tree Removal Permit 97-11.
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
MASI PLAZA - MASI - A request to redesign the site plan and
elevations of Building 5 to accommodate two restaurants, one of which
includes a microbrewery.
Vl. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
E. DISCUSSION ON LAND USE DISCLOSURES (Oral report)
Page 2
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A
MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM
REGARDING PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-07 - ARCO
I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on June 19, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 3
VICINITY MAP
,... ....... : ....... :.:.......................,,,,$ ....,,,., ...........:.:..:.:.:.'.'.'~ · .............. . ............ :.:.:........ ......:..: .....:.......-.................,
. ............. ... ......-.....................-............................ ..... .......~ .......:.:.:... ........... .. .. . : ·
.'C'.'.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......:': .....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':"":':':':':':':': ......:' ':':':' · ':':':':':'":C-'-'-'-'".'.'.'-'.'.'.'.' ' '.'.'.'.'.'.' · '.'.'.'.-:-:".'.'.'.'.'.'.' '.'-'. .....'.':':':':':' ·
...... :': .....'-'.'.'.'.'-'.'.'.'.' ....· ..........:':': .......:':C.:.:.'.'.'-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' ......:': ......: ....'.'.'.'-'.'.'.'.'-' '-' ':' ': ........:':"..'.'.'.'.'.'.' ........:"' ·
I · - .:.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':-:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:- .:. · ~...~.:.?~.......~.~.~..~.~.~....:~:.:.:.:.:~:.:.:~:.:~:.:~:.:.:.:.:...~.~.~...~.~..~.~.~...~:~:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:~:.:.:~:. .:- - -'.'.'.'.-.'.'.-.'.':':-:-:-:.~.:.:.:.:.:c-' -'.'.'. ·
I I · ' ': ....:':-:-'.'.'.'.'.'.' .......-' '.':':':':f .......:.:.'.'.'-'.'.'.'.'.' ' '~,~"i ~-:.:' · ·
. ~ ~'~__ I:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: I (-:.:.:. ~
I c,~ I':' ' ·:::::::::: :::::5:::: :'?~':::"::::'~::::: :5:::::: :5:: :l i:: ::::~
-- li::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::'::' .:::::::::::::::::: ::: :1 : :::::.,
I ':':'' ':' ':':':':' ':' ': ...."'~ ' ':':':':' '""'"-'""'"""'-' I ':':' ~
! H,'-~. ,~'.~. I:::::: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ ,::::::: ::::::::::: :::::-:.:.:.:.:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~: :::::
~ w~. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .~,. !'-:.:.::~::':""'"'""'""'-'-.'-" ~
8,~ 8~-~,~ ..~' "'""~"""-:"'""":::?:'""':'l
\ ~, :'~ I::::::: :::::] I
\~ 0 0 C'> ~' --~.~ -
~ ~ I ~ P~ La~'~
'~ ~' ~ ~ _I~.~-~,,,,.,,,,,,.,,. ....., ..............,.,,, .................., ~ ....
--;- ~ '~ ~/~ ~ * .... ' '" ............"' 't .....
I
~ 17~
o O
~T.& S.F. RR
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
June 25, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
A request to subdivide 19.26 acres of land into 45 lots for the purpose of single
family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
of the Eftwanda Specific Plan, located west of the 1-15 Freeway and south of
Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32
BACKGROUND: At its meeting of May 28, 1997, the Planning Commission continued the above-
referenced application to June 25, 1997. (Minutes included on this agenda for approval.) This was
done to provide staff time to address concerns about the project raised by neighboring property
owners.
NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP: On June 10, 1997, staff conducted a neighborhood workshop
to address the concerns of the residents. Thirty-five residents and two Caltrans representatives
attended the workshop. The issues discussed were as follows:
1. Will Highland Avenue be opened to East Avenue before the new homes are built?
The Highland Avenue connection to East Avenue will only be made if a development occurs.
If Tentative Tract 15798 is not built, the City will not open the Highland Avenue connection
to East Avenue. When Caltrans starts the construction of the freeway, Highland Avenue will
not be open for public travel east of East Avenue. Caltrans will provide a connection for
emergency vehicles.
2. Where will the new homes have access to Highland Avenue?
They will be utilizing the existing Mulberry Street alignment to connect to Highland Avenue.
This is at the easterly side of their development.
3. Status of gates shown on Sheet L-43.
Sheet L-43 is from the Caltrans improvement plans. Caltrans is installing the gates to provide
access to the flood control channel for San Bernardino Flood Control.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 2
Future status of Brownstone Place.
Brownstone Place to the south is still planned to be extended upon development.
Brownstone Place to the north is no longer planned to be extended. The church property at
the southeast corner of Highland and East Avenues currently has an opportunity to extend
Whitestone Place to Highland Avenue upon their site's being developed. In conjunction with
this, they would be responsible to cul-de-sac Brownstone Place within the existing
right-of-way.
Was there a traffic report?
The development was recommended for approval based upon the Citation development
identifying the extension of Whitestone Place and Smokestone Street to facilitate properties
to the east. When the Citation Homes application was processed, access to Highland
Avenue was not an option. Now that there is an opportunity to utilize Highland Avenue for
access, it is an acceptable substitute in lieu of Whitestone Place. The Route 30
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses short-term construction impacts related to
traffic congestion.
Following the Commission meeting, the applicant was directed to prepare a traffic report. The
traffic report was not available as of the writing of this report.
Possibility of stop signs/speed bumps.
Not knowing the schedule of when this development will occur as it relates to Caltrans
construction, extra traffic control devices for Smokestone Street were not considered. The
need for traffic control devices in a situation such as this is best determined after actual traffic
can be observed. If warranted, traffic control devices can be implemented by City staff. The
City does not install speed bumps as a traffic control device within public street rights-of-way.
All other measures would be considered first.
Status of Starstone Place closure.
The existing paved extension of Starstone Place to Highland Avenue is an easement for
emergency purposes only. The property is actually part of the lot for the house on the east
side. Upon development and completion of two points of public access for this area, the
easement may be abandoned. This access will not be opened to Highland Avenue for public
street purposes.
Freeway completion timing.
Gil Daab from Caltrans indicated that the portion of freeway in this area is scheduled to start
construction in February of 1998, with completion of construction occurring in 2001. The
entire freeway is scheduled to be open in the year 2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15798- FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 3
10.
Are flood problems adequately addressed?
Yes, flood problems are adequately addressed. Should the developer attempt to record the
final map prior to the freeway, he will have to provide a drainage report. He will also have to
design and bond for any improvements required by the report.
How many lots/how much acreage will Smokestone Street access east beyond Mulberry
Street?
The site is approximately 23 to 27 acres and may yield about 70 to 80 lots. Not only would
Smokestone Street be extended for access but, if possible, Highland Avenue would also
continue easterly to serve the site.
11. Will Smokestone Street be used as a bypass in case of emergency overflow?
Neither Smokestone Street nor Highland Avenue will extend east beyond the freeway. Only
the local residents in this area would use these streets.
12. Consider access south to Victoria Street as alternative traffic routing.
13.
The Victoria Flood Control Basin and Etiwanda High School prohibits an access to the south.
Caltrans' contracts and how they will affect Route 30 (based on an article published in
Caltrux).
Mr. Daab indicated the Caltrux article related to Caltrans' ability to hire contractors. He said
it will not affect Route 30 construction.
14. Explain Caltrans' ownership of Smokestone Street.
For Caltrans to close the Highland Avenue access to East Avenue, they are required to
re-establish an access to the existing properties. Caltrans is obtaining right-of-way and
intends to continue Smokestone Street to provide this access. Smokestone Street will
eventually be relinquished to the City and become a City street.
15. Access to wash if Smokestone Street opens.
There will be appropriate fencing to limit access to the wash.
16. What about a traffic signal at East Avenue and Catalpa Street?
The City does not anticipate the need for installation of a traffic signal at this location.
17. Widening of East Avenue with this project.
This developer is not required to widen East Avenue. Traffic analysis does not warrant the
widening of East Avenue with the addition of the traffic from this project.
/43
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 4
18. Provisions for emergency egress.
Fire District and Police Department were part of the technical staff that reviewed this project
before it was forwarded to the Planning Commission. No recommendation was made that .
required the development of an emergency evacuation plan. However, staff will again meet
with the Fire District and Police Department to readdress this issue and present the results
at the June 25, 1997, Planning Commission meeting.
19. Flood problems while freeway is under construction.
Caltrans will handle drainage issues during the design and construction of their freeway.
At the conclusion of the neighborhood workshop, the residents raised the following concerns:
When will Highland Avenue be opened through to East Avenue and what will the Highland
Avenue improvements entail?
Highland Avenue can only be opened to East Avenue after Caltrans relinquishes Highland
Avenue right-of-way to the City. Construction for the Route 30/I-15 interchange is expected
to start in February, 1998, with anticipated completion of the freeway in the year 2001. Upon
completion of the freeway and relinquishment of Highland Avenue right-of-way to the City,
staff will be pursuing Highland Avenue improvements. The improvements are anticipated to
consist of 40 feet of pavement between curbs, with a 3-foot wide parkway on the north side
for street lights and a 7-foot wide parkway on the south side for street lights and sidewalk
adjacent to the curb, and a down slope/retaining wall on the south side for joining purposes.
2. How will emergency evacuation be handled?
The type of evacuation would depend upon the nature of the emergency (i.e., fire, flood,
earthquake, toxic spill, etc.). Staff will be meeting with the Fire District on this item. Staff will
present the results of that meeting at the June 25, 1997, Planning Commission meeting.
3. What type of limits can be placed on construction traffic associated with the subdivision?
A Condition of Approval requires that:
The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the
development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval
including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street
posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activities, dust control measures, and security fencing.
If the Commission so chooses, the following could be added to the Condition to further
address residents' concerns;
Construction access shall be limited to Highland Avenue with no access
through Tract 13063 to the satisfaction of the City Planner and the City
Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15798-FRIEDMAN
June 25,1997
Page 5
Will there be a "gap" between the Caltrans-constructed sound wall along the northern side
of Highland Avenue protecting existing residents and the new sound wall required as part of
the proposed tract at the drainage channel? If so, will the gap result in freeway noise impacts
on existing residents?
According to Mr. Daab, the sound wall installed by Caltrans to protect existing homes on the
south side of Highland Avenue will be constucted along the north side of Highland Avenue
and end on the west side of the drainage channel. The subject tract will be required to have
a sound wall along the northern edge of the site (south sidle of Highland Avenue) wrapping
southerly along the east side of the drainage channel. A so-called "gap" would therefore exist
between the two sound walls since they are on opposite sides of Highland Avenue and the
drainage channel. Whether freeway noise could leak through this gap is an impact related
to the freeway, not to the proposed tract.
What is the responsibility of Caltrans as it relates to congestion at the intersection of East
Avenue and Victoria Street caused by closure of East Avenue during Route 30 construction?
City staff will review the construction detour plan to be prepared for the freeway construction.
Currently, Caltrans will allow for east-west traffic through the Etiwanda area by allowing
Highland Avenue or a parallel substitute street to remain open during freeway construction.
The first phase will have the existing Highland Avenue remain open while the north roadbed
of the freeway is being constructed. The next phase will allow east-west travel to use the
northerly freeway roadbed while the south roadbed is being constructed. This phasing will
require Highland Avenue to be closed. City staff is hopeful that with an east-west route
remaining open, the intersection of Victoria Street and East Avenue will be minimally
impacted. Staff will continue to monitor Caltrans' progress.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: At the May 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, the
residents had requested information about the City's environmental review process and raised
several points they felt were not adequately addressed in the Initial Study. The points raised tend
to be very general in nature and do not include substantiated factual evidence. No new evidence
has been presented to indicate that the project may have a significant environmental impact.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan and the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, both of which have associated EIRs to address impacts of development. The project
does not involve an increase in housing density or change of land use type (such as residential to
commercial) beyond what is provided for by the General Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and
associated EIRs.
In completing the Initial Study, staff did identify potential environmental impacts associated with the
project including freeway noise impacts upon the subdivision, potential flood hazards, traffic
impacts, and removal of heritage Eucalyptus windrows. Staff also identified mitigation measures
which would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 6
In light of neighborhood concerns related to increased traffic using Smokestone Street during
Caltrans closure of Highland Avenue, staff has requested an analysis of projected traffic volumes
as a result of the proposed tract. This analysis constitutes new information pertaining to the Initial
Study, and while it may not change the recommended mitigation measures, it does require the City
to notify the public and allow adequate time for public comment on the revised Initial Study which
includes, by reference, the traffic analysis.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public
hearing on Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 15798 to July 23, 1997, to allow
adequate time to notify the public and gather public comments on the revised Environmental Initial
Study.
Respectfully submitted,
Bra~~
City Planner
BB:BL:taa
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 28, 1997
Letters from local residents
Revised Initial Study
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
May 28, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15798 - FRIEDMAN -
A request to subdivide 19.26 acres of land into 45 lots for the purpose of single
family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located west of the 1-15 Freeway and south of
Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 2.3 lots per acre
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Highland Avenue (future Route 30 Freeway) and vacant land; Very Low Residential
(less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
South - County Flood Control basin; Open Space
East - Single family homes, a nursery, vacant land, and the 1-15 Freeway; Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
Single family homes (Tract 13063) and City drainage channel; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
West
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Low Residential
North Very Low Residential
South Flood Control
East Low Residential
West Flood Control and Low Residential
Site Characteristics: The 19.26 acre site is vacant and slopes gently from north to south at
approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site is directly east of an existing single family tract
developed by Citation Homes. Highland Avenue is proposed to be realigned along the project
frontage to accommodate the Route 30 Freeway on the north side of Highland Avenue. The
site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'IF 15798- FRIEDMAN
May 28, 1997
Page 2
Applicable Regulations: The project is subject to the Low Residential standards of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan which require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and an
average minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
ANALYSIS:
General: The project is proposed to have 45 lots ranging in size from 10,506 square feet to
32,643 square feet with an average lot size of 15,049 square feet, consistent with Etiwanda
Specific Plan standards. The site will take access from Highland Avenue to the north and an
extension of Smokestone Street at the southwest corner of the site. During construction of
the Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans will limit Highland Avenue to emergency-only traffic. Upon
completion of Route 30, Caltrans will relinquish the Highland Avenue right-of-way to the City.
At that time, the City will construct Highland Avenue to connect the site to East Avenue and
provide secondary access. If the tract is completed before Caltrans finishes construction of
the Route 30 Freeway, residents within the tract would use Smokestone Street through the
adjacent existing tract to the west for primary ingress and egress to East Avenue. While this
may cause some inconvenience for residents within the existing tract, secondary emergency
access will be provided along the Highland Avenue alignment.
Desitin Review Committee: The Committee (Bethel and Coleman) reviewed the project on
May 6, 1997, and recommended approval subject to a few minor revisions which the
applicant agreed to. See attached Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Action.
Technical and Gradinq Review Committees: The project was reviewed by both Committees
and, together with the recommended conditions of approval, determined to be in conformance
with the applicable standards and ordinances.
Neiqhborhood Meetinq: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 5, 1997. The
21 residents that attended live within Tract 13063, directly adjacent to the western portion of
the site. The residents expressed concern about the extension of Smokestone Street to
service the tract, construction traffic through their tract, dust control during grading given high
winds in the Etiwanda Area, use of the Highland Avenue alignment as emergency-only
access during Route 30 Freeway construction as required by Caltrans, and what the future
home size and cost will be.
The existing terminus of Smokestone Street is improved as a stubbed street for future
extension, not a cul-de-sac bulb. While the residents have become comfortable with
Smokestone Street as a dead-end street, it was installed with the intent of future extension.
A condition of approval will require the developer to submit a construction access plan and
schedule for development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval. The plan
will include public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community
concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. The
Building and Safety Division requires dust control measures prior to grading permit approval.
The Engineering and Building and Safety/Fire Divisions consider the potential interim
emergency-only access route along the existing Highland Avenue alignment during
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
May 28, 1997
Page 3
construction of the Route 30 Freeway acceptable. The developer indicated that the type of
homes constructed within the tract would most likely be similar in size and cost to the existing
homes within Tract 13063.
Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist. In completing the
checklist staff identified potential environmental impacts as follows:
The site is subject to excessive future noise levels associated with the Route 30
Freeway. A noise study was conducted which recommended a 13.5-foot high sound
wall or combination berm/wall along the northern edge of the site in order to reduce on-
site noise levels to an acceptable level. The applicant's Grading Plan includes such a
berm/wall combination.
The site is located in an "undetermined but possible flood hazard area" per the Federal
Insurance Rate Map. A Drainage Report was conducted which identified quantities of
water that may drain to the site and methods for handling the flows.
o
Highland Avenue is planned by Caltrans to be replaced with an emergency-only access
route in association with the Route 30 Freeway construction. This would eliminate full
secondary access for the proposed tract. The project includes reconstruction of
Highland Avenue from East Avenue through the frontage of the subject site after
completion of the freeway. Also, signalization and line-of-sight corrections at the future
Highland Avenue/East Avenue are necessary to mitigate potential traffic conflicts.
An Arborists Report, was conducted and found that none of the trees are worthy of
preservation. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows removal of Eucalyptus windrows with
replacement planting with minimum 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees.
The above identified potential impacts require mitigation measures as conditions of approval,
which have been included in the attached Resolution; therefore, staff recommends issuance
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific
Plan. The project, with the added mitigation measures, will not be detrimental to the public health
or safety or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts. The project, together
with the conditions of approval, is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan and City standards.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site as well as all property owners between the site and East
Avenue (Tract 13063). A neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT15798- FRIEDMAN
May 28,1997
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Tract 15798 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval
with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:BLC/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" Initial Study
Exhibit "E" Design Review Committee Action
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
VEHY LOW (1-2 DU'S/AC)
PROPOE£D $rA7£ HIGHWAY $0
. . '.~J,~L lj Ndl l]J i'ij J ~ I ~ j ], m
J ~ ,/~, ~o. ~ ~ ~ J ~ I ~ Low (~--4 ~U'S/~c)
lOW 2~=
J ' ~ "" ~ - ~ SO0'j,(TYP.)
,Z;< S'I/SINGL.E~ ~
SITE UTILIZATION MAP
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15798
OWNER
SUBDIVIDER
LEGAL DE$CRIPI'ION
BENCHMARK
GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND
i,i,...TENTATIV£ MAP
TRACT NO. 15798
~,~, .,~.?= .... ,
..... : .......
SEE SH££r NO. 2
CONCEPTUAL EARI'HII~ORK OUANTIrI£s
INDEX MAP
LEGEND AND NOTES
T£NTAI'IV£ TRACT NO. 15798
CONCEPTUAL GRADING
AND DRAINAGE PLAN
?;'" I ........... ;I,;~ I";,-~,,,
VICTORIA 8ASIN
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8'15 p.m. Brent Le Count May 6, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15798 - FRIEDiMAN - A request
to subdivide 19.26 acres of land into 45 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in
the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located ',vest
of the 1-15 Freeway and south of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
Design Parameters: The 19.26-acre site is currently vacant and slopes gently from north to south
at approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site is surrounded by a drainage charmel and single family
homes in Tract 13063 to the west; a County Flood Control basin to the south; single family homes,
a nursery, vacant land, and the 1-15 Freeway to the east; and Highland Avenue and vacant land to
the north. Highland Avenue is proposed to be realigned along the project frontage to accommodate
the Route 30 Freeway on the north side of Highland. A 13.5-foot high sound wall or combination
sound wall and berm is necessary along the northern project perimeter to reduce on-site freeway
noise to acceptable levels.
The project is subject to the Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which require
a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and an average minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows. The
Etiwanda Specific Plan allows windrows to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study
for the trees indicates that none of the trees are worthy of preservation.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
Major Issues: The follo~ving broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
1. Staff feels there are no major design issues associated with this project.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time peru'fitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Make comer lots (Lots 14, 15, 30, and 31) wider to provide opportunities for greater
setbacks from Mulberry Street.
2. The sound wall along Highland Avenue shall be designed to match the appearance of the
existing walls to the west along Highland Avenue which are associated with Tract 13063.
3. Provide more gradual, variable slopes for lot side of noise bema within Lots 39 through 45
to allow greater utility of rear yards.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
Existing on-site Eucalyptus windro~vs shall be replaced with 5-gallon minimum Spotted
Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan
Sections 5.41.400 and 500.
2. Revise Lot 6 to respect the 100-foot minimum lot depth.
DRC COMMENTS
TT15798- FRIEDMAN
May 6,1997
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee recommend approval
of the project with the above changes.
Design Revie~v Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner:
Brent Le Count
The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions:
Where reasonable, make comer lots (Lots 14, 15, 30, and 31) wider to provide opportunities
for greater setbacks from Mulberry Street.
The sound wall along Highland Avenue shall be designed to match the appearance of the
existing walls to the west along Highland Avenue which are associated with Tract 13063.
Existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with 5-gallon minimum Spotted Gum
Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections
5.41.400 and 500.
May 21, 1997
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 15798 - Friedman
Dear Planning Commission:
The mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for Tentative Tract 15798 - Friedman
is hereby challenged and apposed on the following conditions:
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The proposal conflicts with applicable environmental plans and/or policies adopted by
agencies as it relates to the proposed Highway 30 plan and San Savine Flood Control
Plan. The San Savine Flood Control project is still under design and construction and the
proposed project does not adequately address all issues as it relates to the flood control plan.
The traffic patterns as proposed as part of the subdivision map would significantly disrupt
and divide the physical arrangement of the established Citation Home community (See
proposed Tract Map). The proposed Smokestone extension would create a 10-fold increase
in traffic for the Smokestone residents thus dividing and disrupting the physical
arrangements of the homes.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Through the proposed extension of Smokestone Street east to Mulberry and potentially
beyond, the extension would substantially induce growth both directly and indirectly in
surrounding undeveloped areas. Currently, there is no east - west road and the only access
is off of Highland Avenue. The proposed development includes provisions to extend
Smokestone Street east through the development to additional undeveloped land. This would
provide the impetus for further development thus substantially increasing growth.
GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS:
Erosion, changes in topography and unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading
and fill will substantially alter water run off patterns, as well as the suitableness of the
soil. Additional concerns have not been addressed as to how to mitigate the effects of
wind as it relates to grading and excavating on the Citation Homes community.
WATER:
The proposed tract would significantly impact water absorption rates, drainage patterns and
the rate of surface water run off. The mitigated reply relies entirely too much on the design
and construction of the 30 freeway and surface road (Highland Avenue). Additionally, the
preliminary report (Webb, March 24, 1977) does not adequately address the issues and
effects the proposed development will have on the Victoria Basin, the flood channel or to a
possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee.
AIR QUALITY:
The proposed project violates air quality standards by increasing the number of drivers in
the area and therefor increasing the amount of pollutants that will be emitted in the air.
The proposal does not identify the impact the development will have on existing landfills
or sewers.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
The proposal results in a significant impact on vehicle trips and traffic congestion as it relates
to the entire Citation Homes Community. Mitigated comments does not accurately discuss
or resolve issues as it relates to traffic congestion on Smokestone Avenue, Brownstone
Place, Catalpa Avenue or East Avenue. Neither do the comments discuss speed bumps,
signage or crosswalks.
Extreme safety hazards exist due to increase vehicle traffic that would result from this
development and current residents backing their vehicles out of their garages onto
Smokestone Street. Additionally, with 25 to 30 foot set backs there is a significant concern
with children playing in the streets and front lawns.
Extreme hazards will result once the construction of the Smokestone Bridge is complete as
it relates to pedestrian traffic, animals and children.
The Proposal does not adequately provide access to alternative modes of transportation by
providing Bus Turnouts, Bus Stops or Bicycle paths.
The proposal does not adequately look at all alternative transportation routes such as
extending Mulberry south to Victoria or utilizing a "U" shape off of Highland Avenue.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
1. The proposal does not address the effect the development will have on the Brown Spotted
Owls or Wooly Star Flower.
2. The replacement of existing 75 foot Eucalyptus trees with smaller, thinner eight foot trees
is unacceptable. The trees have been designated locally for protection.
HAZARDS:
1. The proposal exposes people to flood risk and flood related hazards.
2. Exposes people to potential fire hazards due to surrounding topography, brush, grass and
trees.
NOISE:
1. The proposal exposes people to severe noise levels as presented by the I-15 Freeway and
Route 30 Interchange. The noise study conducted carmot and does not adequately address
noise levels based on potential use and future use of these freeways. The construction of a
13.5 foot high sound wall to the north will not adequately reduce freeway noise to the north
and will have no effect on free~vay noise to the east or south.
PUBLIC SERVICES'
1. The proposal absolutely impacts the following services:
Fire
Police
Schools
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads
Parks
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
The proposal significantly impacts existing storm drains and flood control systems. The
proposal does not adequately address issues as it relates to a possible breakout of the
Etiwanda Spreading Grounds Levee.
AESTHETICS:
The removal of'the existing trees and replacement with smaller, thinner trees will have a
major impact on the amount of light that will shine on the Citation Homes in the north-east
portion of the complex.
Additional street lights, as required, will have a negative impact on existing houses in the
proximity of the development to include Citation Homes.
RECREATION:
1. The addition of the homes would impact existing parks and recreational facilities in the area.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
Potential to degrade:
The proposal will remove a number of large, aged, Eucalyptus Trees which represent important
examples of the major agriculture and fruit growing period in the Inland Empire and in California.
Cumulative:
The project has a considerable cumulative effect on the Citation Homes complex when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects (Highland Avenue and 1-15 Freeway), current projects
(Highway 30), future projects (Highland Avenue, this tract and surrounding tracts around the
Citation Homes Complex).
Please respond to all of these concerns and open a dialogue with the existing residents. Together,
I am sure we can reach a solution.
Sincerely,
Sean Rogan
13495 Smokestone Street
May 28, 1997
Planning Division
Cky of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15798 -
FRIEDMAN
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am a resident of the tract of homes contiguous with the proposed development, and
would like to address my concerns regarding the impact the project will have upon the
residents. I understand that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been submitted for
approval as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This
Mitigated Negative Declaration simply states that the Negative Declaration prepared for
the project identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but that these
effects have been mitigated to the point that no significant effect on the environment
would occur.
However, this negative declaration cannot be certified under the CEQA if substantial
evidence in the record supports a fair argument that significant impacts or effects
may occur. Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (App. 4 Dist. 1994) 35
Cal. Rptr. 2d 470.
I submit that before this project is approved, an Environment Impact Report must
be prepared based upon the substantial evidence that the proposed project might
have a significant environmental impact on the residents in the contiguous tract. If
there is substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant
environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to
dispense with preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration; therefore if a trial court were to perceive substantial evidence that
the project might have such an impact, but this agency failed to secure preparation of the
Page 2 - Environmental Assessment Tract 15798
Gina Kershaw
required Environmental Impact Report, the agency's action would be set aside because the
agency abused its discretion by fa'ding to proceed in the manner required by law. Friends
of B St. v. City of Hayward (App. 1 Dist. 1980) 165 Cal. Rptr. 514.
In determining whether this project might cause significant adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly, I have utilized the Guidelines for Implementation of
the CEQA (Barclay's Official California Code of Regulations - Chapter 3). Under Section
15064, the lead agency shall consider both primmy or direct, and secondary or indirect
consequences.
The primary consequences immediately related to the project include:
Heavy traffic. Traffic along Smokestone Street, Brownstone Street, and Catalpa
would significantly increase and adversely affect the residents living there, since the
opening at Catalpa and East Ave. would be the only way of ingress and egress for 153
homes (including 108 in the current tract, and the 45 proposed homes). At an average
oftxvo cars per household, over three hundred vehicles could be attempting to use the
narrow access at East Ave at least twice a day.
Fire Safety. There have been several fires in this area in the past five years, and most
have required evacuation of families. Even though access will be given along Highland
for emergency vehicles, ifa fire were to approach from the north of these homes,
access to evacuate through the north sides of both tracts would be infeasible. This
would leave the only way out through the primary access opening at East Avenue.
This could have potentially disastrous and deadly effects.
Freeway congestion/accidents. In the event that Route 30 ~vere to be congested or
closed, there is a concern that motorists might use Smokestone Street as a side street
to get around the freeway obstacle. The Tentative Tract indicates that Smokestone
Street might again be extended to accommodate this exact problem. This situation
would result in substantially increased traffic, speed problems, excessive exhaust,
noise, and possibly the loss of on street parking. All these problems could "fairly
argue" that significant adverse impacts on the human beings in the tract might result.
Page 3 - Environmental Assessment Tract 15798
Gina Kershaw
Secondary consequences resulting from the project would also have potentially significant
adverse effects on the residents in the Citation tract. These include:
· Grave concerns for children's safety.
· Increased traffic exhaust, increased speeds of cars traveling along Smokestone St., and
noise
Greater potential for traffic collisions within the tract and at the access opening at East
Avenue. (This is especially true due to the close proximity of Summit Junior High,
Eftwanda Intermediate, and Etiwanda High School.)
Increased demands on time given the increased traffic accessing and leaving the tract.
Health problems resulting from increased dust and exhaust.
Lowered property values
Potentially disastrous situations in case of fire.
In considering these adverse effects, the lead agency shall consider the views held by
members of the public in all areas affected. If there is serious public controversy over
the environmental effects of a project, the lead agency shall consider the effects
subject to the controversy to be significant, and shall prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. (Guidelines, Section 15064, subd. (h)(1)).
I suggest that this Planning Commission has been presented with a "fair argument" that the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Resolution
presented to you this evening by Brad Buller, City Planner, states in section (4) that "the
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect upon the environment." Unfortunately, this is not the standard by which
it can be determined whether an Environmental Impact Report must be ordered under the
CEQA. The adopted standard indicated in the California Public Resources Code §
21082.2 (d) is if a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, then
an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Therefore, the Planning Commission
Page 4 - Environmental Assessment Tract 15798
Gina Kershaw
is required under the California Environmental Quality Act to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report before the project can commence further.
Respectfully submitted,
Gina Kershaw
13471 Smokestone Street
Etiwanda, CA 91739
(909)899-4918
Petition
.... We the undersigned homeowners effected by the proposed tract 15798 are not satisfied with the Environmental
oessment conducted by Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission finding Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts.
We petition for a hearing with the Planning Commission, Cal-Trans representative and the City Council which will
fully disclose any and all plans to; a) make Smokestone a through street through Citation Homes and across East Avenue,
connecting behind Catalpa; b) plans to divert traffic off of Highland when the 30 Freeway is constructed and; c) any further
traffic flow diversions planned as a result of the competed 30 Freeway, all of which impact our homes. We request this
meeting to be able to make fully informed decisions and suggest alternatives where possible.
We also request this petition be made a matter of record in regard to Tentative Tract 15798 and the Environmental
Assessment conducted thereto.
We intend to be present and participate in the public hearing regarding this matter on May 28, 1997.
Name (signature)
Address Phone Register Voter
(Yes or No)
Name (signature) Address Phone
Register Voter
(Yes or No)
Name (signature) Address
Phone
~?~///
Register Voter
(Yes or No)
Name (signature) Address Phone Register Voter
(Yes or No)
,
is..
Name (signature) Address Phone
Register Voter
(Yes or No)
: · May 19, 1997
tate court says contracting by Caltrans is illegal
supreme Court's decision carries far-reaching implications for most state agen. cies
Private contractors working with Caltrans
3s~ out last week when California's Su-
)rome COLtrE ruled 5-2 that contracts for
nillions of dollars in survey and design work
,yore issued illegally by the agency. The
Jecision specifically referred to Caltrans
tontracts, but observers say it carries far-
· e3ching implications for private contracts
and outside consultants used by dozens of
~cvernmen: agencies.
The suit took more than a decade to
-each [his decision. Calftans' engineers chat-
er:Oed the agency's contracts in an effort
:e pro{ecr- [heir jobs. Loren blcMaster,
~:2rney for the engineers, said the Su-
:rem, e Court accepted her clients' point of
,,iev.' across the board. "it doesn't get any
3e[:er than this,' she said following the
:cuWs announcement of its decision.
Covernor Wilson bemoaned the deci-
.~[c~:. saying i[ would surely delay road
3rejects. He asked the Legislature to ap-
2to, e a constitutional amendmen{ allowing
Caltrans Director James van Loben Sels reports
that no existing contracts are affected by the
ruling, but that some $80 million in outside
contracts that would have been issued in the
next fiscal year are now shelved.
the state to pursue private contracts so
that road work and other time-sensitive,
priority projects can be performed quickly.
The engineers have already qualified a bal-
lot measure that would restrict such con-
tracts, so the next statewide ballot may
contain competing measures.
Cal{rans Director James van Loben Sels
reports that no existing contracts are af-
fected by the ruling, but thai some $80
million in outside contracts {hat would have
been issued in the next fiscal year are now
shelved. He explained that delays will likely
result in the near future because Caltrans
cannot possibly expand its staffing and
resources fast enough to keep pace with its
schedule.
In the court's ruling. Justice Ming Chin
wrote that Caltrans was 'maintaining staff
at an inadequate level to create an artificial
need for private contracting.' The decision
allows state agencies to use private con-
tracts only in specific instances, including
emergencies, staff shortages or situations
in which an agency's own civil service staff
lacks necessary expertise.
California-Only CARB Diesel Prices
So~s:~ment of- Energy (DOE~ & 0[I Price Informat;on Se~'ice
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15798
2. Related Files:
Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
15798 - FRIEDMAN - A request to subdivide 19.26 acres of land into 45 single family lots
in the Low Residential District of the Eftwanda Specific Plan located on the south side of
Highland Avenue east of East Avenue and west of the 1-15 Freeway. APN 227-071-32
o
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
John Friedman
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 100
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 274-1204
General Plan Designation:
Low Residential
Zoning:
Eftwanda Specific Plan, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) District
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and future Route 30 Freeway corridor
to the north, vacant land and single family homes to the east, single family homes (Tract
13063) to the west, and a flood control basin to the south.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, (909) 477-2750
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning
( ) Population and Housing
(v') Geological Problems
(v') Water
( ) Air Quality
(v') Transportation/Circulation
(v") Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
(v') Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Aesthetics
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
()
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(x)
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Brent Le Count
Associate Planner
June 18, 1997
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
LAND
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotenliallyUnless Than
SignificantMiligation SignificanlNo
imoact IncorPoratedImpact Impact
USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( )
() () (¢)
() () (¢)
() () (¢)
() () (¢)
Issues and Suppo~,"~ Jnformahon Sources
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposaL'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Srgnific.ant
Impact Less
S~gn¢canl M;bgahon S,gm~canl NO
() () (¢)
() () (¢)
() () (¢)
o
Issues and Supporhng Information Sources:
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
PolentiaIIy
SignScant
Impact Less
PotenllailyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
Imoact Incorooratedtmoact Irnpacl
() () () (¢)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche hazards?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
Comments:
Potenliafiy
Significant
Impact Less
PolentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
lmoact IncorporatedImpa~ ImDact
( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
( ) ( ) ( ) (,,,')
() () ()
() () (~) ()
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
f)
The site will be graded/topography altered to accommodate the building pads for
eventual home construction and roads. The grading will be conducted under the
supervision of a licensed surveyor or registered geologist to ensure compliance with
Building Code requirements.
WATER. Will the proposal result in.'
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
c)
Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements?
Potentially
S,gn~canl
Impact Less
Potent,allyUnless Than
S,g~cant M~t~gahon S~gnificantNo
Imoact IncorporatedImoac~ Imoac:
() (~) ()
(v) 0 ()
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (~)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
Potentially
Significant
lmoact
Potentially
Significant
Impac~ Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorDoraledIml~ac!
No
Impact
() () ()
() () ()
() () ()
()
()
()
(v')
Comments:
a)
The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed.
All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been
designed to handle the flows.
b)
The site is located in a Flood Zone 'D' designation, undetermined but possibly a
flood hazard, on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Preliminary Drainage
Report (Webb, March 24,1997) addressed the project drainage assuming that the
Route 30 Freeway would be constructed prior to development of this tract. After
freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject
property. Drainage will be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be
carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage will be collected by catch
basins and will be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin immediately
south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction,
further drainage studies will be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due
to a possible breakout of the Eftwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage
report should be approved prior to final map approval.
Issues and Supl:)or'h~'~ Information Sources:
S~g nd*~..e n t
Impact Less
Polenbally Unless Than
Signrl'ica ntM~tIgationSiGnificanlNo
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( )
(,,'3
(,,,,)
(v')
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
Would the
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Rail or air traffic impacts?
Potenlially
Signit'~.ant
Impact
Potentially
Sign~r~..ant
Impacl Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
InCOrl:~ratedIrapat1
() (¢) () 0
No
Irnc, acl
() () () (¢)
() () () (¢)
) () () (¢)
) () () (¢)
()
()
()
()
)
()
Comments'
a)
Highland Avenue is planned by Caltrans to be replaced with an emergency-only
access route in association with the Route 30 Freeway construction. This would
eliminate full secondary access for the proposed tract. The project includes
reconstruction of Highland Avenue from East Avenue through the entire frontage
of the site after completion of the Route 30 Freeway. Signalization and line-of-sight
corrections at the Highland Avenue/East Avenue intersection are necessary to
mitigate potential traffic conflicts.
A Traffic Impact Analysis has been performed to determine the potential impacts
upon the existing "Citation Tract" neighborhood to the west of the proposed
subdivision as a result of increased traffic through the neighborhood during the
temporary closure of Highland Avenue for freeway construction (see letter dated
June 16, 1997 attached). The analysis indicates that the projected total number of
daily trips (existing plus that added by the project) would be between 1,528 to 2,080
average daily trips and that there would be 120 to 122 peak hour morning trips and
160 to 163 peak hour evening trips. The analysis also indicates that a typical
residential street can accommodate traffic volumes will in excess of 5,000 average
daily trips and that the projected daily trips of from 1,528 to 2,080 fall within an
acceptable range. The impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to.'
a)
Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b)
Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)?
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potenlially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
In6orporatedImpacl
No
Impact
( ) ( ) 0 (,/)
() () (¢) 0
) () () (¢)
) () () (¢)
) () () (¢)
Comments'
b)
The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant
windrows. The Eftwanda Specific Plan allows Eucalyptus windrows to be removed
subject to replacement. Project shall be conditioned to plant replacement
Eucalyptus windrows per the Eftwanda Specific Plan requirements.
Issues and Supl~dmg Information Sources:
S~gnrficant
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) () (v')
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
o
Issues and Supporling Information Sources:
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
d)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
ImPact InCOrDoraledImpact IreDact
() () () (~)
() () () (¢)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
() () ()
10.
Issues and Supporting Informalion Sources'
NOISE. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially
S~gnifi.'..ant
Impact Less
Potenbally Unless Then
S+gnific.~ntM~bget4on S~gmf~canl NO
() () ()
() (¢) 0 ()
Comments:
b)
The site is subject to noise levels in excess of 60 Ldn due to proximity to the Route
30 corridor, and in particular, the 1-15 Freeway/Route 30 interchange. A noise study
has been prepared which indicates that a 13.5-foot high sound wall along the north
perimeter of the site will reduce freeway noise to an acceptable level.
11.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas.'
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
Polentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotenliallyUnless Than
SignificantM~tigation SignificantNo
Impact IncorooratedImoact lmoacl
() () () (¢)
() () () (¢)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
Issues and Suppoil~ng Information Sources:
c)
d)
e)
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificanlMitigation SignificanlNo
Impact Incorl:~ratedImpact Impact
( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
( ) () ( ) (,/)
() ( ) ( ) (,/)
12.
Issues and Supperting Ir~formation Sources:
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or suppries or
substantial alterations to the following utilities.'
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
Power or natural gas?
Communication systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigalion
Incorporated
Less
Than
SignScant
Impact
()
()
()
()
(,/)
()
()
No
Impact
(v')
(v')
(,/)
()
(,/)
(v')
Comments:
e)
The site is located in a Flood Zone 'D' designation, undetermined but possibly a
flood hazard, on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Preliminary Drainage
Report (Webb, March 24,1997) addressed the project drainage assuming that the
Route 30 Freeway would be constructed prior to development of this tract. After
freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject
property. Drainage will be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be
carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage will be collected by catch
basins and will be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin immediately
south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction,
further drainage studies will be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due
to a possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage
report should be approved prior to final map approval.
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
13.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a)
b)
c)
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
Create light or glare?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
()
()
()
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
Potentially
SigniK~.ant
Impacl Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
() ()
() ()
() (¢) 0
Comments:
c)
Additional light and glare will be created as a result of the project since the site is
now vacant. Light from street lights and homes will be required to be directed
downward in such a fashion as to not impact other property.
14.
Issues and Suppod~ng Information Sources: S,gnEm. r, ant
Imoact
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( )
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? () ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (
Polentiafiy
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
M~tigalion Significant
IncorooratedImoact
NO
Imoact
(,/)
(v')
(,/)
(v')
(,,,')
15.
Issues and Supportirtg Information Sources:
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Potenbafiy
Significant
Impact Less
PolentiallyUnless Than
SignificantM~tigation Significant
Imoact IncorporatedImpact
No
linc*act
() () () (¢)
() () () (¢)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
16.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? (
Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) (
Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) (
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? (
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
Irn~acl IncorooratedImpact Impact
() (,/')
() (,/)
()
() ()
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The
following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all
that apply):
(,,,,)
General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
(,/')
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983)
(,/')
Route 30 EIR
(SCH #87122105, certified September 20, 1996)
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Item 4. b Flood Hazard
The preliminary Drainage Study Report addressed the drainage as though the
Route 30 Freeway improvements are existing. If the tentative tract should proceed
to the final map stage and the Route 30 Freeway construction stalls or never
begins, then the drainage study shall be amended addressing the drainage without
said freeway and improvements required to mitigate any potential flood hazard. The
report, whether amended or not, shall be finalized pursuant to the criteria outlined
in the City's "Drainage Report Requirements" handout. The final report shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval.
Item 6.a. Traffic Congestion
A full street connection at the intersection of East Avenue and Highland Avenue is
required, including traffic signal improvements (new or upgrades) and line-of-sight
corrections, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With the construction of the
Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to close the Highland Avenue access at
East Avenue including the removal of the traffic signal and provide for emergency
access only. This development is responsible to restore and/or upgrade said
access. However, if this development goes before Caltrans Route 30
improvements, a cash deposit in lieu of construction will be required and necessary
temporaw improvements constructed, as determined by the City Engineer and
Caltrans.
Item 7.b. Biological Resources
Existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with minimum 5-gallon
Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with
Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and .500.
Item 10.b. Noise
Provide a 13.5-foot high noise barrier along the rear (north side) of Lots 39 through
45 wrapping around the sides of Lots 39 and 45 consistent with recommendations
of the Noise Study for project dated March 28, 1997. Noise barrier walls shall
match the appearance of the existing wall to the west along Highland Avenue
associated with Tract 13063.
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 15798
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 13
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
~ certify that I am the appJicant for the project described irt this initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further. I haYe revised the
projec~ Flans o~' proposals andtot hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental ~ffects would
occur.
CAPITAL I~_J)B ASSOC.
ALBERT _.~
W BB
· 25M,t 1 l~u,,'lto G,IL~,n,i;, Rd.. Sir, ling
W.O. 96-259
FII.E: 4421.0
JLm¢ ] 6, 1997
Mr. D~m Jm'nes
Ci;5' of Pumcho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91729
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis, Tortrelive Tract No. 15798
Dear Mr. JalIle32
The ptu"p. ose of t.his letter is to review the potential traffic impacts associated with
Tentative Tract No. 15798 (the "Project"), which is located soud~west o£ the intersection
of Highland Avenue and Ivlulberry Lane in *.he City of Rancho Cueamonga 0he "City").
The pr;_rnary maffic impacts associated with the Project will occur ~bseqnent to the
clo~re of vehicular access :from HJ. ghlrmd Avenue to East Avenue by Coltrans, in
conjtmction with the const'ruction of Route .gO. According to i.aformation provided by
Coltrans, Highland Avenue will be ciosexl (except to emergency vehicles) in mid to late
1998. This closure will remain in effect until the con~nmction of this portion of Rome 30
is complelcd in appro.'dmately the year 2000, at which point the fight-of-vary for
Highland Arm-rue will be relinquished to the CID'. If the subdivision map for t.he Project
is recorded after r=linquiskment of' the right-of-way, the developer ,,.All be required to
reconstruct Highland Avenue to prov/de full access to E~t Avenue. If the sulodivihon
map is recorded prior to relinquishment of the right-of-way, the City will ensure
completion of the improvements based upon a cash ~posit or improvement bond which
will be required from the developer. In eider c~e, Highland Avenue will ultimately be
opened to full public access.
For rhc pc-riod d~ing which High.land Avenue will be closed, the only access
fi-om the Project to East Avenue wilt be via Catalpa Street, from Brownstone Place and
Smokestone Street. These stree*.s run througJx the :'Citation Tract," which is located
directly to '.he west of the Projoin. The maximum impact associated with this project will
occur during ~he time in which Highland Avenue is closed, since after the reopening of
Highland Avenue, the Project ,aSLl have -two points of access. Therefore, this letter
provides an analysis o£the potential traffic impacts during the period of closure.
CT~qL ENGI%'EE~.tNG '~ PI.&N,'NqNG · ;_%,%'iL.K'~iM.E~q-fI$?ECIAL TAN E~GI~FR-TNG
E.N'hQRONMI'E~"rAJ- ,,~'RAI-Y~iI.~; ' SUR\'T. YING · (;ONS'Ttt~X,-FION MANAL~E-ME.%"I' & lN.qP',/.t.'l'lON
08/15,,J'~,1"1 1,,13,.,.,'9~,, l;~:P5Pl'd I::tMERIrQUEST CI::IPTT~L ~'EB~ A:$OC. P.3/5
Mr, Dan James
Ci~ of Ranclio Cucamonga
6-17-97
Page 2
Existing $el~xg
The Cimion Tract consists of !09 s[agle thraily residential dwelling units, .all of
wi~ich must use Catalpa Street to exit the neighborhood, I~ a4difion to the Citation wac~,
there are 6 existing homes along Mulberry. Lane which erdt via Highland Avenue, In
eonjunctlon with the closure of Higbt~d, Celttans will extend Smokestone Street
easterly to Mulberry Lmae to provide access to these. 6 houses. Therelbre, alter the
closure ol' Highland Avenue and extension of Smokestone Stxcet, 11.5 exittang single
family homes will have access to East Avenue only via BrownsWne Place and Catalpa
Street; ~e majoriw of these homes will access Brownstone Place vSa Smokestone Street.
Existing PLus Project
The Proje~ will ad~ 45 single family residential dwe/Ling units to the 115 existing
units which will take access Io Cap, fipa Street during Coltrans' closure of I-Ligb.[~r~d
Avenue. Therefore 160 total dwelling units (existing plus Project) will take access to
Ca~pa Street during t.h. is imerim period.
Trip Generation
Different so~ces provide varying estimates of the trip generation rates associated
with s;,ngle t3arnily ms-~dent[al uses. The Etiwanda Specific Plan projected a rate of
average daily trips per dwelling unit (ADT/DU) for single fm-nily residential u~s.': The
hmitme of Transportation Engineer~ has compiled studies which h~dicate rates of 9.55
ADT/DU on weekdays, and !0,19 ADT/DU on Saturdays.z The Cky o£ Rancho
Cuz,~.monga S~eet .'~sign Policy suggests a rate of 13 ADT/DU tb~ single
detached residential,) This rate is higher than mos~ o~et reported figu:res.
Peal( hour trot'tic is another key parameter of roadway capacity, The Institule of
Tr~fffic Engineers suggests w~--,kday rates of 0.76 tripe pe~ dwellLug u. p21 for the A.M.
peak hour of a residential project, and 1,02 trips per dwelling unit for the P.M, ~ak
hour,4 These compare with rues of 0,75 and 1,00, respectively, suggested by ~e City of
Rancho Cucamonga?
Depending upon wtfich trip generation rate is rued, the projected '~otal number
(c.,dsring plus Project) of trips taking access to Cmalpa Street would fall in'to the
following ranges:
· 1,528 to 2,080 Averagc Daily Trips
M~mo fram Ltoyd~B. I-Iubbs, Cid' Engineer, dated February 9, 1983, Table 3.6-4
'rri~.Generafiqn., 5"~ F..dition, In~rute of Traffic Engineers, Pages 258 and 267
City ol' 'R:mcb, o Cuceanoaga - Kagh~eexiag Div/.sio& S~at Design Policy, Table- 1
'l'rio Generation. Pages 264 and 265
96-~ 9/Tra~'~do¢
o$/l$/~yM 18 '97 18:~SPM AMERIQUEST CAPITAL ~B ASSOC. P.4x5 ~0o3
~V~-, Dee James
CiH ofPamcho Cucamonga
6-17-97
P~g¢ $
· 120 to 122 A.M. Peak Hour Trips
· 160 to I63 P.M. Be. ok Hour Trips
CapaeiB, of Single Family Res[deutial Streets
The Eliwanda Specific Plan Environmenial Impact Report (the ~EIR") provided
an ~malysis ol' th~ environmental quality associated with wrious volumes of traffic on
residential streets. The ElK indicated that in selecting a home, owners often select a
location with a minirotan amount of traffic. Often, short cuI de sacs with 6 to 10 homes
and traffic volumes of 100 to 200 ADT are considered ideal, Less desirable but livable
are the longer typic. al subdivision collectors with 1,000 ;o 1.500 ADT. Longer, relatively
might collector ,street with 2,500 to 3:000 ADT would be considered less ideal, As
volumes begin to approach 5,000 ADT, stilI fewer buyers would deem it acceptable.
l:'ugthermore, individuals living on stroh streets often perceive much higher traffic volume
and kigher speeds than actually exist, Once a street begins to approach 6,000 to l 0,000
AD'I", the residential character is such that the street is dominated by traffic, The
goes on io recommend d~ign features which avoid residential concentrations where
trafEc volumes exceed 5,0130 ADT-f
]'he traffic engineering pro.'mssion has conducted other ,studies of residential
streets. One such stud7° c]~sified residential struts into the following categories:
· I,IGHT Streets
· MEDIUM Streets
· HEAVY Streets
· VERY HF_4.VY Streets
0to 2,000ADT
2,000 to 10.000ADT
10,000~20,000ADT
Over20,000 ADT
This study indicated that most of the negative impacts as,soeiated with higher
traffic volumes t. krough residential areas relate to the perception on th~ part of adjacent
homeowners rather than to the design ca.city of the streets. A typical res/dentlal st. reel
can 8:cormuodate traffic volrunes well in excess ofS,000 A.D.T.
Some of the ke~' p~rcepfons which 'can arise as a result of increasing heaw traffic
volumes: include:
· perceived traffic kazards
· Noise, stre~.s and pollutitm
'q'qeighboring and visiting" cliscotrragem~t
· Concerns regarding privacy and home territory
Memo from Lloyd B. Hubbs, CiLy .Engineer, dated Fchtam'y 9, 1983, Table 3.6-4
Li,,.able3ueets. 19gl, Donald Appleyard
96-259frr~f. doc
O$/I~,J~U,N 18 '97 12:~51::~ ~MERIQUEST C~PIT~L ~'EBB ASSOC. P.5/5
Mr, Dan .lames
City of Rancho Cucamonga
6-17-97
Page 4
Mitigating Facto~
The potential impacts associated. with the construction of the Project and Carfare'
cloture of Highland Avenue vdll be limited and/or mitigated by the following factors:
Projected. existing plus Project traffic volumes generally ~ll into the "light"
category,
Negative perception ofresidenta will be lessened due to the temperre)' nature
of the incon'~'enience.
Residential traffic through the Citation Tract will be generated by the
adjacent single family residential project, rather than by "short eta"
fi'om motorists completely ouBide of the area.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the construction of the Project, together with the temporary closure
of Highland Avenue, will result in traffic volumes whick fall wit2ain an acceptable range.
If you haYe any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
MEW: ah
96-259Frra£dc,c
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
June 25, 1997
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY:
Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09 -
CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct a 106,301 square foot mixed use
storage facility (93,957 square feet of storage, 6,000 square feet of retail, 3,552
square feet of office, and 2,792 square feet of manager's quarters/office) on 3.8
acres of land in Subarea 1 (Community Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-76, 77, and 78.
Associated with this file is Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 97-01,
Variance 97-01, and Tree Removal Permit 97-11.
VARIANCE 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT - A request to reduce required side
setbacks for a mixed use public storage facility from 5 feet to 0 feet, to increase the
maximum allowed building coverage from 40 percent to 43.7 percent, to reduce
required landscape coverage from 15 percent to 10 percent, and to increase the
maximum allowed building height within 100 feet of a residential district from 25 feet
to 29 feet on 3.8 acres of land in Subarea 1 (Community Commercial) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard. APN: 207-571-76, 77,
and 78. Associated with this application is Conditional Use Permit 97-09, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 97-01, and Tree Removal Permit 97-11.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, grading plan, landscape plan,
Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Tree Removal Permit, and mitigated Negative Declaration
for construction of a mixed use public storage project.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Commercial (Sycamore Inn Restaurant); Special Commercial,
South
East
West
Subarea 1, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan
Abandoned rail road tracks and single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
Commercial (Final Score Nightclub); Community Commercial, Subarea 1, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan
Commercial (vehicle storage and carwash); Community Commercial, Subarea 1,
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Commercial
North Commercial
South Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East Commercial
West Commercial
ITEMS B & C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09- CHAVIN
June 25,1997
Page 2
Site Characteristics: The 3.8 acre site lies at the juncture of Foothill Boulevard and San
Bernardino Road and slopes gently from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The site
is occupied by an old single family home and a commercial building, both of which would be
removed to accommodate the project. The southern property line abuts a rail road right-of-
way that is not longer in service, which is designated as a future Community Trail per the
Trails Implementation Plan. The site contains six trees: two California Sycamores, a
California Live Oak tree, an Olive, a Blue Gum Eucalyptus, and a Texas Umbrella tree. All
of the trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the development.
Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footacle Ratio Required Provided
Storage 93,957 N/A N/A 5
Retail 6,000 1/250 24 24
Office 3,552 1/250 14 14
Manager's Office/
Quarters 2,792 2/unit
Total 106,301 40 45
ANALYSIS:
General: The site falls within the Bear Gulch Village Activity Center designation per the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Parking lots fronting Foothill Boulevard are "highly
discouraged" within the Activity Center. The project is designed with a majority of the
required parking and a two stow retail and office building fronting Foothill Boulevard and San
Bernardino Road with one and two-stow storage buildings to the rear. (The two-story
storage building is 22 feet high while the retail building is 26 feet high.) There is significant
landscaping proposed along the Foothill Boulevard frontage of the site which will buffer the
parking area from Foothill Boulevard.
Access to the site will be from San Bernardino Road at the northwest corner and Foothill
Boulevard at the northeast corner. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required
to vacate the San Bernardino frontage road and realign the intersection with Foothill
Boulevard to be more perpendicular. A joint use driveway will be provided off Foothill
Boulevard at the northeast corner of the site which is designed to provide access to the
property to the east.
The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review for the project on September
11, 1996. Primary concerns included the retail portion following a craftsman-style in design
and colors/materials consistent with the Sycamore Inn; the east and west (side) elevations
should have enhanced aesthetic treatment; and the use of metal building materials is not
recommended. The applicant's current proposal addresses these concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09- CHAVIN
June 25,1997
Page 3
Variances: The project is designed with zero building setbacks along most of the east and
west property lines where 5-foot minimum setbacks are required; a 29-foot high building (RV
storage) along the rear of the property where a maximum height of 25 feet is allowed; a
building coverage of 43.7 percent where a maximum of 40 percent is allowed; and a
landscape coverage of 10 percent where a minimum of 15 percent is required. The applicant
has requested a Variance for these items. It should be noted that the requested variance
items apply to the storage component of the project which will be located behind the office
and retail portion. Since the office/retail component meets applicable regulations and will be
located at the front of the site, the project will appear to comply with applicable standards as
viewed from public rights-of-way..
The public storage use results in long walls along the site perimeter. Provision of the 5-foot
side yard setback would create a 5-foot wide by 200 to 400 foot long gap between the
building walls and property line perimeter walls (allowed by Code to have no setback). This
long, narrow gap would likely prove difficult to maintain, and create an attractive nuisance and
potential fire safety hazard. The perimeter building walls are designed with decorative
pilasters and will be conditioned to have vine plantings to soften their appearance. As
characteristic of other public storage facilities in the City, the intensive site utilization
associated with the storage use also necessitates the slight increase in building coverage (3.7
percent excess) and decreased landscaping (5 percent reduction). By tucking the public
storage portion behind the retail/office component, the impacts of increased coverage and
reduced landscaping upon surrounding properties and public rights-of-way is minimized.
The additional height of the 29-foot high building at the southwest corner of the site is
intended for recreational vehicle storage. Its location at the rear of the site is appropriate as
it is separated from street frontages as far as possible. While strict interpretation of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan would not allow structures higher then 25 feet within 100 feet
of a residential district, the single family homes to the south are separated from the site by
the approximately 80 foot wide rail road right-of-way. The south building elevation will have
decorative pilaster treatment and vine planting to soften its appearance.
Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Bethel, Tolstoy, Buller) considered the project
on June 3, 1997, and recommend approval with conditions per the attached Design Review
Committee Action.
Technical and Gradinq Review Committees: The Committees have reviewed the project and
recommend approval subject to the conditions identified in the attached Resolution.
Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study Part I was completed by the applicant and staff
has completed Part II. Staff identified two primary areas of potential environmental impacts;
removal of heritage trees and geological/seismic hazards.
Trees: An Arborist Report was prepared addressing the six existing trees on site. With
the exception of the California Live Oak tree which is a healthy, fine specimen, the trees
were not considered worthy of preservation. However, the Oak tree location conflicts with
proposed building location and is proposed to be replaced on site. As required by the
Tree Preservation Ordinance, a proposed mitigation measure would require the two
California Sycamore trees to be replaced and the Oak tree to be preserved through
relocation on-site.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09 - CHAVIN
June 25, 1997
Page 4
o
Fault Hazard: According to the General Plan, the Red Hill Fault Zone runs through the
southern portion of the site. A Fault Hazard Study was prepared to determine whether
any fault lines traverse the site. The study found no evidence of faulting on the site;
therefore, there is no impact.
FACTS FOR FINDING:
Variance: In order to approve a variance request, the Development Code requires that the
Planning Commission make certain findings. Staff believes the following facts support the
requisite findings:
The property is an unusual triangular shape at the southerly end. Further, the property
is deeper than its width; hence, has poor exposure for retailers to Foothill Boulevard
uncommon to most properties within the Community Commercial District of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan.
The existing non-perpendicular alignment of the San Bernardino Road and Foothill
Boulevard intersection creates an exceptional circumstance that will necessitate
realignment and dedications that present a unique site development constraint.
The reduction in interior side and rear setbacks does not grant the applicant a special
privilege since the proposed uses will be a low-key activity. The project is designed to
minimize any impacts associated with the requested Variance items relative to
surrounding properties and public rights-of-way. The project has been designed with
landscape buffers extending approximately 150 feet along the east and west property
lines in the areas most visible from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties.
The allowance of a 5-foot increase in building height within 100 feet of a residential district
will not grant the applicant a special privilege since the property is uniquely separated
from residences by an 80-foot wide rail road right-of-way.
The increase in building coverage, and corresponding reduction in landscape coverage,
will not grant the applicant a special privilege since the project will aesthetically upgrade
the site, including landscaping and public improvements, from its current level of
development which is substantially below the minimum development standards.
Conditional Use Permit: In order to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Commission
would need to make the following findings:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09 - CHAVIN
June 25, 1997
Page 5
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approve the Conditional Use Permit and related Variance through the
adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval.
City Planner
BB:BL:taa
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "D. 1"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibit "H"
Resolution
Resolution
Site Utilization
Site Plan
Grading Plan
Interim Landscape Plan
Ultimate Landscape Plan
Elevations
Sections
Initial Study Part 11
Applicant Letters
of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
of Approval for Variance
Site Area:
exietk~ t66,243 81
~'~ rede L~6 e.f. 2 cov~ ~cee 2 ata~
~-~t~ Lot Coversge:
0N3031
N~OMHI ~V3 a31¥m[ls]
g-g NOIt33S- 8-BNOII315 ¥-¥NOt/23S
', ·
t BLDG A
BLDG B
~HRUB$
GROUND COVERS
MULCH GROUNDCOVERING
BLDG A
o .
z
BLDG B
BLDG C
S~L~DF.~TfLEE'~
GROUND COVERS
MULCH GROUNDCOVERING
'TURE
Z
0
partial wall elevation
,x.%': ;<, :':, :.: ,:,..- '"',,':" '. '<.~'.. :,
wall sectJon det~Jl 'A'
exterior finish legend
~"iilliliJllli!ili'i~'J-~;~- J """'-'-'"';- ~4' .
partial elevation 1
elevation 2
elevation cont.2
elevation 3
elevation cont.3 '
Bear Gulch Properties, L.L.C.
llmltolalr , ¢df, I~I'/i~ tlOt!
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
[] C,o~cs'ete T~e Roofing
[] P~'~le~ Wood Trm
[] wt,.e ~ Vr, r.*:~. Wl W~ T~
elevation key plan
MARVICK - LANG, INC.
ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING
~e A-~ A~ L~ Ddwe
elevation cont. 10
Bear Gulch Properties, L.L.C.
IllO VirileIre All. ~A
MOnIoI&¥ . ColIf. 0~7ll3 IlOl) 1~0-1731
elevation
elevation
1111, I]~1 ~ I]11 PNM
Pqlll~hO Cll~l~gl, CllforJdl
monument sign
10
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
elevation key plan
MARVICK - LANG, INC.
ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING
1100 A-~ Airport LOOp Ddve
Cooto Meca . GelIf. tllll(714} 640*7884
d,,
elevation 4
elevation 6
elevation
5
elevation 7
._~~,~..~,,,~ '~"~ ~ ~- __.~~._~.~:~
elevation 8
elevation
Bear Gulch Properties, L.L.C.
II~'l~ V~rn~ AV®.
Iq~i~be Cedeframe&
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
[] C~creIo ~ ~
P~ Wood lt'in
Lipped ~e' ~
~e ~ ~. Wl W~ Tr~
~ Face C~ele ~
elevation key plan
k4ARVICK - LANG, INC.
ARCHITECTORE I PLANNING
Itll A-I Airpelt Loop Dr'll'e
Cotta lieon . Colfl. llltl {7141 640-7664
Bear Gulch Properties, L.L.C.
8839 Vernon Awe. #A
~iontclelr , Calif. 81783 (8081 820-3788
8333, 8361 and 8363 Foot~ Bl~d.
I
I
8LI~Q C
section A
section B
section C
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 97-09 Public Review Period Closes: June 25, 1997
Project Name:
Project Applicant: Chavin Development
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard. APN: 207-571-76,
77, and 78.
Project Description: A request to construct a 106,301 square foot mixed use public storage facility
(93,957 square feet of storage, 6,000 square feet of retail, 3,552 square feet of office, and 2,792
square feet of manager's quarters/office) on 3.8 acres of land in Subarea 1 (Community Commercial)
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
(2)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related
documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic
Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
June 25. 1997
Date of Determination
E,xv 5 "G-\
Adopted By
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File:
Conditional Use Permit 9%09
Related Files: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 97-01, Preliminary
Application Review 96-04
o
Description of Project: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT-
A request to construct a 114,419 square foot mixed use public storage facility (93,957
square feet of storage, 6,000 square feet of retail, 3552 square feet of office, and 2,792
square feet of manager's quarters/office) on 3.8 acres of land in Subarea 1 (Community
Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard.
APN: 207-571-76, 77, and 78
o
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Chavin Development
8939 Vernon Avenue, Suite A
Montclair, CA
5. General Plan Designation: Commercial
6. Zoning: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Subarea 1, Community Commercial
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Sycamore Inn restaurant and Foothill
Boulevard are to the north, existing car wash and vehicle storage to the west, single family
homes and rail road right-of-way to the south, and a night club/bar is to the east.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
'
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
(909) 477-2750
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
(~') Land Use and Planning
( ) Population and Housing
(~') Geological Problems
(~') Water
( ) Air Quality
(~') Transpodation/Circulation
(~') Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) Public Services
( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Aesthetics
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
(v')
Signed:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Brent Le Count
Planning Associate
June 11, 1997
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.
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
Issues and Suppodin9 Information Sources:
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Polentially
Significant
tmoact
Potentially
Significant
Impact. Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
InCOrl::)or atedImpact
No
Im~3act
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (
() (¢) ()
b)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
() ()
c)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity?
() ()
d)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community?
() () ()
Comments:
a)
The project will require a text amendment to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to
add Mixed Use Public Storage to the list of conditionally permitted uses within the
Community Commercial land use designation of Subarea 1. A request for such an
amendment has been initiated by the Planning Commission and is pending final
approval by the City Council.
Issues and Suppoding Information Sources:
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.'
a)
b)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
c)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Potenbally
Sign~canf
Impact Less
Poter~ba[lyUnless Than
Slgn¢cant M~ttgabon Signn9c.~antNo
Irn c, ac9lncor~orafedImc, a~ Imoacl
(,,,')
(v')
(,/)
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
i)
Fault rupture? ( )
Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )
Seiche hazards? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
Potentially
Significant
linpact
Potentially
Significanl
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
No
linpact
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
(v')
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
(,/)
(,,,,)
(~)
Comments:
a,b,c
and g)
The subject site falls withing the Red Hill Fault Zone per Figure V-4 of the General
Plan and is therefore subject to potential fault rupture, ground shaking, and ground
failure. The General Plan also indicates that "differential subsidence could occur
across the Red Hill fault causing ground cracking." A Fault Hazard Study was
prepared to identify any fault traces on site and establish mitigation measures if any
fault traces were found. The repod found no evidence of surficial fault lines
traversing the site. See Fault Hazard Study by RGS Engineerin9 Geology dated
June 9, 1997.
The site will be graded to accommodate the proposed structures. Grading will be
conducted under supervision of a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. The impact is not considered significant.
Issues and SuppoC,~t~g In~crinalion Sources:
WATER. Will the proposal result in.'
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
Significanl
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
linDact IncorporatedImpact lin~act
() () (~) ()
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
i)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( )
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( )
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
lncorporaledImpact
No
Imcect
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
()
()
()
()
()
(,,'3
(,,'3
Comments:
a)
Paving and hard scape necessary to 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.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
AIR QUALITY.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Polentially
S,gnrficant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignrficantMiligation SignificantNo
Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact
Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (
Create objectionable odors? (
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (v)
() () (v)
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 6
o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transaortation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail or air traffic ~mpacts?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Irnpac~ Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
linDaCt
() () () (~)
() () (~) ()
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
()
()
()
()
()
()
(.,,,)
(..,,)
Comments'
b)
The project site lies at the junction of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road
which intersect at an acute angle. The project includes realignment of the
intersection in two phases--an interim and ultimate condition, both of which would
result in a more perpendicular relationship between the two streets at the point of
intersection.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
,,
c)
Significanl
Impact Less
PotenbarlyUnless Than
S~gnlficanlMiligation Signdicant NO
IreDact IncorPoratedImpac~ IraDec!
() () () (~)
() (~) () ()
() () () (~)
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigalion SignificantNo
Impact IncorporatedImoact Impact
() () ()
() () ()
Comments:
b)
The site contains five heritage trees per the Tree Preservation Ordinance which are
in conflict with the proposed development; two California Sycamores, one California
Live Oak, one Eucalyptus, and one Texas Umbrella tree. An Arborist report was
conducted which found that none of the trees other then the Oak tree are worthy of
preservation (see repod dated May 2, 1997). The applicant proposes to replace the
two Sycamore trees and the Oak tree with 24 inch box size trees of the same
species on site. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires preservation through
relocation or, in the event that relocation is not feasible, replacement in kind.
Polentially
Significanl
Impact Less
PolenhallyUnless Than
SignificanlM~t,gat~on SignrGc.antNo
Trnoact IncorporatedImoact Irnoacl
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposaL'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) (
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) (
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) (
) (,,')
) (,/)
) (,/)
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
o
Issues and Suppo,'ling Information Sources:
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.'
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Potendally
Significant
Impact
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
fncoi'DoraledImpact
No
Impact
() () () (v)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
10.
Issues and SuppOc,,,r~g Information Sources:
NOISE. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potenbally
S~gmfic.ant
Irnoac!
Potentially
Significanl
Impact Less
Unless Than
M~t~gaI~on S~gnificant
IncorDor atedImoac~
() ( ) () (,/)
() ( ) () (v')
11.
Issues and Suppo~,;ng Information Sources:
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other 9ovemmental services?
Potentially
SignScant
Impact
Potenhally
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
M,ligalion SignScant
IncorooratedImpact
No
() () () (v)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
Initial Study for
CUP 97~09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
12.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
Power or natural gas?
Communication systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
Polenlially
Significant
Imoact
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Signific, anl
IncorooratedImoact
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
)
)
)
)
()
()
No
Imoact
(,,,,)
(v')
(v')
(v')
(v')
(v')
13.
Issues and Suppod~ng Informalion Sources
Potenl~a[[y
S~gndicanl
Imoac!
Potenbally
Irapat:
Unless
MlbgaIion
Less
Than
S~gn~ficanl
Impact
No
IreDact
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
()
) () (¢)
b)
c)
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
Create light or glare?
()
()
()
(,/)
(v')
()
Comments:
c)
New light and glare will be created since the site is currently vacant. A condition of
approval will require review and approval of a lighting plan to ensure the
containment of light to the subject site. The impact is not considered significant
because the site is flanked by commercial development to the east and west.
14.
Issues and Suppolling Informalion Sources:
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.'
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
Potentially
Signfiicanl
Impacl Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantM~tigalion SignificantNO
Imoacl IncorooratedImoact Imoacl
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
Issues and
c)
d)
e)
Supporting Information Sources:
Affect historical or cultural resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
PotenlialIy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
NO
IreDact
() () ()
() () ()
() () ()
15.
issues and Supporting Informalion Sources:
RECREATION. Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Potenhally
Significant
()
()
Potenhally
Significanl
Impact
Unless
M,llgat,on
Incorporated
()
()
Less
Than
Significant
lmoaCt
()
()
No
Impact
(v,)
(v')
Issues and Supporting Informabon Sources'
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b)
II
Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Potent[ally
S,gnificant
()
()
Potenbally
S,gnificant
Impact
Unless
()
()
Less
Than
S~gnrficanl
()
()
NO
IreDact
(v')
(,/)
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
c)
d)
Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
Potentially
SignifiCanl
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
Impact Incorporatedfraeact IreDaCt
() () ()
() () ()
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The
following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all
that apply):
(v,)
General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981 )
(v')
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH ¢¢88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(v')
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR
(SCH ¢¢87021615, certified September 16, 1987)
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Item 7b. Biological Resources:
The two existing California Sycamore trees shall be replaced on site with 48 inch
box size trees of the same species. The existing California Live Oak tree shall be
relocated between the new building and Foothill Boulevard. The landscape and
irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by a licensed arborist. Relocation
shall be supervised and monitored by the licensed arborist for one year to ensure
Initial Study for
CUP 97-09 Chavin Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
healthy growth. If the relocation is not successful, then the developer shall replace
the Oak tree in kind with a 96 inch box size tree of the same species.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
Occur.
Signature:
/- /
Print Name and Title:
Henry S. Chavin
8939 Vernon Ave.,
Montclair, Ca. 91763
(909) 920-3736 - Fax (909) 920-0885
May 19, 1997
Mr. Brent Le Count,
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
PO Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE:
Variance for Proposed Retail/Office & Self Storage
- San Bernardino Road & Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Mr. Le Count and Planning Commission:
This Letter of Justification regarding the Variance on the above mentioned
property supersedes our Letter of Justification for Variance dated April 25, 1997.
Please find below justification for our Variance requests for the following: (a) the
five feet set back from side property lines; (b) building height; (c) building lot
coverage; and (d) landscape coverage.
1. Concerning the set back on the East property line, we are requesting
a variance at the southerly end of approximately 60 feet out of 350 feet. Mr.
Shinkle has indicated that he has no future plans for his adjacent property and
he has no objection to zero set back. This is needed because this is an industrial
type use and the smaller set back will present a more pleasing look to the site
from the East and prevent future security problems.
2. On the West property line at the southerly end we are requesting a
variance for a 275 foot zero set back which is adjacent to Mr. Lair's property. Mr.
Lair has indicated that he has no objection to a zero set back on that portion of
the property since a five feet set back would create a "canyon effect" between the
two properties and cause future security problems. He also felt that constructing
the building wall on the property line would enhance his property, and be more
compatible with his current RV storage business and present a more pleasing
view from the West.
Mr. Le Count&
Planning Commission
May 19, 1997
Page 2
3. To increase the building height on the southwest comer of Building
"D" to approximately 29 feet from 25 feet for approximately 100 feet of the 325 feet
building is necessary because of the depth of the property and the difference in
elevation fall at the rear in relation to the front elevation of the property. This will
help the project and better reflect proportionally to the other buildings in the
project.
4. To decrease overall landscape coverage from 15% to approximately
10.5% will actually enhance the look of the project, since with this Variance more of
the landscape will be oriented to the front of the property where it exceeds the
minimum standard and will provide the public with a better view. There is little
need for this at the very deep rear of the project near the railroad tracks.
5. To increase building coverage to approximately 43% from 40% will
allow this new project to be built and enable it to be economically competitive with
other self-storage businesses in the area. This will help the property, but not have
any negative effects because of the size of the parcel.
Granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity because today
the neighborhood consists primarily of commercial uses.
Further, granting of the Variance will be compatible with the general purpose of
and intent of the City and will not adversely affect future development elsewhere.
Finally, the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subject
property, which is possessed by other properties previously developed will be given
to this parcel if the Variance is granted.
Therefore granting of the Variance will not change the character of the
neighborhood. The Variance will create parity and allow the development of the
property, create jobs and services to the community and will be a positive
development.
I believe the Planning Commission will appreciate development in this area
and the merits of this project.
Mr. Le Count &
Planning Commission
May 19, 1997
Page 3
Again, thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project.
VTfz truly yours, ~
Henry Chavin,
Chavin Development
Copies:
David Buxbaum
John Chakmak
Thomas Francis
Brad Buller
Chuck Marvick
IJ. I~1onroe Lair
1412 East Ninth St.
Upland, CA 91786
April 29, 1997
Mr. Brent Le Count &
Planning Commisssion
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
PO Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, 'CA -91729
RE:
Variance for Proposed Retail/Office & Self Storage_
- San Bernardino Road & Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Mr. Le Count and Planning Commission:
I own the property adjacent to the Bear Gulch Property on the west.
I am aware of their proposed project to develop a mixed use retail/office and self-
storage facility.
The purpose of my letter concerns the five foot set back along our property line. This
set back will create several problems for both properties:
1. A five foot set back will create a "canyon" difficult to maintain and
landscape.
2. It will create a security problem.
3. My property is currently used for RV storage and this narrow corridor
will have a negative impact.
I support the granting of this Variance.
Again, thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
V. Monroe Lair
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 97-09. A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 106,301 SQUARE
FOOT MIXED USE STORAGE FACILITY (93,957 SQUARE FEET OF
STORAGE, 6,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 3,552 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE, AND 2,792 SQUARE FEET OF MANAGER'S QUARTERS/OFFICE)
ON 3.8 ACRES OF LAND IN SUBAREA 1 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) OF
THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8363
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 207-571-76, 77, AND 78.
A. Recitals.
1. Chavin Development has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 97-09, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of June 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 25, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard with a street
frontage of 300 feet on Foothill Boulevard and 140 feet on San Bernardino Road and lot depth of 450
feet and is presently improved with a single family home and a commercial building; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with the Sycamore Inn
Restaurant, the properties to the south consists of abandoned rail road right-of-way and single family
homes, the property to the east is developed with a night club, and the property to the west is
developed with a vehicle storage lot and a carwash facility; and
c. The application proposes a unique mixed use public storage operation which allows
optimized utilization of the site while promoting high quality development along Foothill Boulevard
which is complimentary to other uses consistent with the provisions of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09-CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT
June 25,1997
Page 2
d. The application proposes substantial landscaping, generous front setbacks, and
careful site planning of retail and office uses which mitigate the presence of the public storage
facilities; and
e. The application proposes to realign the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and San
Bernardino Road, thereby correcting an undesirable traffic condition; and
f. The proposed parking is adequate to meet code requirements.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
General Plan.
The vacation of a portion of San Bernardino Road is in conformance with the
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration based
upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared, therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT
June 25, 1997
Page 3
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1)
Provide decorative pilaster treatment along east, west, and south
elevations to soften view of blank walls and add visual interest.
Pilasters do not have to be as elaborate as those proposed along
northern portions of east and west elevations.
2)
Provide undulating berms within landscape setback area along the
Foothill Boulevard frontage of the site to enhance the landscaping and
screen views of the parking area from Foothill Boulevard.
3)
Provide Activity Center frontage improvements per Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan Subarea 1 for interim and ultimate design conditions.
4)
Provide vine pockets at base of the walls along the east, west, and
south property lines and specify that vines will be trained to climb walls
to soften appearance of walls given zero setbacks.
5)
Tree Removal Permit No. 97-11 is hereby approved subject to those
mitigation measures contained in this Resolution. The Tree Removal
Permit shall be valid for a period of 90 days which shall start from the
date of final map recordation or issuance of building permits, whichever
comes first. Extensions may be granted by the City Planner, if
requested, at least 14 days prior to the expiration date.
Enqineering Division
1)
An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future under grounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for
the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Foothill Boulevard shall be
paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall
be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the
center of San Bernardino Road to the east project boundary.
2)
The drive approaches shall be constructed per City Standard Plan
101-C, a minimum of 35 feet wide.
3) R26S," No Stopping" signs shall be installed on both frontages.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09- CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT
June 25,1997
Page 4
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
The San Bernardino Road frontage road shall be vacated to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
An interim dedication on San Bernardino Road shall be made to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
An irrevocable offer of dedication for San Bernardino Road shall be
made for the ultimate alignment of the intersection to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
The intersection of San Bernardino Road and Foothill Boulevard shall
be reconstructed as necessary.
Modification and relocation, if necessary, of the traffic signal at the
intersection of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, shall be
the responsibility of the developer. The relocation and modification
shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans.
A contribution in lieu of construction for the future median island in
Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of
building permits. The amount of the contribution shall be one half the
cost of the median times the length of the project frontage, as
measured from the centerline of San Bernardino Road to the easterly
property line.
Contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost of
constructing special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/San
Bernardino Road intersection shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of building permits, The fee amount shall be based on the
square footage of the intersection.
The frontages of both Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road
shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and may be
subject to reconstruction, by the City, at a future date.
The developer shall assume the lead in an attempt to consolidate the
driveways on Foothill Boulevard for the entire block to provide only one
access point serving APN'S 207-571-75, 76, 77 and 78. Future
development to the east and construction of the median island may
impose closure of the driveway on Foothill Boulevard and installation of
a new driveway to the east.
The Hydrology Study for the Baker-Arrow Master Plan Drain has been
reviewed. This site was not tabled to that facility. The site shall drain
to the southwest and an acknowledgment accepting the flows from
SANBAG shall be provided to the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT
June 25, 1997
Page 5
14)
Transitions on San Bemardino Road and Foothill Boulevard and off-site
improvements shall be provided as necessary to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
Mitigation Measures
1)
The two existing California Sycamore trees shall be replaced on site
with 48 inch box size trees of the same species. The existing California
Live Oak tree shall be relocated between the new building and Foothill
Boulevard. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and
approved by a licensed arborist. Relocation shall be supervised by the
licensed arborist, and monitored by the licensed arborist for one year,
to ensure healthy growth. If the relocation is not successful, thenthe
developer shall replace the Oak tree with a 96 inch box size tree of the
same species.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Plannin9 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoin9 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 Plannin9
Commission held on the 25th day of June 1997, by the followin9 vote-to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CON DITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-09
MIXED USE PUBLIC STORAGE PROJECT
CFIAVIN DEVELOPMENT
8363 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time
1.
Limits
Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
Completion Date
/
2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-09 is granted subject to the approval of Variance 97-01 .
Prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the
affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the
proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter
must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case
of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
SC - 5~97
Project No.
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adiacent properties.
Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner or other means acceptable to the City.
Shopping Centers
A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles,
free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with
the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City
Planner:
a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping centedthe project).
Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to
include self-closing pedestrian doors.
c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
d. Roll-up doors.
e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
CUP 97-09
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 5/97
Project No.
f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed
to be hidden from view.
3. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and
debris remain for more than 24 hours.
All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which
shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants:
Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an
exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the
hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.
Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing,
or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other
similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein,
in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area.
The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza
area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures.
Building Design
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
CUP 97-09
Coml~letion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 5t97
Fo
Project No.
Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage
spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a
3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100.
Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher
whole number.
Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
Landscaping
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
Existing trees required to be preserved shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
A minimum of 10% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box
or larger.
Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and
maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing,
and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
30 days from the date of damage.
The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along the Foothill
Boulevard frontage landscape setback area.
Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
CUP 97-09
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 5/97
Project No.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
10.
Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
G. Signs
The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
H. Environmental
Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. Site Development
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
CUP 97-09
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 5~97
5
Project No.
K. Existing Structures
1. Existing buildings shall be demolished.
2. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
3. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building
permit application.
L. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline) subject to CALTRANS approval:
69 total feet on Foothill Boulevard
(See Special Condition No. 4) total feet on San Bernardino Road
2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by
deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building
permits, where no map is involved.
N. Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees
Foothill Blvd. X (e) X X X
San Bernardino X (e) X X X
Road
Comm Median Bike Other
Trail Island Trail
(d) (0
CUP 97-09
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
SC - 5/97
Project No.
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item. (e) In conformance with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. (f) A bus bay/right-turn
lane.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
Go
Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
CUP 97-09
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 5/97
7
Project No. CUP 97-09
Completion Date
Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
/ /
A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way:
Foothill Boulevard.
/ /
O. Public Maintenance Areas
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
/ /
P. Utilities
1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
/ /
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
/ /
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one
parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
/ /
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
/ /
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
R. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
/ /
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute.
/ /
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
/ /
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
/ /
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
SC - 5/97
8
Project No.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted
to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available,
pending completion of required fire protection system.
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
X California Code Regulations Title 24.
10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
11. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
12. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground
up so as not to impede fire apparatus.
13. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
14. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
15. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety
Division for the proper form letter.
16. Plan check fees in the amount of $ 0 have been paid. An additional $ 645 shall be paid:
X Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
17. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
CUP 97-09
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 5/97
9
Project No.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
S. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
T. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
4. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
U. Security Fencing
1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since
fire and law enforcement can access these devices.
V. Windows
All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted
from frame or track in any manner.
W. Building Numbering
Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be
a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background.
The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department.
3. All developments shall submit a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant
developments to the Police Department.
X. Alarm Systems
1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives.
SC - 5/97
10
CUP 97-09
Coml)letion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 97-01
TO REDUCE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR A MIXED USE
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET, TO INCREASE
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BUILDING COVERAGE FROM 40 PERCENT TO
43.7 PERCENT, TO REDUCE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE COVERAGE FROM
15 PERCENT TO 10 PERCENT, AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 100 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT FROM 25 FEET TO 29 FEET ON 3.8 ACRES OF LAND IN
SUBAREA 1 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8363 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 207-571-76, 77, and 78
A. Recitals.
1. Chavin Development has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 97-01 as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request
is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of June 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on June 25, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to properly located at 8363 Foothill Boulevard with a street
frontage of 300 feet on Foothill Boulevard and 140 feet on San Bernardino Road and lot depth of 450
feet and is presently improved with a single family home and a commercial building; and
b. The properly to the north of the subject site is developed with the Sycamore Inn
Restaurant, the properties to the south consists of abandoned rail road right-of-way and single family
homes, the property to the east is developed with a night club, and the property to the west is
developed with a vehicle storage lot and a carwash facility; and
c. The property is an unusual triangular shape at the southerly end. Further, the
property is deeper than its width; hence, has poor exposure for retailers to Foothill Boulevard which
is uncommon to most properties within the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VARIANCE NO. 97-01- CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT
June 25,1997
Page 2
d. The existing non-perpendicular alignment of the San Bernardino Road and Foothill
Boulevard intersection creates an exceptional circumstance that will necessitate realignment and
dedications that present unique a site development constraint.
e. The reduction in interior side and rear setbacks does not grant the applicant a
special privilege since the proposed uses will be a low key activity. The project is designed to
minimize any impacts .associated with the requested Variance items relative to surrounding
propedies and public rights-of-way. The project has been designed with landscape buffers extending
approximately 150 feet along the east and west property lines in the areas most visible from public
rights-of-way and adjacent properties.
f. The allowance of a 5-foot increase in building height within 100 feet of a residential
district will not grant the applicant a special privilege since the property is uniquely separated from
residences by an 80-foot wide rail road right-of-way.
g. The increase in building coverage, and corresponding reduction in landscape
coverage, will not grant the applicant a special privilege since the project will aesthetically upgrade
the site, including landscaping and public improvements, from its current level of development which
is substantially below the minimum development standards.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Development Code.
b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below.
1)
All conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-
approving Conditional Use Permit 97-09 shall apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VARIANCE NO. 97-01 o CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT
June 25,1997
Page 3
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 25th day of June 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
June 25, 1997
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY:
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT:
MASI PLAZA - MASI - A request to redesign the site plan and elevations of
Building 5 to accommodate two restaurants, one of which includes a micro
brewery.
ABSTRACT: The Design Review Committee requests direction from the Planning
Commission regarding the proposed design modifications to Building 5 (formerly approved
for Old Spaghetti Factory).
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: As a courtesy to the applicant to expedite the process,
the Committee reviewed this item without the benefit of a written staff report in order to
provide design direction. The Committee expressed concerns regarding the new
architectural elements in relation to the existing building. The Committee did not support
the use of an exterior silo for grain storage. The architect indicated that the floor plan could
be designed to accommodate interior grain storage. The Committee indicated that a
loading zone should be provided. The architect presented several ideas for changes which
the Committee felt were appropriate (see attached exhibits).
In consideration of the Planning Commission's previous extensive review of this building,
the Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for direction regarding the
proposed design. The Committee indicated that the project should come back to DRC for
full review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed
design and provide direction to the applicant to return to DRC with revised plans.
City Planner
BB:DC:taa
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Approved Site Plan
Approved Elevations
Proposed Development Plans (previously distributed)
Changes Discussed at DRC
ITEM D
floor plan
BUILDING 5
MASI PLAZA
0 Architocl
BUILDING 5
MASI PLAZA
Archiloci
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Dan Coleman June 17, 1997
MASl PLAZA BUILDING 5 - A request to redesign the site plan and elevations of Building 5 to
accommodate two restaurants, one of which includes a micro brewery.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brad Buller
As a courtesy to the applicant to expedite the process, the Committee reviewed this item without the
benefit of a written staff report in order to provide design direction. The Committee expressed concerns
with how the new architectural elements relate to the existing building. The Committee did not support
the use of an exterior silo for grain storage. The architect indicated that the floor plan could be designed
to accommodate interior grain storage. The Committee indicated that a loading zone should be provided.
The architect presented several ideas for changes which the Committee felt were appropriate (see
attached exhibits).
In consideration of the Planning Commission's previous extensive review of this building, the Committee
forwarded this item to the full Commission on June 25, 1997, as a Director's Report item for direction
regarding the proposed design. The Committee indicated that the project should come back to DRC for
full review.
norfh elevation
east elevation
west elevation
October 32(.], 1995
RECEIVED
]}ave Rum!ey
District Sales Manager
Southern California Division
Albertsons: Inc.
1180 West Lambert Rd.
P.O. Box 7500
· .-.'6..'=-7
Brea, CA ~' ..... ' 5C, 0
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Dear MI.-· Rumley:
! am one of 'your neighbors to the e_~ast of the store in Rar':chc,
'", == ,m--- ~{' Baseline and Archibald hv wi'f~. and T pu'-,-'-~--,-~,= '~ home
in 19'/e': when ~he lot on ~,~hZch ./c:cLC .~,u~Idinq ~s !c, cats:,d v.~a.~ vacant. As
you know the buZ!din~ you curren~-l'y -.~ccu?? ~a~ ~ Builder-s Empc, r.~un'~ TO~
a number of years. Ths, intruszon c)~ B~t~lders J. nto and upon our
a. nd ~k':ce)ir' affE.:2~ upon OUr' ] i~'4 I-"~ condition'B wa'B. minima. l I wi.sln
....... ~- occu:,-'-' of th.is building.
F'ri,-,r 't,--~ t!-..e grand openir;g of the store, and .during t?',e
cc, nstrt{ction phase: :.:e were able tc:, -~.~ ~.;it'h dis ....
we thouqht it ;-,~ould 'net !a.=.t"'Yorever. The pr,=blems asso.cia'!-ed ,..;±tin
this type o'f cc, mmercia! use however began to become fo.zused just p;.-Jo:-
to and d,_t'rinq 'the ~]ra.n,.J open{r,g. E'L:ring th±~ time thece :,.~a.s
r'efr£:~er_atr_-.d truck par,t::~d a't .the loading d..-,ck that ran
Or;ce t;-~e. real iza~:ion hit ~T:'~.' ~-;i ft. ;..and I that thi..-. pi-.-,bl em ~,;as n,'_:.t
going to s,-~!ve J. tself: ;~e began to document 't,5,=-. c:,cc::rrer,,-e.s. 'that
c,:,t_--J..de, ,z,f c:r close to being ',.,'ic:,].~tJ. or,-z of the tit'), ordn£~ncez- ..-J~.alir:g
v; i 't: h r'; ,2, i -:-~ ~-~ & '0 .B 't err: E. n ;2 ·
ha,/{. enc'!c,.=-.ed a copy off: 'the log for' O-_'tober to den;onet:-atcs, the
'::.'o,_~r compar'~,,,"s occupar',cy cf th~-~ ~[~ilding has had ...~.nd ;-;ill
continue ~'c', h~,.ve- c:..n 'the. quality of life that n,"~, family' cs.n
· fr,:::m this .=.i tuati;-,n as it ;~..D,w e;',i.c-.t?--...
",.**tl";"-I --'"- ...... ~ .... .., . , rt.t t.,._t x*- c~
' ' =,~',.-~ · ~oi-,ein.:] +h:~.t ~ iluminate=-. our
e-..,r,c;iF~o in'trus. ion of d~':~'i.'v'ery trucks l-~J. th their re'fr~ .... -atnr=. op~ar~t. inc~
cJ e pa. ~- ~: 'f r c, m ~..~,.-., ;- ,t:: .
I do not know what 'the solution is, but I do know 'the situation is
something that we need to discuss.
We will await your reply.
Sincerely yours,
David & Pamela Thompson
759(]." London Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
(909) 989-1924
RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 1997
date
10- 0 2-- ~ 5
10--Cx3-95
0 - 05, - 95
0-04-95
O- 07 - 95
0 - 08 - 95
i(-) -- F~ ,~ -- o ,5
C)- 09- 9 5
0-- ! 0- 95
O- 10- 95
I0-! 1-95
! 0-! 1-95
day time
Mon 5:52 am
Tue 6: 52 am
6: 4. 0 a m
Tue 6: 42 am
Wed 11: 30 pm
Sat 12: 02 am
Sun 8: 30 am
Mon 6: 5(i) am
Mort 6: 58 am
~" ~ 7: ('~('
~ ~..= . .. am
Tue S: 3C, am
W,e d 2: 20 a m
10-il- .-. 5 W~d 6:34 am
.... ~.--v~ 'Fhur afternoon
1 (:'--" ~ ~-, c
J. (.':'-- i C,-- = ~,
J.O-IW-95
'J. 0 - i ~:--95
! 0-- 19-- 9 5
10-19-95
i c)-- i 9 -95
! 0-- 2 O- 95
i0-20-95
10-21-95
Fi-i 6: 35 am
F'ri 11:24 pm
Mon 6: 56 am
Tue 6: C, 2 am
'Fue !!:15 pm
Thu 6: 5C) am
6: 51 am
T h u i 1: 35 p m
,-rri 6: 54 am
F-r-i li :36 pm
Sat 7: 08 am
Sat 9:06 pm
Albertson's Log - OctoberC~g~Ra0choC~camo~ga
Planning Oivis~n
vehicle description/action
Albertson's delivery trucl.:: arrived, Pamela called
store, spoke with Mike, the shift manager, he saic
he didn't know truck was ther-e~ would contact
distributor
employees car alarm turns on
employees car alarm turned off
Albertson's deliver,.., trucl< ~01-1-41
lot sweeper cleaning parking area
lot sweeper cleaning parking area
Ch.ino Ice Service-re'fir truck
Miller Beer delivery truck
F~i bertsons trLtmk t.,~01--107
Al~er~son5 ~rLtcl< :~':')!--~07 at-rived
truck ~ 01-107 pulls out frc.T, loading dock and par
along our ~com,T, on wall-departed 8:4.5 am
lot sweeper cleaning parking area
e,T, ployee arrives and parks on east side of build iF
radio turned Ltp ~n~ ShoLiting at other e~T~p]oyee Bn,]
sets car alarm
Swiss Dair'y delivery truck: f~ 64(i:,
R.C. fire department ask permission to enter props:
.to ch..e.Ek common wall area ~or possible
from toxic spill in parking/loading area
Coke delivery tru:k ~,r~ives, trucl< idles and
at 6:56 am
lot sweeper cleaning the parking area
Albertson truck arri,/es ~9 not noted
employees parking on east side of ~ ' 'd ....
noise LtpOm aFrZ'v'a!, Pamela c~!ied Mike, shift man~
agaZn and infor,T~ed h&m of early arrZv~l of trucks
employee parkzng, PiZRe said he wou~d tr'y' to corr-ec
and pFevent iF, fLt~Ltre
Pameia called, spoke with Robbie concel.-niF, g a mote
of some type runn~mg on ~he south sid~ of buildznc
motor ~-~as tLIrned off shoFt!>' after our call
lot sweeper c]E. aning the parking area
same FF, otor rLtnl]iF~g as rooted on ZO--Z7, c5. i led
with MZke, no change noted
Coke delivery truck
Albertsons deiZ'very truck: '~ (]:'l-l;'~.2, calle~
lot sweeper cleamic,,~ the pal'-$::iF,.g area
Albertsons de!&very (rL~Ck; ~
lot sweeper cleaning the plaFi::Zmg aFea
Albel--tsons delivery ~FL~ER ~$
A-Tre delive,-,, (I'-L~Cb' w./re'F4 r paFl-::ed alonm common ,.
7or ten (z..) ff~ZnL~tE. 5 E, Fzor [~ backing J.F,~;O ]Oa~JiF, 6
dock area, we ~-,,ere si.%t~ng on oL.r patio ~.~ith
and had to move into the house because of the noi~
Pamela cal!ed store at 9:08 pro, spoke with person
r:har'9e, no re~p, onse~ trLICR departed 9:56 pm
Albertson Log - continued
date day time
i0--.23-95 Mon 7:01 am
r' ~ ' ~: ~ C) 4 a
1.)-..' 5-9~, Wed ;:
10-26-95 Thu 6:47 am
10-28-95 Sat 7:04 am
10- 30- 95 M o n 6: ? ~
/0-30-95 Mon 7: 04 am
vehicle description/action
Albertson delivery truck ~ not noted
Swiss Dairy truck ~ 640 arrives
Albertsons delivery truck ~ 01-665
Albertsons delivery truck # 01-106
diesel delivery truck departed loading dock area
Gate City truck arrives
Albertsons delivery truck ~ 01-161
Alberlsons®
November 20, 1995
~ECEIVED
JUN 2,5 7997
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
David and Pamela Thompson
7390 London Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson:
I have read your letter in re~ar.ds to our Ranchx~ Cucamonga store. You can be assured
that after reading your letter, I have discus~d2't'his"Whole i'hcident about deliveries with
the Store Director, Mike Hirz. I have notified our Distribution Center about making sure
Albertson's trucks do not deliver before 7:00 am. They have agreed to move our delivery
time to 8:00 am and Mll try not to deliver anything after 9:00 pm.
Mike Hirz is notifying b. ll of his vendors and asking them not to deliver before 8:00 am. I
also have asked Mike to talk with his landlord about the parking lot sweeper to request
that they not clean late at night. I hope this will help solve some of the problems you
have had since we moved into our new building.
I 'know that you not asked for anything, but I am enclosing a $30.00 gift certificate to
show my appreciation for taking the time to let me know about this matter. Please feel
free to contact me again if any problems should occur.
Thank you for your time and patronage.
Sincerely,
Dave Rumley
District Sales Manager
Southern California Division
DR/lp
Enclosure
cc: Mike Hirz #606
ALBERTSON'S, INC. / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION / 1t80 WEST LAMBERT ROAD / P.O. BOX 7500 / BREA. CALIFORNIA 92522-7500
714-671-6100
December 27 1995
Brad Bueller
Director of Planning
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
F'.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729
Planning Division
Dear Mr. Bueller:
]'his morning ! spoke ~.:ith Richard Alcorn, of y'our
Department of Code Enforcement concerning a number of topics.,
several of which he referred me to
The situation ~.=s this. I reside at m-.~o(-~ London Ave.
My property is. to the east of the new A!bertson,'s store on
ti-,e S/E corner of Baseline and Archibald. ! a,T, enclosing a
].etter i sent to Albertson'=. on Oct. 30, 1995 with ~ log for
the Month of October detailing the occurrences that were
outside of or close to being violations of the city ordnances
dealing with no'ise and-public disturbances. I am also
enclosing a copy of the response I received from Albertson's.
! must admit, that.since my letter the extreme ear!,,,
morning and 1--.+~ night d~.liverles have been minimal ;r,e./ do
seem to ha,~ compressed t,~r del~',~-y _
- -.,_~ , schedul~ more toward
the middle of the day. Mr. Alcorn advised me to call the
Pc,!ic~ when any fu~ur~. disturbance occur before 7 am or after
!0 [:,~T;~ and thorn to follow up your next working day with a
phon~ call to Code Enforcement notifyinc them of {he
However... ~n~=: e are =~',,~,----.~ area= that have not been
addr'essed 'that i feel I need to have remedy from. First is
ths. continued and constant scene of s~-mi trucks pulling up
along the common wall between our properties to begin their
backing into ~he loading dock area. Because of the
configuration approved by your departmen~ for ~he loading
dock; the trucks, and as many as 10-18 a day and six day~ a
~-~eek, provide a great deal of noise, they peer down over my
back yard and rob my family of any privacy what-so-ever.
i ~-~ou!d proF, ose e~-~ a solu~'ion a sound ..... tier i.-;al i r-,f
arepie height to eliminate to some degree the. intrusion and
d~=turbance of the trucks i.n terms of .... ~
--. =,o~,n., and unsightiir~es~
I believe the additional height on thei:- existing wall
would be a great improvement in dealing ,with the sound as
well as with the area lights that were installed at the time
of the remodeling. The wattage of these lights seems to be
much greater as they illuminate our back yard and shine
through our upstairs win,.~,ws constantly. I appreciat. e the
security factor the lighting provides, but I do believe the
fixtures need to be adapted or changed so that their area
lighting does not intrude into my property.
Mr. Bueller, I understand that Albertson's. is a
commercial venture that provides much nem, ded revenue to our
city. I also believe that professionals such as yourself and
the people who ~.~ork for and ~.~ith you should act as my
advocate during the planning and design phases of this and
other projects to eliminate the possibility for any negative
impact those projects may possibly have on t,,._ adjacent
property owners. But in approving the configuration for the
loadS,- dock for this project, pe~-+y
.... ,g my pro . ~ and my rights wer~
not ad'v'ocaLed for I am nc, w l m-" for re~d
. u=,~:.ing a ..... y 'Lo {hat
situation .
I will forward copies of this letter tc Mr. Rumley ,mr
Albertson's as well as to 'Lhe Store Director, Mike Hirz.
I would appreciate your assistance and wiil a~-~ait your
reply.
Sincerely yours ~
David ]'hompson
739(} London Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga, (Ca. 91730
Dave Rum].ey
District Sales Manager
F41be? tsoF,'s
.... r:.~ 14irz
Store E:,irector
.., -'2 ,:L ~'~ i:'
c'tore Director ~ .........
T H E
January 22, ! 996
C
David and Pamela Thompson
7390 London Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT ·
0 C M
UCA
0 F
RECEIVED
JUN £ 5
City o! Rar~cho Cucarnonga
Planning DMs~on
NUISANCE PROBLEMS FROM ALBERTSON'S LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson:
The City received your letter ~at.ed December 22, !995. In your letter, you stated you have
experienced nuisance problems and intrusion on'~hf'pfivacy fr6m Albertson's supermarket. The
nuisance problems and intrusion you raised are: constant h'uck noise, very early and late hours'
delivery, disturbances, and excess light and glare that spill over into your property.
In response to your concerns, I am investigating the site to determine if Albertson's has violated an},
City codes. After my initial inyestigation, ~IElan on contacting representatives of Albertson's to
review any identified code violations and nuisance problems, and to determine the mitigation and
control measures to ensure their business operation would not negatively impact the adjacent
residents.
If you are interested in participating in any of the meeting(s) I plan on having with representatives
of Albertson's, please let me 'know.
If you ha',;e any questions, please call me at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNIN~ DIVISION
anc&~~CCP~
N yFo.,
Senior Planner
NF:mlg
cc: Brad Bullet, City Planner
Mayor William J. Alexander
Mayor Pro-Tem Rex Gutierrez
Jack Lam, AICR City Manager
Councilmember Paul Bione
Councilmember James V. Curetale
Councilmember Diane Williams
~ECEIVED
Nancy Fong.~ '-'-~-
o~l,ior F'I anner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
F'.O. Box 807
Rancho Cuc.amonga, Ca. 91729
JUN £ 5 799?
ul Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Dear M..=:.. Fong:
I ;J~;,,,:. ,:,ou for"' .arrar-,c:jirr~ the meeting on ]'i ILir'Sd~'? :, OLtl'~e ~.:~7 'rc.:,~-
m'?se~ ~, Robert ,Br'.L~.h .edwal
r-epresentati've -from A'!
]'ins. topics and i'tems discuss=d '.--,ere:
A ) The securi t'y problem of *../oung p,=.u,,_,: ~ j Limping P
~-~.ai! on east side of the Albertson's store and our
properties, and the exposure th~.t rep, reser, ts -~or us and
A .I be r t son s..
E':'~ The r-,oJ.~¢~ pollL, fion ~nd v.~.sual disturbanc~ treateel h the
deii'veny trucks as (hey arrive ai the S/E corner c:,',: the
b,_tiiding~ pull along the common wall beEween our propert.:i. es
..and the shopping center, and attempt to back into 'hP, c~- loading
dock area and unload.
E:) The practice of trucks parking along the common wail c,n
the east side of Albertsons and idling plus operating the
r'efrioeration units wl-,ile waiting to unload and durincj
un loading .
D) The operation c,f the cor,~pressor or motor unit on the trash
compe, c~iinq .-- 4 -¢~ hi ........
= u~.eu outside o'f 4-he build4,'.q
c,n the southeast cE, rF;er &%t 'Limes that do not confor-m to
existing city cc:,des.
~.44-,, codes '~or weekend deliveries. is 9 a,T, and not 7 am 8.~.
J.s. durin,:j the week.
The h~,bitLial viola'Lions of city co, des by the lot sweeping
,'- -, ",, ,', ~ '-,, o f w o r' k i r, q a 'f t e r 'L i~ e ! 0 p m d e a c! 1 i n e 8. i]d +' h e ~ r 8 ~ [*;
-- "!ecLing comp.~ny o';: wc:,rk4n=, before 7 ari~
L. 0 I ~ '~ .
F'ossib.ie solutions discussed were:
A) To rea].ign the loading dock area so that tr'LiC~:; tr'affJ. c
wou].d stay on the south side of the Albertsons building.
B) To have the property owner install a. vegetation barrier
along our common wall that would deter climbing the wall.
C) To install signs on the west side of the wall telling
people to not climb and trespass.
D) Albertson's representative said he would instruct the
st. ore management 'bo operate the compactor during legal code
hours and to post signs to tha'L affec't on '~he machine inside
F) Call the police when disturbances occur and then follow up
with notification to the City Code Enforcement department
about the infractions.
G) That you will meet with the representatives from
Albertsons to discuss possible mitigations to these concerns
and inform us of possible solutions.
We appreciate your assistance with this process and will
await your response.
Sincerely yours,
David Thompson
7390 London
Paul & Pattie Davies
7398 London
Robert Brush
7380 London
cc: Dave Rumley
District Sales/Manager
Albertsons
Mike Hirz
Store Director
Albertons
,/
T H E C I T Y
ANCNO CUCA
October 3, 1996
O F
Mr. Scott Thayer C~!¥ ot Rancho Cucamonge
Albertson's, Incorporated Planning Division
1180 West Lambert Road "
Brea, CA 92622 .....
SUBJECT: ALBERTSONS STORE NO. 606 - LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE (MDR 94-17)
Dear Mr. Thayer:.
On June 27, 1996, we had a meeting at the subject store to discuss and review several nuisance
problems, which had been i(en. tified in the April. 4.,.1996 letter to Mr. Rumplay, District Sales
Manager. Present at the meeting were Mr. Tl~-aTPrlp'SOnT Mr. arid Mrs. Davies, and Mr. Brush, who
are property owners adjacent to the shopping center.
At the meeting we discussed several solutions that may address some of the nuisance problems.
They were: Post signs along the east property boundary wall to prohibit loitering activities; post signs
to remind truck drivers to turn off truck engines and their refrigeration units while loading and
unloading; investigate cha~nging, the truck route for b~cking into the loading dock; develop a schedule
for Albertson's employees to collect' shoppi~g"carts along the'east side and south side of the store;
provide security guards monitoring the area east and south of the store; etc. In a later phone
conversation, you agreed to immediately begin to work on some of the above-mentioned solutions.
In August and early part of September, staff continued to receive complaints from the adjacent
owners regarding noise from truck engines and their refrigeration and compressor units. I would like
to receive a program of action with a time line for completion to address the identified nuisance
problems. The purpose is to find long term solutions to address the nuisance problems so that the
operation of the supermarket and the shopping center would be compatible to and harmonious with
the adjacent residential areas. This program of action should include, but is not limited to, the
following:
The types of signs that have been or will be posted on the east and south property
boundary walls and/or on building walls.
A detailed schedule of truck delivery hours for the store. The City's code allows
delivery between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. I understand that Albedson's
voluntarily compressed the delivery hours in an attempt to address the complaints
from the adjacent property owners. Staff recommends that Albertson's continue the
compressed delivery schedule.
A daily schedule for Albertson's collecting of the shopping carts within the shopping
center and especially around the east and south side of the store.
'¸4.
Mayor William J. Alexander·
Mayor Pro-Tam Rax Gutierrez
.~,..~ Lorn. '""~ Ci;-y Mono~oer
Proposed solutions to reduce the noise from the compressor and trash compactor.
Councilmember Paul Diane
Councilmember James V. Curotolo
Councilmember Diane Williams
MR. SCOTT THAYER - ALBERTSON'S INC.
MDR 94-17
October 3, 1996
Page 2
5. Investigate the possibility of reorienting the loading dock.
Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of providing a landscape
buffer along ~he east and south property boundaries.'
Contact the property owners and investigate the possibility of raising the height of the
existing block walls along the east and south property boundaries.
Contact the property owners and investigate the 2ossibility of having security guards
monitor the shopping center.
Please submit this program bf action on or bef-e~'~.'Oc~,0ber 2'1' 1996. Staff believes that items 1
through 3 could be implemented immediately. A~s for the other recommended solulions, staff would
be more than happy to meet with you and the representatives of the shopping center property owner
to discuss them if you need further assistance.
We encourage Albertson's to be sensitive to the adjacent residential areas and continue to be a
good neighbor. We appreciate your cooperation in advance and look forward to hearing from you.
If you have any questions, please, call mE'at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely.
COMMUN, FT~Y DEVELOP~NT DEPARTMENT
PLAN~F/ttG
Senior Planne~/'
Brad Buller
Richard Alcorn
Mr.& Mrs. Thompson - residents
Mr. & Mrs. Davies - residents
Mr. Brush - resident
Mr. W. Craig Doorson, Property Manager
Frank H. Ayres & Son - Property Owner
date day
11-1-95 Wed
11-1-95 Wed
11-4-95 Sat
11-~,-95 Sun
11-5-95 Sun
1-6-, ~, Mon
1 ].-6-95 Mot,
--. .....;' J TLtes
J. ].- F3--. 9 5, Wed
I I ~ ":'
..... -- ~..r.'- ~" S~
L J -'- J. 4---'? 5 'F u e s
--. ......... Wed
i!-i5-95 Wed
~ !--tz ~..= -,..., ....
!2-L0-S'.~ Sun
i2-26-95 ~ -
; Lie'=
1 2.-- 2 9.-- 9 5 F r i
! 2-.2'~?-9 5 FrJ.
,!-'- .i. ;i. --S:' 6 [' ;", u r :-:'.
"-1---- ;i. J_ -96 T
5-!9-96 '",
.=, _t F]
RECEIVED
time
6:45 am
9:15 pm
6:54 am
8:48 am
7:10 pm
6:36 am
7: 4-5 .-_-., m
7: 50 am
i J.: 0':_'> p m
JUN 8 $ lgg7
Albertson's Log - November '95 to present
City of Rancho Cucamonga
PJanning Division
vehicle/action/activity
Albertson refrig ~01-124
Albertson truck ~01-137 -departed 9:35pm
A1 bertson truck ~01-!02
Albertson truck ~13-404-refer running
A1 bertson truck
employees park ~lk r:amary sedan on e ..... ..
side of building-noisy, loud.,
';'he dng= in neighborhc, c,O wr,Jch bark- for
'five to ten mi. nuT.?.~
~WiSS i_'~ ~ ~-.-' ~' '-' "- ;" "" ' '":-' t-Ltn J
...., ~ _, . ...... '~'C)'*o -- ~- n ...
,'q; Cei.'-'~.~cn 'Or'at'Ok at'rives - depar-t.~, 9:0'.5 p,T:
iot sweeper .arriv;~
io~ sweeper arr'iv~z.z
A!be'rtson {:rkiC'K ~: OJ.-J. iO arrives
A 1 bet~'--~ .... ..~_
receive de!i'./erie~ un'k.ii ~ ? .......
departs 1i:'42pm
called Richard ~=~,--,,'~','= riffice-spoke ,-'~th
i,:)p,T,-mhe -=;,~4 she wot.t!d c(z, mmulDic~'he with s. her-ifs:s
c:,ff'fice re: miziriTormatioF,--ge, ve list of
occurr-ences dur-ing Dec.-she will share with
A!comn and they ~-.~i!l respond with 'P,! De;- LEOF'~ .:-:
. =. .....n ~ . -538 arrives
ce, l~ed Alber= 's--spoke' '~=
in loading doc ............... ' ........... ==,c,::e ........
Albertson log - continued
6-6-96 Thurs
6-9-96 Sun
6-10-96 Mort
6-10-96 Mort
/--~o
?.':.~- 1 S-96 TL~es
6-29-..?,2, 'E:at
10: 24pro
J.O: 55 pm
8: 50 am
9 am
9 .:a.m
.S-..':,,.?-96 Sun 6:i,:, am
?-":'-::;'A Tues 6: 15 am
7 - 6- 9 6 S a 't.
6: 52 am
~q-,:-96 Sun 11: 10 PM
S-14-96 Wed. 6:00 am'
,_, lo-9o Fri 10:=5 piti
S-23--.9E. Fri 6:4-5 pm
8-27--96 Tums 3:0C~ pm
9-2-96 Mon 3:21 am
~-' 3-96
~ -- TLt e s
'9 - ~;; - '-.-.,' 6T L', 6.,S
9-.3-96 Tues
9 - .%-.'96 T u e s.
E:: J.L') am
E:: 4 5 a m
9-3-96 Tues ].1:3C:' am
.=--9,9_06 ~-,,~
9-3('~-96 Mon
6:45 am
6: 30 am
RECEIVED
JUN 2 $1997
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
lot sweeper ar:-i,,,es-called 'Albertsons-S,~ott _said
he would go tell them to leavec-
lot sweeper arrives-called Albertsons-spoke ~-~ith
Scott
I called Albertson-~poke with Mike-he eta'ted he
was busy & would call me back
called Nanc,/ Fong-messagm !e~t in voice mail
called Nancy Fong-message left in voice mail
Nancy Fon9 returned call-will set meeting with
Albertson rep and let me know time & date
Albertson truck arrives
Frito Lay truck arrives
Diet Cok~.~cuck actives
trash d~mp'ac.~or mbchine operating
employee parks'car on east side of building-radio
blasting-awakens neighbors dogs which bark
Dairy Fresh a truck arrives-driver has diff~ '~t')
in backing into loading lock-makes 3-4 attempts
before successful
lot sweeper arrives
t ra¢~" cornpat tot operating
trash compactor operating-called-spoke with Sc.__i
Rollins truck arrives
called Nancy Fong-message left on voice ,T',ail
lot sweeper arrives-called police-OfYicer O!ivas
called back & said the sweeper can be there
because that is the only time he can clean the
Iz, arking lot. I called dispatch again and
requested call from ~he sargent on duty to .........
him cite code that allows this activity
called Richard Alcorn-cited Code 17.02.120 E 4~6
(noise associated ~¢ith maint. over 55 (decibels)
called sheriff.s-lef~ message fc, r Watch Comma
ca. lied Nancy Fong-message left on voice mail
Sg~, AL~stin Fet. Lirned tail-stated they clo not hav~
the monitoring equipment necessary to determine
.l~ noise exceeds 55 decibels. He would speak
with Code Enforcement to determine best solut.'Lon
to situation
Sgt. A.tstin called again--he had spoken with I,Jar~,::'.?
in Code Enforcement & they will handle situation
and not the police-We should call with each
J. nfraction and they will respond
called Nancy Fong-she said she had been very bus':
& hadn't completed letter to Albertson yet but
would do so and forw'ard cop':,, to us & neJ. gi~bor.~
no positive response from letter then the
Planning Cornmiss.ion would be next step
lot sweeper arrives
lot sweeper arrives
Albertson Log - continued
9-3(:)-96 Mon
9-30-96 Mon
8: 20 a m
8: 50 am
10-3-96 Thurs
10-5-96 ~-4- 6::~5 am
1F!-6-96 Sun 6: ~.= am
~ ] ~- { '"" -- '~" '{' T u, e s ~i, ,~ '"] i'~ a m
RECEIVED
JUN 8 5 1997
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
called Richard Alcorn & informed him of arrival
times of the lot sweeper
called Nancy Fong-she stated letter was approx.
1/2 completed-will coordinate with Code
Enforcement & prepare remaining text
Nancy Fong called me at work-letter to Albertson
completed-will send copies to myself and
neighbors Davies and Brush
lot sweeper arrive-_=
lot sweeper arrives
Pepsi truck arrives