HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/07/23 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JULY 23, 1997 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Chairman Barker ~ Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Bethel ~ Commissioner Macias ~ Commissioner Tolstoy ~
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 25, 1997
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.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE~;$Mt~NT 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 mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued
...... from June 25, 1997.)
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
B. CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to consider initiation
of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add "Automobile
Service Station" as a conditionally permitted use in the Haven Avenue
Overlay District.
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
C. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS
D. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
E. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report)
F. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK
FORCE UPDATE (Oral report)
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 IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM
TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICA TION REVIEW 97-05 - LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT CO.
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on July 17, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 23, 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 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
BACKGROUND: The Initial Study for the above-referenced project was revised by staff to include
a traffic analysis of the impacts of increased traffic upon the "Citation Homes" development as a
result of the proposed subdivision. This traffic analysis constitutes new information and, therefore,
the Initial Study must be re-noticed. At its meeting of June 25, 1997, the Planning Commission
continued the application to allow time to notify the public and gather public comments on the
revised Initial Study.
..... Concem has been expressed by both the Commission and the residents of the "Citation Homes"
development regarding exiting the tract in case of an emergency. Staff has prepared the attached
Exhibit "A" showing all feasible points of exit from the tract.
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 accordance 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. A neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant and a separate neighborhood
workshop was conducted by City staff.
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
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Emergency Egress Map
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 25, 1997
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
I TEN A
I.OW
VICTORIA
HIGH "
BASIN
SCHOOL '
'VICTORIA STREET
Emergency Egress:
1. Catalpa Street intersection with East Avenue.
2. Brownstone Place dead end. Access to vacant land to south via tear down of existing
barricade.
3/4. Access to flood control channels/Victoria Basin maintenance roads which allow access to
Victoria Street to the south. Would require tear down or climb over of protective chain
link fencing for channels.
5. Mulberry Street intersection with Highland Avenue:
Prior to Route 30 construction (beginning February '97), Highland Avenue
remains open in east/west directions.
During Route 30 construction, Highland Avenue is replaced with emergency
vehicle access only.
After completion of Route 30 (2001 for this area), Highland will be re-opened to
normal traffic from Mulberry to East Avenue.
6. Existing emergency access to Highland Avenue via Starstone Place. Similar to item 5
above.
7/8. Whitestone Drive and Brownstone Place dead ends at church property. Access to
undeveloped/underdeveloped portions of church property is possible via tear down of
existing barricades. It is also the responsibility of the church to address access from
Whitestone Drive to Highland Avenue. This can only be deleted if approved by the City
Engineer.
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: ENVIRONMI~NT^I~ 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 Distdct (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
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 concems 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 eastedy 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.
J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 2
4. 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.
5. 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 preepare a traffic report. The
traffic report was not available as of the wdting of this report.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
TT15798-FRIEDMAN
June 25,1997
Page 3
9. Are flood problems adequately addressed?
Yes, flood problems are adequately addressed. Should the developer attempt to record the
final map pdor 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.
10. 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.
The Victoria Flood Control Basin and Eftwanda High School prohibits an access to the south .....
13. 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 Gaittans' 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'1-1' 15798 - FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 4
18. Provisions for emergency egress.
Fire Distdct 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:
1. When will Highland Av. enue 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 Distdct 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
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
June 25, 1997
Page 5
4. 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 side 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.
5. 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 Victoda 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 hedtage 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,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BL:taa
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 28, 1997
Exhibit "B" Letters from local residents
Exhibit "C" - Revised Initial Study
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 28, 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 TENTATIVI~ 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 Distdct (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 DI~$C;RIPTI(~N:
A. Proiect Density: 2.3 lots per acre
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
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)
West Single family homes (Tract 13063) and City drainage channel; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Low Residential
North - Very Low Residential
South - Flood Control
East - Low Residential
West - Flood Control and Low Residential
D. 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
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
May 28, 1997
Page 2
E. ADolicable Reoulations: 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:
A. G~neral: 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 pdmary 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.
B. Design 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.
C. Te(;:hnical and Gradin0 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.
D. Neighborhood Meetina: 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 dudng 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.
E. 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:
1. The site is subject to excessive future noise levels associated with the Route 30
Freeway. A noise study was conducted which recommended a 13.6-foot high sound
wall or combination ben"n/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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 Eftwanda 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 headng in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site 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
T'I' 15798- 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
VERY LOW ('1~2 DU'$/AC.)
PROPOSLC'D $1'AT£ HIGHWAY
EXIST.' S]INbLE ~
~ SITE UTILIZATION MAP
[-FIW~ND~ H~GH SCFJOOL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15798
lb ~ ' ~ ''~ ~ SUBDIVIDER
rI LEGAL DESCRIPTION
I ~ ,;9I~'~I BENCHMARK
~ GENERAL NOTES
~ ~ U ~ LOT SUWWARY
~ ~j~ .......
~ ~ '~ ,,~,.
~14 '
~ICAL SEC~ON - '4' ~RT AND 'E COURT ~PI~L
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
8:15 p.m. Brent Le Count May 6, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIV~ TRACT 15798 - FI~!EDMAN - 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.
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 channel 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 I-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 m~mmum 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 following 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_ Is~;ues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, 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 berm 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:
1. 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.
2. Revise Lot 6 to respect the 100-foot minimum lot depth.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
May 6, 1997
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee recommend approval
of the project with the above changes.
Design Review 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:
1. Where reasonable, 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. 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 Deparmaent
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: 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:
1. 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.
2. The traffic paRems 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 I 0-fold increase
in traffic for the Smokestone residents thus dividing and disrupting the physical
arrangements of the homes.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
1. 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:
1. 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:
1. The proposed tract would significanfiy 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 Eftwanda Spreading Grounds levee.
AIR QUALITY:
1. 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.
2. The proposal does not identify the impact the development will have on existing landfills
or sewers.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Extreme hazards will result once the construction of the Smokestone Bridge is complete as
it relates to pedestrian traffic, animals and children.
4. The Proposal does not adequately provide access to alternative modes of transportation by
providing Bus Turnouts, Bus Stops or Bicycle paths.
5. 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 propc, sal exposes people to flood risk and flood related hazards.
2. Exposes people to potential fire hazards due to surrounding topography, brush, grass and
txees.
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 cannot 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 freeway 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:
1. 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:
1. 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.
2. 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,
Scan Rogan
13495 Smokestone Street
May 28, 1997
Planning Division
City 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 si~ificant
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
Githa Kershaw
required Environmental Impact Report, the agency's action would be set aside because the
agency abused its discretion by fa'tling 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 primary 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 si~ificantly 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
of two 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, ira 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 were 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 si~ificant
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 Eftwanda 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)(l)).
I suggest that this planning Commission has been presented with a "fair argument" that the
proposed project may have a si~ifieant 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 w~l 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
Eftwanda, CA 91739
(909)899-4918
Petition
We the undersigned homeowners effected by the proposed tract 15798 are not satisfied with the Environmental
Assessment conducted by Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission finding Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts.
We periion for a hearing with the Planning Commission, CaI-Trans representalive and the City Council which will
fully disclose any and all plans to; a) make Smokestone a through ~eet 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 tiow 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 peWon 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 headng regarding this matter on May 28, 1997.
Name (signature) Address Phone Register Voter
(Yes or No)
Name (signature) ~uure~ r,,u,,~ ~,~gister Voter
(Yes or No)
2 · May 19, 1997 ·
State court says contracting by Caltrans is illegal
~ reme court's decision carries far-reaching implications for most state agencies
Private contractors working with Caltrans
lost out last week when California's Su- Caltrans Director James van Loben Sels reports
oreme Court ruled 5-2 that contracts for that no existing contracts are affected by the
millions o~ dollars in survey and design work
were issued illegally by the agency. The ruling, but that some $80 million in outside
decision specifically referred to Caltrans contracts that would have been issued in the
contracts, but observers say it carries far-
re~c~ing implications for private contracts next fiscal year are now shelved.
and outside consultants used by dozens
government agencies.
The suit took more than a decade to the state to pursue private contracts so result in the near future because Caltrans
re.~chthJsdecision. Caltrans'engineerschal- that road work and other time-sensitive, cannot possibly expand its staffing and
lenged the agency's contracts in an effort priority projects can be performed quickly. resources fast enough to keep pace with its
to protect their jobs. Loren McMaster, The engineers have already qualified a bal- schedule.
attorney for the engineers, said the Su- lot measure that would restrict such con- In the court's ruling, Justice Ming Chin
C:reme Court accepted her clients' point of tracts, so the next statewide ballot may wrote that Caltrans was "maintaining staff
v~cv, across the board. 'It doesn't get any contain competing measures. at an inadequate level to create an artificial
better than this,' she said following the Caltrans Director James van Loben Sels need for private contracting.' The decision
cz,~z's announcement of its decision. reports that no existing contracts are af- allows state agencies to use private con°
Covernor Wilson bemoaned the deci- fected by the ruling, but that some $80 tracts only in specific instances, including
s~cf;, saying it would surely delay road millioninoutsidecontractsthatw°uld have emergencies, staff shortages or situations
projects. He asked the Legislature to ap- been issued in the next fiscal year are now in which an agenc¥'s own civil service staff
proyea constitutionalamendment allowing shelved. He explained that delays will likely lacks necessary expertise.
California-Only CARB Diesel Prices
AVERAGE STATEWIDE RETAIL DIESEL PRICES
51.55 ..........................................................
.................
~ S1.~0
S1.35 -
, , , , , ~ , ~ ~~ o~
~~ ~ , ~ ~~m~ , , , m ' ' '
~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
sources: Depa~men~ of' Energy (DOE} & OJl Price Informs~on Se~ice
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15798
2. Related Files:
3. 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 Etiwanda 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
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
John Friedman
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 100
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 274-1204
5. General Plan Designation:
Low Residential
6. Zoning:
Etiwanda Specific Plan, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) District
7. 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.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, (909) 477-2750
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (~') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (~') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(~') Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (~') Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) 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 eadier 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.
Brent Le Count
Associate Planner
June 18, 1997
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 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.
~ ~ Significant
I I Impact Less
IP°tentialty I UnlessI ThanI I
Issues end Supporting Information Sources: Isignira"ant I M~t~getion ISignif~cant ~ No
! Impact Ilnc°rp°rated I impact I Impact I
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
I Significant
I Impact Less
,c~t,,,~/ I un~,~ l ~"~ I I
Issues end SuppoSing Information Sources: ~gnif'~.,anf I Mitigation Is~n~car" I No
Impa~t I Incorporated/Impact I Impact
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
I Signify. ant
I Impact Less
,o~,,.,~, I u.less I Than I I
Issues end Supporting Info. nation Sources: ;ignificant I Mitigation ITM I NO I
Impact I lncoq~'etedI ~mpactI ~mp~I
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in .......
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 4
I I Significant
I I Impact Less
IP°tentialty I Unless I Than I
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ISignify'ant I Mitigation ISignificant I No
I Imoact I Inc°re°rated I Impam I Impact
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
C~mments:
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.
I I Significant
L I Impac~ Lass
IP°tentiatly I Unless Then
limaact Ilncomorated I Impact I Imoact I
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (v') 0 ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 5
I I Slgnifmant
~ I Impact Less
IP°tentlelly I Unless I Than I
Issues and Supl:xxting Information Sources: ISignificant ! Mitigation ISignifmant J No
I Impact IlncorP~rated I ImPact I Im~:)act
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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
carded 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 pdor to final map approval.
I I
I I Impact Lass
IP°tantie~h/ I Unless Than I
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Isignificant I Mitigation ~ignif-mant I No
I Impact I Incorporated Impact I Impact
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 6
~ I Significant
J ~ Impam Less
IP°tentially I UnlessI T~,n I I
Issues and Supporting Info~'metion Sources: ISign~cant I Mitigation ~Sigrtificant I No I
I Impam ]lncorpo~lted I Impact I Impact I
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (v') ( ) 0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
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 tdps (existing plus that added by the project) would be between 1,528 to 2,080
average daily tdps 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 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 7
I ~ Significant
I I Impact Less
IP°tentially IU,~ass I Than J
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ITM I Mitigation ITM I No
I Impact Ilnc°q~°rated I Impact I ,rapact
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) () (v')
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (v') ()
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
b) The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant
windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows Eucalyptus windrows to be removed
subject to replacement. Project shall be conditioned to plant replacement
Eucalyptus windrows per the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements.
I I S~gnif~.Jnt
· I Impact Leas
I"°~ttn'[Y I Unless I ~.n I
Is~s and ~p~ing I~ation ~s: Is~n~ I Mit~i~ [Si~ifi~nt ] No
/ Imp~ I I~ated I Impa~ I Impam
8. ENERGY AND MINE~L RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy consewation
plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Use non-renewable msour~s 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 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 8
I I S~gnificant
I I Impact Less
IP°tentially I Unless I Than I I
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: IS~gnificant [ Mitigation ISignif~,ant
I Impact I lnc~)rporated ! Impact ! Impact I
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
brush, grass, or trees?
I Significant
I impact Less
otenfially I Unless I Titan
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~Significant I Mit~gatmn Isignill-'ant I No I
/Impact IIn~orporated I Impact ! Impact J
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (v') 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.
I I
I I tmp~ct Less
IP°tentiauy I Unless I Than
Issues and SuppoSing Information Sources: IS~gnifmant I Mitigation IS~nificant No
I Imoacl I lnco~=orated I Impact Im=act
11. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 9
~ ~ SignScant
I I Impact Lass
IP°tentially I U.le,s I Then I I
Issues end Supporting Infon'nat~on Sources: JS~gnifmant J Mitigation ISignificent I No
I Impact Jlnceqx)rat~KII Impact ! Impact
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
I I Significant
I I Impact Less
IP°tentially I Unless Than
Issues and Supportgig Informatio~ Sources: ITM I Mitigation iignificent No
I Impact I Incorporated Impact Impact
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (V') ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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
carded 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 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 1
~ Sign~f~_,ant
J Impact Less
:~otentially J Unless I Than I
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant I Mitigatmn IS~lnificant J No
I Imoact I tncorooeated I IreDact I Impact
13, AESTHETICS, Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v') 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.
I I Significant
I I Impact Less
IPcxe~hally I Unless I Than I
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: JSignificant I Mitigation ITM I NO
/ Impact ! Incorporated ! Impact ! Impact
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.'
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
I I Significant
I I Impact Less
IP°tenfia#y I Unless Tllan
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ,Significant, Miltgation Is~gnificant I No I
I Imoac~ I lncomorated I Imoact I Imoact I
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 11
I I Significant
J I Impact Less
IP°tentiallyI Unk,ss I Than I
ISSues and Supporting Inforlllation Sources: IS~ni~cant ! Mitigation ITM I No
! Impact Ilncoqooraled ! Impact I Impact
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) 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.) ( ) ( ) () (v')
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 12
~ (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(v') Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983)
(v') 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
temporary 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 barder 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 barder walls shall
match the appearance of the existing wall to the west along Highland Avenue
associated with Tract 13063.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15798 Page 13
APPUCANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the projec:t de~cl'il~e~l in this initial Stucly. I acimowledge that I
have read ~J,~ Initial Study and the proposed mitigation meuums. Further. I have revi~ed the
pmje~ plans ot proposal~ and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effete to: point where ~learly no significant environmental effects w~uld
occur,
_
997
city of aa .ho '
P.O. ~x 807 ,.:. .
R~ho Cu~n~ CA
RE: T~c I~ ~y~ T~v= T~No. 15798
of Hi~d Av~ ~ M~ L~; in ~ Ci~ of~ Cu~o~ (~ "City~)-
~ ~y
~o~e
~, ~g~ A~ will ~ ~o~ (~t m =~e~ vehial~) ~ ~ m 1~
is ~1~ ~ ~~Y ~ ~ 2~, ~ ~ch ~ ~e 6ght-of-~ for
m~n~t Hi~i~ Av~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~t Av~e. ~ ~ ~6on
co~n of~
For
~m ~ ~j~ m ~ A~ug ~ ~ ~a ~ $~ ~m B~o~ PI~= and
~moke~ne
~ ~ ~= t~ ~ ~ ~~ A~ b ~o~& since a~ the ~g~n; of
F...'~W1RO.~1ME~,~'a,Z- l~At.~l~ - $URYEYING · {X')NS"TR't,K:rlON MANM.~IF.N~ ~-, INSPE~.'TION
C~ of Rancho Cucamo~a
Page 2
Exis~g
The Cimion Tract con~l~ of 109 s~n~te ~ly ~si~ig d~lling ~its, ~1 of
~ mug ~ C~ S~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~o~, ~ a~fion m ~ Ci~on
· ~ am 6 ~is~g ~mes ~g M~ ~a ~ch e~t vh ~d A~. In
~nj~ wi~ ~c clos~ of ~I~ C~s ~II ~d Smoke~e S~
~7 ~ MuI~ ~ m pm~e ~s ~ ~e 6 ho~. ~~, uRer the
clos~ of H~h~ Av~ ~d ~~ of Smke~ S~ 11f ~g M~le
ff~y ~ ~ ~ve ~s m ~ Av~ only ~a B~ne PI~ ~d Cat~pa
S~ ~ ~jorlw of~ ho~ ~1 ac~ Bmwnst~ Pl~e via $mok~e
~ng Plus Projgt
I'~ Proje~ ~ll ~ 45 ~le ~ gsld~l dw~ ,mi~ ~o ~ 115 exbting
~its wMch ~11 l~ ~e~ m C~ 5~ dudag ~' ~o~g of I-~
Archue. ~ere~g 160 ~ ~1~ u~ (~s~ ~ ~je~) will ~ acc~e
C~pa S~t d~ ~ i~m p~d.
Trip
arete ~ly ~i~ p~ d~ ~ (~T/DU) for s~e f~ily mSi~nt~l
~ of T~s~~ ~ ~ ~il~ ~di~ ~ ~ie ~s of ~.~
ADT~U ~ ~y~ ~ I0,19 ~T/DU on S~ys.z ~ City of
C~~a S~t ~ Poli~ s~ a ~ of I~ ~T~U f~ ~lc
P~ ho~ ~c is ~ ~ ~~ of m~way ~ily, ~ I~tute of
T~c B~ ~ ~~ ~ of 0.76 ~ps ~r ~ell~ ~l f~ ~c A.M.
pc~ ~ ~ a r~al ~j~t, ~ 1.02 Ui~ p~ d~ ~ for ~ P.M.
ho~ ~e comp~ ~ ~es of 0,7~ ~ 1.00, ~vcly, su~ by ~ ~ of
Rancho Cuc~on~?
(~ plus Proi~') of ~s ~ acc~s ~ C~pa S~ ~ ~1
· 1,~28 lo 2,0~0 Av~alc D~ly
4 'rr~ Oenemti~. Pages 2~ ~d 265
05/15/~? 18 '97 12:25F~1 ¢tI'IERI.,.~J. EST CRPITRL ~B ~SSOC. P.4/5 ~Uu,~
CiLy of Rancho Cucamonga
6-17-97
Pag~ .I
· 120 to 122 A.M. Peak Hour Trips
· 160 to 163 P.M. Pcak Hour Trips
Capacity of Single Iramil~ Resldentisl Str=~,s
Th~ Eftwanda Specific Plan i~.nvironmcntal Impact Report (the "EIR") providad
an analysis of th~ cnvironmontal quality associated with varioos volumes of traffic on
re~idestiat stm~s. The ElK indicated t1~ in selecting a horne.. owners often salect a
location with a minimum mvount of tmi~. O~n, short cul de sacs with 6 w 10 homes
and traffLc vo|um~ of 100 to 200 ADT ar~ considor~d ideal. r~sa d~irable but livable
are the 1ov~cr typical subdivisLon co11~.tors with 1,000 to 1.500 ADT. Longer, r~latively
straight cnllecmr ,,;tr--et with 2,J00 Co 3,000 ADT would be considers[ less ideal As
volumes begin to approach 5,000 ADT, still It, wet buy~'s would deem it ~lc.
Furthr. r. mor¢, individuals livin8 on Such strc~ ot~cn pezctive much !~i~,her traffic volume,
amd hi~,her speeds ~,n aotual17 exist. Once a sweet b~hm to approach 6,000 Co 10,000
Sc~s on to recommend desi~ f~atures which avoid residential conccntratior~ where
traffic volum~ exceed 5,000 ADT?
The traffic __~cn~_~_,criog pro .f~.ic~., has co~ucr~.d other .studies or resid~tial
~. One sich study clessifi~ z~sidc~aI sizems iz~ me ~ollowin~ cateSofl~s:
· T,IOHT Streets 0 to 2,000 ADT
· MEDIUM Struts 2,000 to 10,000 ADT
· tt~AVY ~tre~-s 10.,0o0 to 2o,00o AD'f
· VERY HEAVY Streets Over 20,000 ADT
This stad~ ladlasted that most of the ~ep, aliva impa~t~ assoc. ialzd with hiilh~r
tra~ volumes t~oush t~sid~al anas ~ate to th~ p~rception an tl~ pan of adiacem
homsowne~ rather than ~ the d=st~n ¢apa~it'/of the stra~s. A Wpiaal residential str~
can aacormnodate tt-a~ valum~s well in ~x~$ of~.000 A.D.T.
Some of the k,~' p~n:ap6on$ which cam ags~ as a r~sult af incr~asirlg h~tvy 1;affi¢
volumes, include:
· p~.~iv~i traffic hazard~
· Noir, stras~ and pollution
· "N~i~10oring and visitinJ" discomfit
· Con,ms regarding privacy and hom~ Itrritory
o '~}~lll~ 19~!, Donski Appleyard
96.259/'rru..r. duc
City of Rancho Cmamonga
6-17-97 .......
Page 4
Miti~ting Factors
T!~ potential impacts a~[~ wi~ the ~$~on
clo~ of}I~d Av~ ~11 bo [imi~ ~or mifi~ by the follo~g ~ctors:
· ~]~ ~gng plm P~t ~c vol~s lowly ~ in~o lhe "li~t"
cation.
o Neg~fiw p~fi~ of~ts will be
of~c inco~en~.
In my opinion, the c~s~fion of~e ~j~, tog~r wi~ ~e t~~ clos~
~you ~ve ~y q~ ~~ ~ ~go~. pl~se ~el f~ to c~t me.
~ ~. W,bb
Pmr~n~
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.: Tentative Tract 15798 Public Review Period Closes: July 23, 1997
Project Name: Project Applicant: Jon Friedman
Project Location (also see attached map): Located west of the 1-15 Freeway and south of Highland
Avenue - APN: 227-071-32.
Project Description: 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.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related
documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic
Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review
period.
July 23, 1997
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 15798, A SUBDIVISION OF 45 LOTS ON 19.26 ACRES OF LAND
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, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-071-32
A. Recitals.
1. John Friedman has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 15798, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On May 28, and continued to June 25 and July 23, 1997, the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and
concluded said hearings on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearings on May 28, June 25, and July 23, 1997, including wdtten and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located west of the 1-15 Freeway and south of
Highland Avenue with a street frontage of 770 feet and lot depth of 1,000 feet and which is presently
vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and is the future Route 30
Freeway corridor, the property to the south is a flood control basin, the property to the east is vacant
and developed with a nursery and single family homes, and the property to the west is developed
with single family homes.
c. The proposed project is similar to the existing tract to the west and meets all of the
requirements of the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
any applicable specific plans; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
July 23, 1997
Page 2 .
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a mitigated Negative Declaration based
upon the findings as follows:
a. That the mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning
Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1) Where feasible, make corner lots (Lots 14, 15, 30, and 31) wider to
provide opportunities for greater setbacks from Mulberry Street.
2) Eliminate slope on west side of Lot 38 to avoid maintenance difficulty
and drainage to City flood control channel. Replace slope with retaining
wall.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'IT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
July 23, 1997
.. Page 3
3) Eliminate slope along south sides of Lots I through 6 to avoid
maintenance difficulty and drainage to County flood control basin.
4) Remove City flood control channel fencing shown on Grading Plan to
encroach upon Lot 7 and replace with perimeter wall.
5) Any wall or walls higher than 6 feet, but lower than 8 feet, shall require
approval of a Minor Exception prior to the issuance of building permits.
Walls higher than 8 feet require approval of a Variance prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Engineerinq Division
1) Smokestone Street shall be an extension of the existing street on the
west side of the drainage channel and joining the improvements to the
east. Development of the proposed project will be required to construct
the bridge and make this connection. Drainage channel fencing, with
gates, shall be constructed as well, joining the existing fencing along
the channel, as shown on City Improvement Drawing 1209-D, and the
proposed grading and perimeter walls of the tentative tract. The
alignment of Smokestone Street through the proposed tentative tract
shall be coordinated with Caltrans and their proposed right-of-way
acquisition and the construction of Smokestone Street easterly. All
shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2) Highland Avenue shall be constructed full width, as shown on the
tentative tract map, across the northerly boundary, joining, with proper
transitions, the existing pavement section to the west and the proposed
Mulberry Street improvements to the east. The street section shall
consist of 36 feet of pavement, 11-foot wide parkway on the south with
a 6-foot curb adjacent sidewalk, and a 3-foot wide parkway on the
north, for a total section width of 50 feet. Adequate barricades are
required for the dead-end portion of Highland Avenue easterly. The
existing drainage channel improvements, as shown on City
Improvement Drawing 1209-D shall be modified as needed in
conjunction with the improvements and the proposed grading and
perimeter walls of the tentative tract. The improvements shall be
coordinated with Caltrans Route 30 improvement; i.e., drainage, limits
of improvements, new right-of-way lines; all to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
However, if this development goes before Caltrans Route 30
improvements, a cash deposit in lieu of construction will be required;
temporary improvements constructed; and the existing Mulberry
Street/Highland Avenue connection upgraded, as determined by the
City Engineer and Caltrans.
3) Whitestone Place shall be constructed as a cul-de-sac. A reduced-
radius tumaround is allowed and constructed pursuant to City Standard
Plan 113, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15798- FRIEDMAN
July 23, 1997
Page 4
4) Four of the eight existing properties on the east side of Mulberry Street
have dedicated their half of the right-of-way (30 feet). The proposed
project developer shall contact the other four to see if they will also
dedicate 30 feet, so that development can construct Mulberry Street full
width; or, if Caltrans has obtained the 36 feet of right-of-way as shown
on the tentative map, then this project shall dedicate the remaining
right-of-way for a 30-foot half street and construct Mulberry Street full
width, with the exception of the easterly parkway improvements, which
will be deferred until construction or reconstruction of the adjacent
parcel. Otherwise, the proposed project developer will be required to
provide 40 feet (rather than 30 feet), minimum half street width plus 10
feet on-site.
5) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical,
except for the 66 kV electrical) along the entire frontage of Highland
Avenue (northerly portion of the tentative tract) and entire frontage of
Mulberry Street (easterly portion of the tentative tract) shall be
undergrounded from the first pole off-site, prior to public improvement
acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing
shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request
a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost
for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it
occurs on the opposite side of the Mulberry Street. If the developer
fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of
the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
6) The existing improvements for the drainage channel located along the
westerly boundary of the proposed tentative tract, as shown on City
Improvement Drawing 1209-D, shall be modified as needed in
conjunction with the proposed tentative tract improvements. This
includes the removal, relocation, and/or replacement of the existing
fencing and any grading/drainage improvements made necessary by
the proposed grading and perimeter walls for the tentative tract. City
Improvement Drawing 1209-D shall be revised pursuant to the above.
7) All public improvements, either adjacent or off-site, require plan
approval by the City Engineer and security to be posted with an
agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior
to final map approval.
8) Street names shall be applied for through the Planning Division and
shall be accepted and added to the final map prior to approval and
recordation thereof.
9) Wdtten verification shall be obtained from Caltrans regarding the right-
of-way for existing Highland Avenue and the proposed right-of-way
associated with the Route 30 Freeway, prior to approval of the final
map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
July 23, 1997
Page 5
Environmental Mitigation Measures
1) 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
criteda outlined in the City's "Drainage Report Requirements" handout.
The final report shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final
map approval.
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 temporary improvements constructed,
as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans.
3) 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.
4) 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.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15798 - FRIEDMAN
July 23, 1997
Page 6
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 23rd day of July 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: TENTATIVE TRACT 15798
SUBJECT: A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 45 LOTS ON 19.26 ACRES
APPLICANT: JOHN FRIEDMAN
LOCATION: WEST OF 1-15 FREEWAY AND SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT,
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits Completion Date
1. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Distdct for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However,
if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Distdct within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
2. Pdor to recordation of the final map or 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
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
SC - 5/97 ~j~,_~ l
Project No. T'~ 15798
Completion Date
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
2. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __/ /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
3. 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.
4. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the __/ /
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
5. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, ~1__1__
including proper illumination.
6. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
7. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / /__
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days pdor to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's
perimeter.
C, Landscaping
1. 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.
2. All pdvate slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 __/__/__
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater __/__/__
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously ~1__1 .......
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
Project No. TT 15798
Com~)letion Date
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development __/__/__
Code and/or the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included __/__/__
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
7. 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.
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /__/__
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
D. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project __/__/__
in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, vedfy the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
3. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of /__/__
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final 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.
E. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location __/__/__
of mail boxes. The final location of the mail boxes and the design shall be subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Project No, TT 15798
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
F. Site Development
1. 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.
2. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / /
pdor to issuance of building permits.
G. 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:
H. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, __/ /__
community flails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
90 total feet on Mulberry Street / /
* total feet on Highland Avenue __/__/__
* Modified street section, refer to Special Conditions.
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be delineated and dedicated per City Standards on the final
map.
4.Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for __/
approved openings: Hiahland Avenue.
5. All existing easements lying within future or proposed rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or I__1__
delineated on the final map.
Project No. TT 15798
Comoletion Date
Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped __/__/
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be /__/
constructed for all half-section streets. See Special Conditions associated with Mulberry Street.
3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: __/__/
Curb & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Highland Avenue ,/ ,/ ~' /' ~' e
Mulberry Street ,/' V' v' V' ~' e
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) Refer to the Special Conditions for other criteria associated with the street
improvements.
4. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights__/__/__
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __/__/__
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
, (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
SC - 5/97
Project No. TT 15798
Com=lefion Date
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __/__/
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / /
adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g.Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. __/__/
5. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in __/__/
accordance with the City's street tree program.
6. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
7. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: __/__/__
Smokestone Street. Mulberry Street. and Hi(~hland Avenue.
J. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District; and shall be delineated on the final maD: The frontage of Highland Avenue consisting
of the slope between the back of sidewalk and on-site perimeter sound wall. including the Wrap
around oortion of the slooe facing the drainage channel.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting __1__1~
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the __/__/__
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective __/__/__
Beautification Master Plan: LandscaDin(~ shall match in general concept the landscaDin(~
impr~)vements for Drooosed Route 30 bv Caltrans for the fronta(~e of Hi(~hland Avenue and rock
$¢epe for the slope at the channel.
K. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer. See ~pe~ial (;;onditions re(~arding Drainaae Study and FIRM Zone change below
Project No. TT 15798
Completion Date
2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone "D" designation removed __/ /
from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer. ~ Soecial Conditions.
4. A i~ermit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its __/__/__
right-of-way.
5. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
L. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, __/__/__
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the __/__ __
Cucamonga County Water Distdct (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCVVD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
M. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage
Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is
involved.
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or pdor 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:
N. General Fire Protection Conditions
1~ Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1.500 gallons per minute per 91 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b)
(Table).
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department /__/__
personnel prior to water plan approval.
SC - 5/97
Project No. TT 15798
ComDle~ion Date
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall__ / /__
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed __/ /
and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __/__/__
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
~' All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. __/__/__
V' Other: Per Ordinance No. 22. Provide north feast/west) access. / /
6. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. __/__/__
7. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $ 125 shall be paid:
/' 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.
8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, __/__/__
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WTTH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. 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.
P. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted __/__/~
from frame or track in any manner.
Q, Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __/__/__ .....
visibility.
& .
ssoclates
COMMEROAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
July 18, 1997
Mr. Charles Buquet
Charles Joseph Associates
10681 Foothill Blvd.
Suite 395
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Chuck:
Per our recent discussion, the following letter outlines the conversation we had
regarding the outlook for office space in the Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario trade area,
and why I believe that the placement of a high quality d_evelopment that is "anchored"
by a Fuel Service Station is a very logical use of the property which is located at the
southeast corner of Haven Avenue & Arrow Higway.
Please keep in mind that as I write this letter to you, I am very mindful of the fact that it
was the city's intention, when creating the Haven Overlay District, to treat this corridor
as the commercial "gem" of the community.
I also want to reiterate that I am a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, and one of the more
respected commercial brokers in this trade area.
Recently, I had the opportunity to do an analysis for a few property owners in this trade
area. We were trying to determine the likelihood of their property being developed for
office related uses. As a part of this analysis, I utilized the Black Guide, which is the
industry's leading source of office space inventory. I concluded that in the Rancho
Cucamonga/Ontario trade area, there is approximately 3,150,000 SF of existing office
space that is considered "A"/"B" product. Based upon my knowledge of Rancho
Cucamonga, I do not believe that they would desire having product that is below this
caliber on Haven Avenue.
If you assume that this building product obtains a 35% building ratio coverage (for
every acre of land, approximately 15,000 SF of building can be built), then the existing
building inventory would utilize approx. 9,000,000 SF of land (9,000,000 x .35:
3,150,000), or approx. 206 acres of land.
I then did a very quick analysis that showed that there is clearly well in excess of 400
acres of land that is currently intended for office development in this trade area. The
following lists some of the larger blocks of land and the approx. amount of acreage that
each encompasses:
3535 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario, California 91764 / 909/989-7771 / Fax 909/944-8250
General Dynamics Holdings: in excess of 150 acres
Ontario Centre Holdings: in excess of 200 acres
South of the 10 Freeway,
north of Airport Drive: in excess of 100 acres
SWC Foothill & Haven: approx. 30 acres
SVVC Haven & Arrow: approx. 40 acres
SWC Haven 8, 4th St.: approx. 20 acres
The above list is in no form or manner meant to be all encompassing, but is intended to
show that my 400 acre estimate is certainly on the lighter side.
The next question that needs to be asked regarding the probability of this land being
utilized for office development is what absorption has the market seen and what
absorption is it likely to see. As you are aware, office vacancy has held above 20% for
at least the past 5 years. It has shown very little sign of improvement during the past 2
years, although the industrial, housing, and retail markets have all shown substantial
improvements. It does not appear that there is a high likelihood that the office market is
going to triple in size during the next 20 - 30 years ( I utilize this time frame since this is
what I believe the General Plan attempts to use). The reality is that due to advances in
technology, companies just don't need as much office space as they once did.
Numerous companies realized that real estate had become a large portion of their
bottom lines, and they are now doing whatever is necessary to minimize these costs.
The other reality is that this area has hugh potential for industrial, housing and retail
development, but not nearly the potential for office development. The industrial
potential is high because of the proximity to all portions of the Pacific Southwest and its
outstanding transportation systems. Housing development will be high due to
inexpensive land and access to a broad spectrum of resources, and the potential for
retail is high due to the housing potential. Office development beyond that which serves
the immediate community requires a host of amenities that this area just does not
possess (remember I live here). The caliber of employee that utilizes office space
usually prefers more cultural amenities (theater, athletics events, museums, top level
universities, restaurants, etc.). This statement in no form or manner discounts the
tremendous opportunities that this area presents, it just does not provide the fertile
ground for a substantial expansion of the office inventory.
As a result, if the area wants to encourage high quality development along this corridor,
it is going to need to make sure that those parcels that are best suited for another use,
get utilized by development which does not include office space. Otherwise, there is a
high probability that a substantial amount of vacant land will remain on this corridor well
into the next century.
LAee IL .
ssoclates
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICE5
As a result, it is my firm belief that placing a high quality service station with ancillary
service/commercial businesses (ie. dry cleaner, travel agent, copy store, small
restaurants) would create a benefit to this area, while still accomplishing the goals of
the city. This parcel is only 2 acres in size. it affords outstanding access for the
proposed use, and has existing traffic coming to this intersection to support the
proposed development, without causing much additional traffic to this intersection as a
result of this development. As someone who drives this corridor every day, I, and I am
sure many others, would appreciate a venue where I can obtain the services that are
being proposed for this comer.
Although there is a Chevron station located at 7th & Jersey, this station is primarily a
car wash. It also does such strong business in such a confined area, that it is frequently
difficult to find a pump to utilize. This station does not provide a convenience store
which would be a benefit to area employees and residents who utilize this corridor to go
to and from work. Also, due to a lack of competition, it is able to charge prices which
are higher than what they otherwise might be with competition.
In summary, I do not believe that it is beneficial to hold the Haven/Arrow property off
the market for future office development, when the probability of office development
occuring on this site is not high. More importantly, I believe that a high quality service
station, along with ancillary uses that are within the existing zoning code, can be
developed on this site in such a manner that the result will encourage the "founding
father's" intentions of having Haven Avenue as a primary "showcase" for this
community.
Chuck, should you have further questions or comments, please give me a call.
Best Regards,
Lee & Associates Commercial
Real Estate Services
Brad Umansky
Senior Associate
909-989-7771 x120
LAee 8,
ssociates
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 23, 1997
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to consider initiation of text changes
to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add "Automobile Service Station" as a
conditionally permitted use in the Haven Avenue Overlay District.
ANALYSIS: The applicant desires to develop a gas station at the southeast corner of Haven
Avenue and'Arrow Highway on a 2-acre parcel previously approved for an office building. A
service station is classified as an "Automobile Service Station" by the Industrial Area Specific Plan
and defined as follows:
Automobile Service Station: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: the
sale from the premises of goods and the provision of service normally required in
the day-to-day operation of motor vehicles, including the principal sale of petroleum
products, the incidental sale of tires, batteries, replacement items, and lubricating
services, and the performance of minor repairs, such as tune-up, tire change, and
brake work.
Automobile Service Stations are currently a conditionally permitted use within 13 of the 18
Subareas (i.e., Subareas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18). The Haven Avenue
corridor, south of Foothill Boulevard, is the only major arterial in Rancho Cucamonga where gas
stations are not conditionally permitted (see Exhibit "B").
The Haven Avenue Overlay District was created in 1985 for the following purpose:
"Encourage long-range master planned development along the Haven Avenue
corridor which enhances Rancho Cucamonga's image by providing an intensive,
high-quality gateway into the City and by promoting a distinctive, attractive, and
pleasant office park atmosphere in a campus-like setting with high prestige identity."
Accordingly, the primary land use is office with limited commercial retail or service uses (see Exhibit
"C"). Service stations were not permitted based upon concerns that "corporate design" would not
be appropriate. In the ensuing years, Rancho Cucamonga has been successful in fostering
attractive service stations that reflect the uniqueness of our community. The existing station/car
wash at Haven Avenue and Jersey Street has been a good neighbor and received a Design Award
in 1987. Staff feels that the proposed automobile service station use is compatible and supportive
to the primary office function of the Haven Avenue corridor. Further, the Automobile Service
Station use is consistent with the General Plan goal to encourage a mix of different, but compatible,
land uses and activities.
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
July 23, 1997
Page 2
Recently the Planning Commission expressed concern with the appropriateness of a gas station
at Milliken Avenue and 4th Street because it is a major gateway into the community. The
Commission may consider some limitation for the location and spacing of automobile service
stations along the Haven Avenue corridor. Criteria may be developed which would discourage gas
stations at the corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street or Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.
Likewise, criteria could be established requiring a certain distance between stations if the
Commission is concerned with a proliferation of service stations along Haven Avenue. For
example, the Commission's adopted policy for drive-thru businesses requires they be located at
least 300 feet away from intersections and another drive-thru on the same side of the street.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate an Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment upon receipt of an application and fees.
Respectfully .submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" Haven Avenue Overlay District Map
Exhibit "C" - Haven Avenue Overlay District Land Uses
Charles Ioseph Associates
j FGF,
July 8, 1997 R E C E I V E D
JUL 0 8
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamorlga
P.O. Box 807 Plallning Divisiorl
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Request for Consideration of
Haven Overlay District Plan Amendment
Southeast Comer Haven/Arrow
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We have been working with City Planning staff with regard to planning and development
of a service station at the subject location. As part of this process, staff has determined
that it is now appropriate to request that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment
to the Haven Avenue Overlay District that will allow for the project development.
We are well aware of the importance of Haven Avenue as the major north/south street
serving the business district of the City. We are also most cognizant of the City's vision
and design standards for this business corridor. We would greatly appreciate the
opportunity to design and develop a high quality project that will serve to enhance the
business and industrial service needs for this area well into the future.
We look forward to working with you to accomplish what we believe will be the highest
and best use for this two-acre parcel. Your anticipated consideration of our request is
most appreciated. Should you have any questions or need of additional information,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Buquet
Charles Joseph Associates
CJB/sll
Office 909'481' 1822 800.240' 1822 Fax 909'481' 1824
City, Center' 10681 Foothill Blvd., Su~ ~' Rancho Cucamonga, CA' 91730
A
FIG. IV- 1
HAVEN AVENUE
OVERLAY DISTRICT
Urban Center .
CIRCULATION
~ 120'
m 100' R.O.W. ·
88' or less R.O.W.
2 6th; .... .:.,.::.::;!:-
RAIL SERVICE y
: : : ;; Existing ....
~-+-+++' Proposed ': ...... .~.
TRAILS/ROUTES __AT& IF
c o o o Pedestrian
· ··e Bicycle
.?-~ ~::~ Regional
~ Special Streetscape/ ............
~ Landscaping ...... ...:. ......"
0
' ~ Bridge
~ I ~?:...; ::..".: ..'.:]'" .::
Access Points
Fire Station
4O
Acres
o' 4oo' 800' ~r::,,o,d
B.2. Select ancillary research services,
commercial and business support service
uses shall not exceed 20% of the floor area
i n any Master P1 anned development.
Concentration of such uses in any building
or along the street frontage is not
permitted.
B.3. The following land use types are permitted
or conditionally permitted within the Haven
Avenue Overlay District. All other uses
shall be prohibited.
Permitted Uses Administrative and Office
Financial, Insurance & Real Estate
Services
Communication Services
Medical/Health Care Services
Professional/Design Services
Administrative Civic Services
Cultural
Business Supply Retail Sales & Services*
Business Support Services*
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Conditional Uses Convenience Sales & Services*
Entertainment
Food and Beverage Sales*
Fast Food Sales*
Hotel/Motel
Personal Services*
Recreation Facilities
Public Assembly
Public Safety & Utility Services
Religious Assembly
*Ancillary Uses Limited to 20% of the floor
area per B.2.
B.4. Fast food services are specifically
excluded as a primary use. This would
preclude the development of typical free
standing fast food restaurants, most of
which require drive-through facilities, in
the Overlay District. However, fast food
could be permitted as an ancillary or
secondary use, subject to a Conditional Use
Permit, as a part of a larger project,
provided, however, such use not be located
directly adjacent to Haven Avenue.
PLEASE REFERENCE YOUR PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET (ITEM J) DATED
JULY 9, 1997, FOR A COPY OF THIS STAFF
REPORT.
ITEM C