Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997/11/12 - Agenda Packet
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Roll Call WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Bethel Commissioner Macias__ Commissioner Tolstoy II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 7:00 PM III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 22, 1997 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. DESIGN REVIEW 97-20 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15531 - HARWOOD HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved residential subdivision of 30 lots on 10.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, between Mayberry Avenue and Morocco Street - APN: 1076-141-01 and 02 and 1076-131-01. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. Co Eo CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-11 - FINAL SCORE - A request to expand the existing bar and restaurant with entertainment by adding approximately 1,400 square feet of outdoor seating area, in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. Related file: Entertainment Permit 93-03. (Continued from October 8, 1997) ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 MODIFICATION - FINAL SCORE - A request to expand the days and hours of entertainment and add dancing for an existing bar and restaurant with outdoor seating area, in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-11. (Continued from October 8, 1997) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15074 - ESTATE OF JOHN LYNN PERDEW. MR. DENNIS PERDEW. EXECUTOR - A subdivision of 0.9 acres of land into two parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of La Vine Street and 280 feet east of Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-071-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15091 - CENTEX HOMES - A subdivision of 1.09 acres of land into three parcels in the Very Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of East Rancho Estates Place, west of Etiwanda Avenue - Lot B of Tract 12659-1. Related files: Tract 12659-1. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-03 - CASTILLO COMPANY. INC. - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance by adding regulations to allow for the identification of subtenants of a major or anchor tenant within shopping centers. Page 2 Vl. NEW BUSINESS APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 97-16 - RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding tree replacement for the removal of 10 trees at the Red Hill Country Club Golf Course, located at 8353 Red Hill Country Club Drive -APN: 207-011-49 and 207-101-03, 23, and 35. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS H. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral Report) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral Report) IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A MEETING IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICA TION REVIEW 97-02- LEGACY HOMES. I, Gai/ 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 November 6, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP · ':C':':.:.:-:.: ......... :':':':':-:.:.:.: .......'.',':':':.:..,.'.'..:.:.:.:.:-: ......':':-:':-:':':-:, · .......... :':-:'.CC-:-:-:: .......... .:.:.:.:.:..: ....... :.:.:.:.:.: ........... .I I::: :':';':':':':':':':':' · : : ::: : :':':':':':':' :::::: : :::: : : :: :':':':':':':':'::::: : : :: :: :': :':':':':':' :::::: : : :':':':':':':':':':' :: : : : : : :::::::::::::::::::::: : ::: ~ :':':':':':':':: ::: :l I :~:~:~:.:~:~:~:~:.:~..~.~:.:.:~:.:.:~:.:~:~:~:~:.....~.~:~:~:.:.:.:~:~:.:~:~:~:~:.:~:.:~:~:~:.:.:~:~.:.:~:.:.:.:~:.:.:.:~:.:~:.:.:~:~:~:~:.~:~:~:.:.~~:.:.:~:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:~..~.~:~:.:.:~:~:~:.:.:.:~:.:~:~:.:.:~:.:.~~...:~:.:~:~:~:.~.:~:.:.~:.:.:~:.~~:~: · ! ~,,. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::::: :':i:i.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :'~."~- t: :.:.:: · c~,~, I-'.':':.: .........:.:.:.:.:-:-'.':-:'::::'.'.-;~"~.:-'.'.'.-.':':-:.: ......:.. II ..... I I:::::::: :.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:. -: :'~ ~"" ,:'::::::::: :':':':':':':':':1 ~:':':':,~ · Hili~<l~ H~i~me I':':':':':':':':':::: :::::: :'~" I: :::: :': :'""':::::::: ::: e I::: ::~ · I:': ........... :':'":'""1 '"'"'"':'" ' ':' ':':':' '1 -' ' ' ' · I :: ::::::::::.: :: :i:i: :: ::: ::':':"'""~'~;'" CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF RF PORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 12, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW 97-20 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15531 - HARWOOD HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved residential subdivision of 30 lots on 10.6 acres of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, between Mayberry Avenue and Morocco Street- APN: 1076-141-01 and 02 and 1076-131-01. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A majority of the site currently exists as a cultivated citrus grove. The northernmost 230 feet of the site is the vacant right-of-way for the future Foothill Freeway. At the southwest comer of the site is the H.W. Minor house, which has been designated as a Point of Histodc Interest in conjunction with the subdivision. Just north of the Minor house is the Alta Loma Egg Ranch, which includes a small building used for retail sales. Numerous chicken coops exist north of this building. A windrow of mature eucalyptus trees exists in a north/south direction in the eastern boundary of the subdivision. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent. Residential neighborhoods with single family homes exist immediately adjacent to the site to the east and west. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 15531 was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1993. In conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Map, Resolution No. 93-25 was adopted, which contained conditions relative to the historic preservation of the H.W. Minor house as a Point of Historic Interest and commemoration of the Alta Loma Egg Ranch. Tree Removal Permit No. 92-20, a request to remove certain trees from the property, was also conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and conditions pertaining to their removal and replacement were established in the adopted Resolution. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to develop 29 new homes, leaving the historic H. W. Minor house on Lot No. 30 of the subdivision. All new homes within the project are proposed to be one-story to blend with the surrounding neighborhood, which primarily consists of single story homes. Two models will be offered, each with four exterior elevation styles, featuring accent material treatments, varied roofiines, and full porches on some front elevations. Plan One is 2,025 square feet and Plan Two is 2,260 square feet. Both models have three-car garages with a bonus room/two-car garage option available. Replacement eucalyptus trees ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-20 - HARWOOD HOMES November 12, 1997 Page 2 are proposed along the eastern edge of the site, between the back of the sidewalk and the corner side yard walls on the east side of Lots 6 and 16. The proposed landscape and wall treatments along the 19th Street frontage are consistent with the approved Master Plan for 19th Street and any applicable Conditions of Approval included in the Resolution of Approval for the subdivision. All side yard walls exposed to public view and return walls between houses are proposed to be stuccoed block with a decorative cap. Wood fences will be used in areas not exposed to public view. Design Review Committee: On September 30, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended revisions for further review of the Committee. The Committee (Bethel, Coleman) reviewed the revised plans at their October 14, 1997, meeting and recommended approval of the project with conditions, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Action Comments from both meetings have been attached for your convenience (Exhibit "F"). Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on two separate occasions, on September 30,and October 14, 1997. At their meeting on October 14, 1997, the Committee determined, with the recommended conditions of approval, that the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-20 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respec~ Brad Buller City Planner BB:SH:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Resolution Site Utilization Map Site/Grading Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Building Elevations Floor Plans Design Review Committee Action Comments dated September 30, 1997, and October 14, 1997 of Approval with Conditions :: PLAN ONE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY PLAN ONE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 147 E OLIVE~ AVENUE ~L (618) 358~5888 // PLAN ONE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 147 £ OLIVI~ AVI~NUE Montoya,, Calilom~a 91016 TEL (818) 35&5888 PLAN ONE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 147 E OLIV'~ AV]~b3UE Monrov~a, CalilromJa 91016 TEL (818} S58- 5868 %-, PLAN ONE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 1.17 E OLIVE TEL {818) 355-5888 6 /'/Cx PLAN ONE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY T~L (B18) 358-5888 ,/ PLAN TWO "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 147 E TEL (8.18) 358-5888 PLAN TWO "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 147 E OI.IV~ AVENT~ Morrovii, Calllorrdl 91016 10 F-I PLAN TWO "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY ~_' 147 E. O{~{V]~ AVENUE Monrovia, California 91016 Ir · ,~.!, I ~l I~' ' ~L (818) ~ ..... .:' .'t~' PLAN TWO "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 147 E. OLIVE AVENUE Monrovla, Callfor~a 91016 'r~L (81fl) 358-5888 12 PLAN TWO "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 13 OVERLAND COMPANY .~. t47 E OLIVF AVENUE Monrovl~, Cnlifomll~ 91016 TEL (818) ~ PLAN TWO "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 14 L~l~r EL.E~IOf~ DETACHED GARAGE FOR MINOR RESIDENCE (LOT 30) "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY X s,. Xs.) X X PLAN ONE 2025 5~are Feet // "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 OVERLAND COMPANY 1 PLAN TWO 2260 Square Feet // "RANCHO CUCAMONGA" TRACT 15531 8:20 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes September 30, 1997 DESIGN REVIEW 97-20 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15531-HARWOOD HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved residential subdivision of 30 lots on 10.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, between Mayberry Avenue and Morocco Street - APN: 1076-141-01 and 02, 1076-131-01. Background: This subdivision was originally approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 1993. A related Tree Removal Permit (92-20) was also approved on that date. Attached are copies of the conditions of approval relative to design that were adopted by Planning Commission Resolution 93-25. Design Parameters: The site is generally bounded by predominately one-story single family residential development in all directions. The northernmost 230 feet of the site is the vacant right-of-way for the future Foothill Freeway, which has been designated as a lettered lot on the Tentative Tract Map. The majority of the site consists of a cultivated citrus grove. The westernmost strip of the property includes the H.W. Minor House, a designated local point of historic interest, and the Alta Loma Egg Ranch, which includes a small building used for retail sales and numerous chicken coops north of the site. A windrow of mature Eucalyptus trees exists along the east property line. Portions are required to be preserved and some were approved for removal per Tree Removal Permit 92-20. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent. 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. Do the two one-story floor plans, with four elevation treatments each, provide adequate variety? Plan 2 offers a bonus room option instead of the third car garage; however, no elevations were provided. The side and rear elevations are essentially the same for all homes. Staff recommends a third floor plan. A summary of comparably-sized tracts recently under construction indicates them are typically 4 floor plans and 12 elevation treatments. Project Developer Total Total it Floor Total it Units Plans Elevations Tract 14410 Centex Homes 35 lots 4 12 Tract 15725 Lewis Homes 30 lots 4 12 Tract 15732 Lewis Homes 33 lots 3 9 Tract 15730 Diversified Pacific 28 lots 4 12 * All one story houses. The design of the 14-foot high freeway sound attenuation wall along the northerly tract boundary was required to be considered with this Design Review application (per condition of approval//5). No elevations have been provided for this wall treatment. The height of the wall may be substantially less due to redesign of the freeway grades. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-20 - HARWOOD HOMES September 30, 1997 Page 2 The trees shown to be preserved and removed are not consistent with Tree Removal Permit 92-20 (per Condition of Approval No. 7) as shown on the attached exhibit from the original staff report. Staff believes it is not possible to fulfill the condition of approval for tree preservation due to the location of certain trees and the approved grading cut as follows: Tree # (Lot #) Conflicts with Footprint? Conflicts with Grading? 1 (Lot 30) None None 6 (Lot 26) ~ None Yes 9 (Lot 16) Yes None 13 (Lot 15) Yes Yes 17 (Lot 5) Yes Yes 18 (Lot 5) None Yes 19 (Within Route 30 Fwy.) Not Applicable Not Applicable 20 (Lot 9) None Yes Staff recommends preservation of Tree No. 1, a Deodar Cedar located at the comer of 19th and Mayberry, and removal of the 19 other Eucalyptus trees. The Eucalyptus windrow is located along the west side of Morocco and could be replanted within the parkway and slopes of this street. Staff believes that the new garage for the H.W. Minor House complies with the condition of approval to "closely emulate the architecture" of the Minor House (per Condition of Approval No. 7.b.); however, the exterior materials are not identified on the plans. The Minor House, built in 1929, is a single story bungalow with a roof of several intersecting low gables with wide overhanging caves. The entire house was substantially altered in recent years and no longer retains its historic appearance. The house is encased with horizontal aluminum siding, including the porches. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Should additional architectural elements be provided to front elevations? Elements could include accent treatments such as brick veneer, river rock or other stone veneers, and clipped ends on the main gable. 2. Driveway taper should be curved instead of sharply angled (see attached example). o Should front porches, with a minimum depth of 6 feet, be designed as an integral element on some houses? The Planning Commission has been encouraging front porches. The H.W. Minor House on Lot 30 features a front porch under a low gable roof, with river rock rail and battered piers with concrete caps (still visible despite the enclosure of porch with siding and large aluminum framed windows). There are also side and rear porches on the Minor House. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-20 - HARWOOD HOMES September 30, 1997 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a full item for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the project return as a full item in two weeks, addressing the following issues: 1. Additional embellishment and variation in the proposed building elevations should be provided, as follows: a. Architectural accent treatments, such as brick veneer, fieldstone, native rock, etc., should be provided on the front elevations, wrapping around the side elevations to a logical termination point, such as return wall locations; b. A front porch, in the form of a covered roof overhang or overhead trellis, should be designed as an integral architectural element for the proposed houses; c. Some of the units should have clipped roof gable ends; d. The stucco over detail should be used around the perimeter of all windows that are not already recessed, attic vents, sliding glass doors, etc.; e. A greater number of color options should be explored; and f. A greater variety of garage doors should be used and the applicant should actively offer the bonus room in place of the third car garage option on both models. If these elements are added to the satisfaction of the Committee, then the staff raised issue regarding the need for a third house model can be waived. A more gradual driveway taper should be provided on all lots. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Hayes October 14, 1997 DESIGN REVIEW 97-20 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15531 - HARWOOD HOMES = The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved residentiaI subdivision of 30 lots on 10.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, between Mayberry Avenue and Morocco Street - APN: 1076-141-01 and 02, 1076-131-01. Background: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed this project at their September 30, 1997 meeting, and recommended that the project return as a full item for further review of the Committee. Staff has attached the Design Review Committee Action Comments from that meeting for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, revised plans reflecting the requested modifications had not yet been received. Staff will provide the Committee with an oral update at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the revised plans and if the modifications appear consistent with the previous direction of the Committee, then the project could be recommended for approval and forwarded to the Planning Commission. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project with conditions, as follows: 1. Accent treatments, such as cultured stone, rock and brick veneer, should be carried around on the side elevations to a greater extent, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2. Where the river cobble type stone is proposed to be used, native rock should be applied. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-20, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TENTATIVE TRACT 15531) OF 30 LOTS ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET, BETWEEN MAYBERRY AVENUE AND MOROCCO STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1076-141-01 AND 02, 1076-131-01. A. Recitals. 1. Harwood Homes has filed an application for Development Review 97-20, the Design Review of Tract No. 15531, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of November 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on November 12, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detdrnental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 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 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-20 - HARWOOD HOMES November 12, 1997 Page 2 Planning Division 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) All applicable conditions of approval from Resolution No. 93-25, the odginal Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 15531, shall apply to this project. 7) The final design of the required freeway sound attenuation wall along the northerly tract boundary shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits for the wall and constructed prior to occupancy of any units within the subdivision. A final noise study, referenced as a requirement to determine the ultimate required height of the sound attenuation wall, shall be provided for review and approval of the Planning Division pdor to the issuance of building permits for the residences within the subdivision. As an option to construction of the sound attenuation wall, an in-lieu fee to cover the cost of future construction of the sound attenuation wall shall be submitted to the City in an amount acceptable to the City Planner, City Engineer and CALTRANS, pdor to the issuance of any building permits for residences within the project. Tree Removal Permit No. 92-20, originally approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Tentative Tract 15531, shall be modified to include the following: a) All trees, with the exception of the Deodar Cedar on Lot 30 (originally labeled tree no. 1) may be removed as required to construct public street improvements and other on-site structures as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and Grading Plan. Replacement planting shall consist of 15-gallon size Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) spaced at a minimum of 8 feet on center along the west side of Morocco Street, properly staked and irrigated, outside of any easements. b) Tree no. 1 shall be preserved in-place per the recommendations of the consulting arborist's study. All protection and pruning measures shall be administered prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. A more gradual driveway taper shall be provided on all lots, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Accent treatments, such as cultured stone, rock and bdck veneer, shall be carried around the side elevations to a greater extent, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Native stone shall be used in areas where a river-type cobble is proposed. The final design of front porches or other overhead trellis elements in the front yard area shall be integrated with the architectural design of the houses and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-20 - HARWOOD HOMES November 12, 1997 Page 3 8) All return walls between houses and retaining walls exposed to public view shall be composed of a decorative block material or extedor finish and cap treatment, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9) The drainage on Lot 6 shall be redirected to the southeast comer of the lot, as to not have to cross Lot 15 to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10) The final design of the retaining walls, the type of vines used in conjunction with the retaining walls and the location size and species of Eucalyptus trees used in the proposed replacement windrow along the east sides of Lots 6, 15, 16, and 25 shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, pdor to the issuance of precise grading permits for the project. Fngineedng Division 1) All applicable Conditions of Approval from Resolution No. 93-25, the odginal Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 15531, shall apply to this project. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 97-20 (Design Review for Tentative Tract 15531 ) 30 Lot Subdivision Harwood Homes North side of 19th Street, between Morocco Street and Mayberry 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 ComDletion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/ /__ issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Prior 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 distdct 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, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __1__1__ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. SC - 6/97 Project No. DR 97-20 Completion D~te 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. / / o If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. / / All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. / / 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 concems, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 10. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the projec('s perimeter. 11. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two %-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. / / 12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / / / / / / / / / / 13. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 14. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 15. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall b real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. / / SC - 6/97 Project No. DR 97-20 Completion Date Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits or pdor final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and tdmming methods. / / All private 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. 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 pdor to occupancy. / / For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. / / The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. / / Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along 19th Street. / / All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. / / Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. / / Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wdtten 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. / / SC - 6/97 3 Project No. DR 97-20 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. GOmDletion Date F. Other Agencies / / The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. / / Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. / / Existing Structures Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. / / Grading 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. / / 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. / / SC - 6197 4 Project No. ~PLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, r-OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior. to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 7. Plan check fees in the amount of $125.00 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 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 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Security Hardware 1. 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. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. L. 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. DR 97-20 Comr~letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 Me Project No. DR 97-20 Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Coml~latlon Date /, / SC - 6/97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 12, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-11 - FINAL SCORE - A request to expand the existing bar and restaurant with entertainment by adding approximately 1,400 square feet of outdoor seating area, in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. (Continued from October 8, 1997) ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 MODIFICATION - FINAL SCORE - A request to expand the days and hours of entertainment and add dancing for an existing bar and restaurant with outdoor seating area, in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. (Continued from October 8, 1997) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the above items to this hearing date at the request of the applicant to allow time for acoustical testing and preparation of landscape and irrigation plans. At the wdting of this report, staff had not received any additional information from the applicant. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS: Site Characteristics: The site is at the junction of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. It contains the Final Score building, several structures such as carports and garages, and an office for an auto repair shop. The existing improvements are non-conforming because the ultimate public improvements are missing and the on-site improvements, setbacks, percentage of on-site landscaping, and parking are not up to current standards. Surrounding Land Use: West of the site is zoned commercial and planned for a mixed use development of retail and office uses in the front with a mini-storage facility in the back. North of the site is the Sycamore Inn and zoned for Commercial uses. South of the site is a railroad track which is no longer in use. Beyond the south side of the railroad tracks are townhouses and single family homes. C. Parking Calculations: Number of Numberof Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Final Score 2,239 1/100 22 Patio Seating 1,400 1/100 14 Auto Repair 3 bays 2/bay _~6 42 42 ITEMS B ~ C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-11 & MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS: Background: On February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission conditionally approved an Entertainment Permit for Final Score after conducting several public headngs between 1994 and 1996. In granting the approval, the Commission imposed conditions and mitigations that address the nuisance problems identified by the adjacent residents. One of the conditions of approval requires the applicant to complete the mitigations before offering entertainment. To date, the applicant has not completed all of them and, therefore, has not commenced the approved use. On March 17, 1997, the applicant submitted two applications requesting expansion of the bar use and intensification of the entertainment use. Exhibit "F" is a chronology of the applications and the site. Exhibit "G" is a copy of Resolution No. 96-05, which shows the conditions of approval and mitigations for the original permit. Section C below summarizes the applicant's effort in complying with conditions of approval and mitigation. B. Proposed Applications: Conditional Use Permit: Under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, a restaurant with bar will require a Conditional Use Permit. Final Score, having been a bar and restaurant before the City's incorporation and adoption of the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, is "grandfathered." The outdoor patio area for the serving of food and non-alcoholic drinks is considered ancillary to the restaurant and is permitted. Because the applicant requests the serving of alcohol within the outdoor patio area, it is considered an expansion of the bar use, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. Modification to Entertainment Permit: The types of entertainment approved was limited to live bands and disc jockeys. The days and hours of entertainment approved were limited to between 8 p.m. and 12 midnight, Fdday and Saturday and 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Sunday. The applicant requests expanding the approval by adding dancing, offedng entertainment seven nights a week between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m., and serving alcohol in the outdoor patio area, This expansion requires a modification to the Entertainment Permit. Status of Compliance with Conditions of Approval and Mitigation: In response to a condition of approval of the odginal permit, the applicant submitted a Minor Development Review (MDR 97-01) application in March of 1997, indicating the completed improvements to date and the ones that need to be completed. The items that the applicant has completed are: posted "restricted parking" signs to the rows of parking spaces west and south of the building, moved four satellite dishes to be ground mounted, moved the unscreened trash bin to behind the existing office building, and resurfaced and restriped the parking lots. He also received approval for the addition of a vestibule, but he did not obtain a building permit. The outstanding items that need to be completed are: submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans for review and approval; install the landscaping; obtain building permits and construct the fencing and vestibule; install the fencing along the property boundary; and request inspection from Building and Safety's Fire Prevention Unit to verify the interior noise control measures have been installed satisfactorily. The applicant is working toward compliance. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-11 & MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 3 Compatibility of the Proposed Uses and Neighborhood Concems: As mentioned in the beginning of this report, the applicant requests approval to serve alcohol outside on the patio and to intensify the entertainment uses. The issue staff raises is whether the intensification of the bar and entertainment uses would be compatible to the surrounding uses, especially the residential area south of the site. To date, staff has received three letters from property owners of the adjacent condominium complex as shown in Exhibit "1," who oppose the proposed uses. Expansion of the outdoor patio area to include the serving of alcohol. At the 1996 headng, and in addressing the neighborhood concerns of loud noise and disturbances, the Commission imposed a 9 p.m. restriction for serving food and non-alcoholic ddnks in the outdoor patio. Allowing the serving of alcohol in the outdoor patio until 1 a.m. may increase the opportunities for these types of nuisance problems. The increase in nuisance problems may not affect the adjacent commercial uses, but will negatively impact the adjacent residents. Staff does not recommend allowing the serving of alcohol in the outdoor patio in this case because of the site's proximity to residential areas and because the nuisance problems such as loud noise, disturbances, and loud music spilling out from the building cannot be mitigated. The applicant can continue to serve food and non-alcoholic ddnks until 9 p.m. as stated in Resolution No. 96-05. 2. Adding dancing and offering entertainment nightly between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. The applicant stated that he has cleaned up his business. He stated he has installed the interior noise control measures and they worked in reducing the loud music and noise. He has offered one night entertainment on special events or holidays such as super bowl Sunday, New Year's Eve, etc., through Temporary Use Permits in 1995 and 1996. He has been very conscientious in making sure that the special one night entertainment would not impact the adjacent residents. He stated that the City has not received complaints from the residents. These are the reasons he requests intensifying the uses. A review of our records confirmed that he had received approval for temporary entertainment once in 1995 and five times in 1996. The applicant did not apply for temporary entertainment in 1997. A review of the City's Code Enforcement records also showed that no complaints have been received. In the review of the original permit, the Commission agreed with the results of the Noise Study, which showed that control measures done to the building interior can effectively reduce loud music and noise to an insignificant level. The Commission also found that limiting the intensity of the entertainment together with requiring security personnel inside and outside the building, and requiring buffering would prevent the unwanted activities in the parking lot. The Commission determined that if the interior and exterior control measures were in place, then the nuisance problems should be minimized. Unfortunately, the applicant has not completed all the control measures so that he could begin his entertainment. Without the entertainment in operation, staff cannot assess how successful the interior and exterior control measures are under a continuous period of six months or more. Public Safety Concerns: A concern with any entertainment use is the potential for an increase in the need for fire and police resources. Records from Police Department showed the total number of service calls to be 11 in 1997, 18 in 1996, 14 each in both 1995 and 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-11 & MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 4 However, a representative of the Police Department cautioned that they would expect an increase in service calls with the adding of entertainment. Exhibit "J" shows the types of service calls for 1994 through 1997. According to the Fire Department, the maximum number of occupants allowed in the bar, restaurant, and dancing areas is 44 and the area designated for pool tables is 12. If the number of occupants exceeds the above maximum, then the applicant shall obtain a separate permit and approval from the Fire Department. Also, a representative of the Fire Department stated that the bamboo fences affixed to the wrought iron fence around the outdoor patio are a fire hazard and need to be removed. This item was added as a condition of approval. Fo Parking: Under Ordinance No. 58, the applicant is required to dedicate, as an irrevocable offer, Foothill Boulevard street frontage for ultimate public improvement. The future improvement would eliminate the entire row of parking spaces along the street frontage. Staff has prepared Exhibit "H" that shows a concept of redesigning the parking area to achieve the required 42 spaces. Staff has placed a condition of approval that requires City Planner review for any changes to the parking lot. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff believes if the interior and exterior control measures as listed in Exhibit "G" - Resolution 96-05 are in place, they should work in minimizing nuisance problems. However staff believes that allowing the serving of alcohol in the outdoor patio area and expanding the hours of serving food and alcoholic drinks to 1 a.m. would increase the opportunities for nuisance problems. Disturbances, loud noise, and loud music spilling out from opening doore of the building could not be mitigated and would have a negative impact on the adjacent residents. FACTS FOR FINDING: The Commission must make all of the following findings to approve the two applications. A. Conditional Use Permit: That the proposed use in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provision of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. B. Entertainment Permit: That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-11 & MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 5 That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offenses involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol, of the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years. 4. That the granting of the application would not create a public nuisance. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhoods. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 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, for both the October 8, and November 12, 1997, hearings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adding dancing, expanding the entertainment to Thursday, and expanding the hours of entertainment from 12 midnight to 1 a.m. from Thursday through Saturday but maintaining 10 p.m. for Sunday. Staff recommends a six-month review after the entertainment has commenced. Staff recommends denial of the serving of alcohol in the outdoor patio area because of its proximity to the adjacent residences. City Planner BB:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Location and Site Utilization Maps Site Plan Floor Plan Outdoor Patio Elevation of Vestibule Chronology of the applications and site Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-05 Concept of Parking Area Three Letters from Residents Exhibit "J" 1994 to 1997 Police Service Calls Resolution of Denial for CUP 97-11 Resolution of Approval for EP 93-03 Modification ---$AN-E)ERNARDINO ROAD ® @ 183AC 1.3g AC Par. Trc~ct No. 9518, M. 8. 134/35-37 Rancho. Gucamonga Cily Tax Rote. Area 15009- 15012 fi~- -~ = _ ~ -~ ~oz-57 12 CITY OF RANCI'IO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION :TEM: EXI lIBIT: · 'SCALE: Bear Gulch Pro I tland portable f~re exttngutsher~ are required [o be Installed ~o'occupancy. 'Contact the Fire ~afety control Oivislot~ the latter %tages of construction to determine the exact 0 ~ ?:L4N .NtI'~G--. DM$ION TIn. E: ~:l~r EXHIBIT: SCALE: ~~--..~ Grayson Halle Architect .~. =~_..~.;. Architecture & Planning .._~'.L.OQI~ I"~AN NOTES; ALL. STUDS ~ ~ ~1 ' S~S STUD ~A~ ~ ~. ' JOZ6TS MD ~T~ ; ~]~T~ T]~ ~ ~ 2~ Vd ~Z~ CERTZF]~TE TO ~CT Date 8/24/93 9/20193 9/21/93 3/17/94 3/20/94 4/4/94 5/11/94 6/7/94 6/13/94 7/18 to 7/25 7/27/94 8/29/94 9/12/94 9/19/94 5/4/95 5/16/95 CHRONOLOGY FOR FINAL SCORE 1993- 1994 (EP 93-03 AND CUP 93-39) Status The applicant, Gary Rousa, submitted the two applications. Staff sent a notice of incompleteness to him. Staff met with Gary and went over the incompleteness comments with him item by item. Staff suggested to him that he should hire a professional to prepare the development plans. Staff received a progress print from the applicant. Applicant resubmitted plans for the two applications. Staff sent a notice of incompleteness to the applicant. Staff informed the applicant that he could proceed with the EP application if the detailed site plan and floor plan were provided. Applicant submitted a site plan and a floor plan. Staff scheduled the EP 93-03 for the July 27, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Over 10 letters objecting to the EP were received. Also, petitions objecting to the EP from the residents who lived at the southerly condo complex were received. Planning Commission tabled the item and directed the applicant to submit an acoustical study to determine the noise level generated by the proposed entertainment and the necessary mitigation. Staff sent a letter to the applicant verifying that he preferred the option where the City selects and hires a registered Acoustical Engineer to prepare the study at his expense. Staff obtained two verbal estimates (Gordon Bricken & Associates and J.J. Van Houten & Associates) - $3,000 to $5,000. Verbally informed the applicant about the cost of the study. He stated that was way beyond his budget. Applicant provided a consultant's name (George E. Leighton) who could do a noise study for a cost of $300 to $400. Staff sent a letter to three consultants inviting them to submit a proposal for a noise study: Gorden Bricken & Associates, J.J. Van Houten & Associates, and George E. Leighton (Applicant's suggested consultant) EXHIBIT "F" Date 5/30/95 5/31/95 6/5/95 6/12/95 7/10/95 7/18/95 8/8, 8/10&8/17 8/21/95 9/11/95 10/9/95 10/16/95 EXHIBIT "F" CHRONOLOGY FOR FINAL SCORE 1993- 1994 (EP 93-03 AND CUP 93-39) - 2 - Status Staff received proposals from all three consultants. The cost ranged from a high of $7,700, to $3,200 to a low of $800. Staff notified the applicant that once a consultant is selected he must submit the money to the City before staff would give notice to the consultant to begin work. George E. Leighton submitted supplemental information to clarify his scope of work. Staff informed the applicant and George E. Leighton that the latter was selected as the consultant to do the noise study. Staff also informed the applicant that he must submit $800 before staff would authorize the consultant to begin work. Staff received $800 from the applicant. Staff notified the consultant to begin work with a 30-day deadline. Staff called and left a message for the consultant to find out the status of the noise study. Staff called and connected with the consultant. He stated he would be doing the report the next week. When staff questioned him on the delay,.he stated that it was due to the relocation of his office which affected his productivity. Staff reminded him that he needed to let staff know when he could perform the work because staff had to make the proper arrangement for him to be on the site or at the site of the adjacent townhouse complex. He stated it would be most likely the next Thursday and he would call to confirm the date. Staff did not receive the confirmation date. Staff received a preliminary report from the consultant. Staff notified the consultant that his report was incomplete and inadequate. Staff also found that the applicant had been doing improvements to the intedor of the building according to the recommendations of the consultant, ahead of the procedures and without authorization from the City. Staff met with the consultant to discuss the noise study. Staff told him that the proper procedures were as follows: the consultant to submit a completed noise study identifying the existing building construction, the projected noise level with the entertainment on, and the noise-control measures to reduce the noise to an insignificant level; staff to review the completeness and adequacy of the study and determine which noise-control measures require building permits; and, only after the approval of the Entertainment Permit (EP) could the applicant process plan check for those noise-control measures that require building permits and begin construction. / Date 11/2/95 11/13~95 11/20/95 1/10/96 1/24/96 2/14/96 3/18/97 4/21/97 8/19/97 9/18/97 10/8/97 CHRONOLOGY FOR FINAL SCORE 1993- 1994 (EP 93-03 AND CUP 93-39) - 3 Status Staff met with the consultant and the applicant. At this meeting, staff emphasized to both that the applicant chose to do the improvements on his own. This could result in the following risks: the approval of the EP is not guaranteed and/or the work done is not according to City codes. The consultant agreed to revise the preliminary study to address the identified deficiencies and submit a final noise study. Final noise study received. Staff determined the study to be complete and adequate. Because of a need to re-advertise the EP for a public hearing and the next available Commission meeting being close to the holiday season, staff, with the consent of the applicant, scheduled the hearing for the meeting on January 10, 1996. On December 20, 1995, staff received a continuance request from the applicant because of a time conflict. On January 10, the Commission continued the item to January 24 meeting at the applicant's request. The Commission held the public hearing, received public testimony from residents, and deliberated on the compatibility issue. Because of a lack of majority votes to approve or deny, the Commission continued to the February 14, 1996 meeting. The Commission approved, with conditions, Entertainment Permit 93-03. Applicant submitted three applications: MDR 97-01 to comply with a condition of approval under EP 93-03, Modification to EP 93-03 for expansion of his entertainment use, and CUP 97-11 for expansion of the outdoor patio and bar use. Letter to applicant informing him of the incomplete status of his applications. Revised plans submitted. The revised plans did not address several technical issues Staff met with applicant and gave him a list to assist him in completing the application. Staff scheduled his applications for the hearing on October 8, 1997. Applicant requested a continuance to November 12 meeting. He said he would like more time to complete interior noise testing and to hire a landscape architect to prepare the landscape and irrigation plans. EXHIBIT "F" RESOLUTION NO. 96-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 93-03, A REQUEST TO CONDUCT ENTERTAINMENT CONSISTING OF LIVE BANDS, DISC JOCKEYS, AND DANCING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND BAR IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 1) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8411 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-571-75. A. Recitals. 1. Garry Rousa of the Final Score has filed an application for the issuance of Entertainment Permit No. 93-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of July, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date, and took no action pending the submittal of a Noise Study from the applicant. The Commission directed staff to advertise said application for a new public hearing once the Noise Study information was submitted and ready for their review. 3. On January 10 and continued to January 24, and February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 24, and February 14, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 545.21 feet and lot depth of 150 feet and is presently improved with several buildings and structures; and b. The property to the north contains a restaurant, the properties to the south contain an inactive railroad track and single family homes and townhouses, the property to the west is vacant; and c. The applicant proposes to offer entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockeys, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, from Thursday through Sunday, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 12 midnight; a;'~d 'l PLANNING COMMISSIO,, r~ESOLUTION NO. 96-05 EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE February 14, 1996 Page 2 d. Adjacent residents on the south side of the site have submitted a petition objecting to the granting of the Entertainment Permit because of the nuisance problems of loud music, loud noise, and other related disturbances; and e. To address the nuisance problems, a Noise Study was done to assess the noise impact and determine the noise control measures. The applicant has sound proofed and/or agreed to sound proof the building in accordance with the noise-control measures listed in the Noise Study. The noise-control measures are added as conditions of approval contained in this resolution. f. Additional control measures are added as conditions of approval contained in this resolution to alleviate and minimize other nuisance problems such as noise and disturbances from the loitering activities within the parking lot and/or the railroad embankment. These control measures included providing fencing along the property line that abuts the railroad tracks, providing security personnel inside and outside the facility, limiting the days and hours of entertainment, etc. g. With all the control measures in place, the potential nuisance problems can be minimized to an acceptable level. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. c. That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years. d. That the granting of the application would not create a public nuisance. e. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood. f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the application identified in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereafter, pursuant to Section 15061 b-3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forlh ',below. PLANNING COMMISSlC EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE February 14, 1996 Page 3 ~,ESOLUTION NO. 96-05 Planning Division 1) Approval is granted for the following entertainment uses: 2) a) live bands; b) disc jockeys; and Any expansion of entertainment shall require modification to this permit. The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited to between 8 p.m. and 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday and 3 p.m. to 10 p.m., Sunday. Any expansion of days and hours shall require modification to this permit. 3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted. 4) A minimum of one duly licensed, certified or trained, and regularly employed security guard from a reputable secudty firm shall be required to be on the premises from 8 p.m. until two hours after the conclusion of any entertainment. One of the guards shall be in "peace officer" attire and shall remain on duty in the parking area and outside adjacent areas of the facility to avert problems such as loud noise, disorderly conduct from patrons or anyone in the parking lot, loitering activities, and any other nuisances or disturbances. 5) All noise control measures contained in the Final Noise Study and as listed below shall be completed: a) Add acoustic door seals to all exit doors. b) Add interior ceiling with R-11 insulation over the pool room. c) Isolate speakers from the structure. d) Remove the two speakers from the roof ceiling and hang only one speaker down from the roof ceiling. e) Upgrade the interior windows. Detailed plans and/or specifications shall be submitted within 60 days for City Planner and Building Official review and approval, and the building inspected for compliance prior to commencement of entertainment use. 6) Decorative fencing together with dense landscaping of shrubs and trees along the property line that abuts the railroad tracks shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted within 60 days for City Planner review and approval. The fence and the landscape shall be completed and inspected to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to commencement of entertainment use. 7) The row of parking immediately located southwest of the building (parking spaces numbered 1 through 9 and 35 through 41) shall not be PLANNING COMMISSIC. EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE February 14, 1996 Page 4 .~,ESOLUTION NO. 96-05 used by the patrons of the Final Score between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. RESTRICTED PARKING signs shall be posted prior to commencement of entertainment use. 8) Serving of food and non-alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area shall cease on and after 9 p.m. The serving of alcoholic drinks is not allowed at any time in the outdoor patio area. 9) All parking and outdoor seating areas shall have a minimum maintained one-foot candle power security lighting. All parking lot light fixtures shall not exceed 15 feet as measured from the finished sur[ace to the top of the light fixture. The light fixtures shall have shields for reducing the glare and shall be odented away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted within 60 days and the lighting installed prior to commencement of entertainment use. 10) No new trash enclosure is required at this time; however, the City Planner may require a trash enclosure, per City Standards, to be provided and completed within 60 days of said notice if the City Planner finds that the trash container is left in public view. 11) Detailed plans to show the completed improvements to date and required new improvements or upgrades such as, but are not limited to, the outdoor patio area, the parking lot, the satellite dishes, the trash enclosure, etc., shall be submitted as a Minor Development Review application within 60 days for City Planner review and approval prior to commencement of entertainment use. 12) All doors and windows shall remain closed after 7 p.m. or during live entertainment except in the case of emergency. 13) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division. 14) The building shall comply with all requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Plans shall be submitted for the Fire Distdct's review and approval within 60 days. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to the commencement of the entertainment use. 15) The building shall comply with all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Plans shall be submitted for the Building Official's review and approval within 60 days. The building and the site shall be inspected for compliance prior to commencement of entertainment use. 16) If the operation of the business creates public safety problems such as but not limited to: loitering and disturbances, noise, overcrowding, blocked fire exits, etc., this entertainment permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration of modification and/or revocation. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval and applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension and/or revocation of the Entertainment Permit by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIO., RESOLUTION NO. 96-05 EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE February 14, 1996 Page 5 Provide a vestibule at the main entrance of the building for sound attenuation. Detailed plans shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The vestibule shall be completed prior to commencement of entertainment use. 18) All conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to commencement of the entertainment use. Engineering Division 1) The issuance of a building permit for the trash enclosure and the parking lot lighting will require an irrevocable offer of dedication for the Foothill Boulevard frontage which will total 64 feet from the street centerline to the property line in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 12.08. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1996. P ISSION OF THE CIT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA B Br I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LUMPP, HEI.CHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, PENIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE the latter :tngeg of construction to determitre the e~,~ct Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1991 cM¥ of Raficho Cucamofiga Planning Division Dear Commission members; It seems to me that a similar request by the Final Score tavern was made in the past year. I cannot understand why it is possible this same organization is permired to continue to take up our and your time to persue this mater. There are many reasons why I feel that the request should be denied: l.The business backs up against a residential complex and very likely will result in a in the value of these houses. 2. The noise developed by the entertainmere aspect of this operation and the extended will detremental to the rearing of the many children living in this homing complex. 3.Traffic on Foothill Boulevard, and particularly at this point is very congested and plex because of the intersection of San Bernardino and Foothill and the visability from the east. Also this is a bar and the chances of people departing the business may possibly be a bit less in control. 4. Is it not necessary for an enviormental impact report done before any such permit might bepven for this change. Because of the 8fore mentiond reasons ] feel tha the CxNulitionai Use Permit 97/] ] Final Score and Entertainment Permit 93/03 Modification- Final Score be denied, we do not need any more entertainment and bars in Rancho Cucamonga, this is suposed to be a family city. Thank for you time, James L Kimball 8472 Cherryblossom St. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca/ September 22, 1997 RECEIVED S£P 2 9 1~? City of Rancho Cucarno a Planning Division ng Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Conditional Use Permit 97-11 - Final Score Entertainment Permit 93-03 Modification - Final Score I am strongly opposed to the above referenced permits. I live in Rancho Villas which is directly to the south of the Final Score. I am also a member of the Board of Directors for the Association. The residents of Rancho Villas have the right to live in a residential neighborhood without having to listen to bar noise. The bar is so close to some of our homes that the noise would keep people from sitting on their patios or having their windows open. Also the type of people that frequent this bar are less than desirable, quite often there are bar patrons up on the railroad tracks causing trouble. The bar has definitely lowered the value of our homes. If these permits are passed, I would hope you would require the owner to build a sound wall around the patio to keep out the noise, and hire a security guard to patrol the outer area. I definitely do not approve of expanding the entertainment hours. The residents of Rancho Villas should not have to be kept awake when they need to go to work the next day. Please take my comments into consideration when making your decision. Sincerely Ms. Diane Atherton Homeowner MR. & MRS. R.F. DEEMS_ 8963 OAKMONT DR. /:~ ~' SANTA ROSA, CA 95409 ~' ~'/~ ~.~) Sept. 29, 1997 Planning Division Rancho Cucamonga, Ca PO ~ox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Re:APN 207 571 75 8411 Foothill Gentlemen: I strongly oject to the proposed expansion for entertainment and music: A. Too close to existing Rancho Villa town homes - noise. B. Drifting people who have been drinking at the bar have disturbed residents in Rancho Villas; and the added entertainment and activity would further hurt the living in the Villas. At one time I lived at 8484 Cherry Blossom' and the disturbance from the bar patrons was at times bothersome. Permitting expanded music and entertainment will not be an enhancement to the community from the location petitioning under ~PN 207 571 75 Rfd/rfd Owner of preperty at 8479 Greenleaf Ln Very truly y~qurs, Ralph F. Deems Printed: 02/05/96 15:02 Final Score 8411 Foothill LOC DR 8411 FOOTHILL 119400496 119402347 119403900 119410184 119411000 119412344 119414035 119414037 119502993 119508470 DATE TIME DAY TYPE BL 01/11/94 0946 TUE 242R 01/11/94 1221 TUE COUNTR 02/17/94 1824 THU INC 02/21/94 0049 MON 647F 03/29/94 1805 TUE 415S 04/23/94 0124 SAT AREACK 05/13/94 2018 FRI 1182 08/27/94 2007 SAT 242R 08/31/94 0029 WED UlxVKPRO 09/17/94 1833 SAT 1182 10/19/94 1547 WED 488R 11/13/94 .1553 SUN AOD 11/29/94 0006 TUE 12025R 11/29/94 0135 TUE 496 01/01/95 2354 SUN 10851 01/01/95 2354 SUN 10851 01/31/95 0636 TUE 459A 02/07/95 1920 TUE 5150 02/08/95 1545 WED COUNTR 03/05/95 1752 SUN 20002R 04/03/95 1730 MON 1182 04/11/95 0946 TUE 459A 07/22/95 2311 SAT UN%PRO 07/22/95 2311 SAT 23152R 08/03/95 2242 THU 1085!R 09/24/95 0129 SUN 415V 10/07/95 1753 SAT 10851 12/21/95 0000 THU 242R 01/18/96 1621 THU LrNi~PRO (NV) 11/15/94 2252 TUE VEHCK Records printed: 30 CALL 940110057 940110093 940480178 940520005 940880175 941130017 941330256 942390261 942430007 942600206 942920161 943170159 943330001 943330012 950010272 950010272 950310036 950380194 950390176 950640164 950930187 951010072 952030289 952030291 952150265 952670022 952800144 953550001 960180187 943190260 STAT TYPE RTF ASSAULT REPORT RTF COUNTER REPORT SUP INCIDENT/MISC. LAW ENF CALL ARR DRUNK IN PUBLIC RTF SUBJECT DISTURBANCE CAN AREA CHECK REQUESTED NAT NON INJURY ACCIDENT RTF ASSAULT REPORT NAT U~KNO%*~ TYPE PROBLEM RTF NON INJURY ACCIDENT RTF PETTY THEFT REPORT NAT ASSIST OTHER DEPARTblENT ARR C~RRY CONCEALED WEAPON REPORT ARR STOLEN PROPERTY UNF GRAND THEFT AUTO - INPROGRESS UNF GRAND THEFT AUTO - INPROGRESS FAL AUDIBLE ALARM GOA PSYCHO INVESTIGATION - INPROG NAT COUNTER REPORT RTF HIT AND RUN NON INJURY REPORT CAN NON INJURY ACCIDENT FAL AUDIBLE ALAYCM C~ UN~NO~ TYPE PROBLEM RTF DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE REPORT UNF G.:tAND THEFT AUTO REPORT NAT VERBAL DISTURBANCE UNF GR.A~ND THEFT AUTO - INPROGRESS NAT TRU ASSAULT REPORT CAN UN2<NOWN TYPE PROBLEM NAT VEHICLE CHECK 9/29/97 location 8411 FOOTHILL 641 I FOOl'HILL 8411 FOOTHILL 8411 FOOTHILL 8411 FOOTHILL 8411 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 841 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 8411 FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHlLL BL ,RCC FOOTH1LL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC FOOTHILL BL ,RCC 841 i FOOTHILL BL ,RCC Grand Total: Comp date 1996/04/30 11:41:41.00 1997/02/27 22:i ! :26.00 1997/04/10 09:06:56.00 1996/01/18 16:21:27.00 1996/01/24 07:32:54.00 1996/02/02 02:03:50.00 1996/02/27 20:26:46.00 1996/04/30 11:14:55.00 1996/05/02 15:42:40.00 1996/07/02 14:13:02.00 ()! 996/08/09 08:23:24.00 1996/08/13 21:20:40.00 1996/08/30 00:07:34.00 1996/09/02 22:21:02.00 1996/09/04 21:15: i 6.00 1996/09/21 07:15:57.00 1996/09/27 00:23:27.00 1996/i 0/20 18:38:45.00 1996/10/24 19:41:27.00 1997/01/03 02:50:02.00 1997/02/08 07:42:50.00 L~) ! 997/03/25 07:50:26.00 1997/04/30 17:41:13.00 1997/05/12 00:55:31.00 1997/06/15 15:10:20.00 1997/07/05 10:16:26.00 1997/08/26 15:44:42.00 _!,997/08/28 15:39:41.00 28 nat desc dispo NON INJURY ACCIDENI' NRD BAR CHECK NAT SUBJECT CHECK NAT UNKNOWN TYPE PROBLEM CAN TRU GRAND THEFT AUTO REPORT RTF ASSAULT W/DEADLY WEAPON INP RTF HIT AND RUN NON INJURY REPORT RTF NON INJURY ACCIDENT REPORT RTF NON INJURY ACCIDENT NAT MISC THEFT NAT TRU INFORMATION REPORT NAT TRU INFORMATION REPORT CAN BAR CHECK NAT TRU VEHICLE BURGLARY REPORT RTF TRU GRAND THEFT AUTO REPORT RTF TRU INFORMATION REPORT UNF TRU VEHICLE BURGLARY REPORT NRD ASSAULT ARR TRU PETTY THEFT REPORT RTF TRU MALICIOUS MISCHIEF REPORT ARR AUDIBLE ALARM FAL AUDIBLE ALARM FAL ASSAULT NAT PSYCHO INVESTIGATION- INPROG NAT SUBJECT DISTURBANCE ~ t>~,NAT NON INJURY ACCIDENT REPORT//i ~TF HAZARDOUS CONDITION/SITUATIO NAT SUSPICIOUS yEHICIF. / ~, q ] NAT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-11, A REQUEST TO EXPAND THE BAR USE TO INCLUDE THE SERVING OF ALCOHOL WITHIN AN OUTDOOR PATIO AREA FOR AN EXISTING BAR AND RESTAURANT IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 1) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8411 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-571-75. A. Recitals. 1. Gary Rousa has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-11, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 8, and continued to November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public headngs on the application and concluded said headngs on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearings on October 8, and November 12, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 545.21 feet and lot depth of 150 feet and is improved with several buildings and structures; and b. The property to the north contains a restaurant; the properties to the south contain abandoned railread tracks, single family homes, and townhouses; the property to the west is vacant but planned for a mixed use development consisting of retail, office, and mini-storage; and c. The applicant has improved the site with a 1,400 square foot fenced outdoor patio area east of the building; and d. The outdoor patio area is for the serving of food and non-alcoholic drinks in conjunction with a restaurant and is considered an ancillary use and is permitted; and e. The serving of alcohol in the outdoor patio area is considered as an expansion of the bar use which requires a Conditional Use Permit under Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and f. Related to the Conditional Use Permit application is Entertainment Permit 93-03. At the public hearings for Entertainment Permit 93-03 between 1994 and 1996, the Planning Commission received input from adjacent residents who had complained about nuisance problems PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-11 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 2 such as loud music, loud noise, and disturbances. After completion of a Noise Study and the imposing of intedor and extedor control measures that addressed these identified nuisance problems, the Commission granted approval of the Entertainment Permit on February 14, 1996; and g. A concern with the serving of alcoholic drinks within the outdoor patio area is the increased opportunities for nuisance problems such as loud noise and loud music spilling out from doors of the building. These nuisance problems would negatively impact the adjacent residents. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 93-03, A REQUEST TO EXPAND THE DAYS AND HOURS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND ADD DANCING FOR AN EXISTING BAR AND RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR PATIO SEATING, IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 1) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8411 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-571-75. A. Recitals. 1. On May 21, 1986, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment. 2. Gary Rousa of the Final Score has filed an application modifying Entertainment Permit No. 93-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the application." 3. On October 8, and continued to November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public headngs on the application and concluded said headngs on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearings on October 8, and November 12, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 545.21 feet and lot depth of 150 feet and is improved with several buildings and structures. b. The property to the north contains a restaurant; the properties to the south contain an abandoned railroad track, single family homes, and townhouses; the property to the west is vacant but planned for a mixed use development consisting of retail, office and mini-storage. c. On February 14, 1996, the applicant received approval from the Planning Commission to have entertainment consisting of live bands and disc jockeys for Friday and Saturday between 8 p.m. and 12 midnight and Sunday between 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 2 d. At the headng on February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission imposed intedor and exterior control measures to address nuisance problems. The control measures are listed in Resolution No. 96-05. The Commission also imposed a condition of approval that required completion of all control measures prior to commencement of the entertainment use and denied the serving of alcohol within the proposed outdoor patio area. e. The applicant has not completed all the control measures. Therefore, he has not commenced with the approved entertainment. f. However, the applicant has improved the site with a 1,400 square foot fenced outdoor patio area east of the building without the benefit of permits. He complied by serving food and non-alcoholic beverages within this patio area. g. On March 18, 1997, the applicant submitted a request to add dancing and expand the entertainment to nightly between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. He submitted a related Conditional Use Permit application to expand the bar use for serving alcohol within the outdoor patio area. h. The Entertainment Permit and the related Conditional Use Permit applications were found to have sufficient information on September 24, 1997, and forwarded for Planning Commission consideration at the hearing on October 8, 1997, which was continued to November 12, 1997. i. At the headng on November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission determined that with all the interior and extedor control measures in place, the loud music and noise from the interior and the nuisance problems in the parking lot can be minimized to an acceptable level. However, the Commission did not approve the serving of alcohol within the outdoor patio area because the Commission determined that would increase the opportunities for exterior nuisance problems which would negatively impact the adjacent residents. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; and c. That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years; and d. That granting the application would not create a public nuisance; and e. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding commercial center and adjacent apartment complex; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 3 f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of matedal fact in the required application. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application, subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division 1) Approval is granted for the following entertainment uses: a) live bands; b) disc jockeys; and c) dancing; Any change of intensity or type of entertainment shall require a modification to this permit. 2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited to between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m., Thursday through Saturday and 3 p.m. and 10 p.m., Sunday. Any expansion of days and/or hours shall require modification to this permit. 3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted. 4) A minimum of one duly licensed, certified or trained, and regularly employed secudty guard from a reputable secudty firm shall be required to be on the premises from 8 p.m. until two hours after the conclusion of any entertainment. One of the guards shall be in "peace officer" attire and shall remain on duty in the parking area and outside adjacent areas of the facility to avert problems such as loud noise, disorderly conduct from patrons or anyone in the parking lot, loitering activities, and any other nuisances or disturbances. 5) All noise control measures contained in the Final Noise Study and as listed below shall be completed: a) Add acoustic door seals to all exit doors. b) Add interior ceiling with R-11 insulation over the pool room. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 4 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) c) Isolate speakers from the structure. d) Remove the two speakers from the roof ceiling and hang only one speaker down from the roof ceiling. e) Upgrade the interior windows. Detailed plans and/or specifications shall be submitted within 60 days for City Planner and Building Official review and approval, and the building inspected for compliance prior to commencement of entertainment use. Decorative fencing together with dense landscaping of shrubs and trees along the property line that abuts the railroad tracks shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted within 60 days for City Planner review and approval. The fence and the landscape shall be completed and inspected to the satisfaction of the City Planner pdor to commencement of entertainment use. The row of parking immediately located southwest of the building (parking spaces numbered I through 9 and 35 through 41) shall not be used by the patrons of the Final Score between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. RESTRICTED PARKING signs shall be pqsted pdor to commencement of entertainment use. Serving of food and non-alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area shall cease on and after 9 p.m. The serving of alcoholic drinks is not allowed at any time in the outdoor patio area. All parking and outdoor seating areas shall have a minimum maintained one-foot candle power security lighting. All parking lot light fixtures shall not exceed 15 feet as measured from the finished surface to the top of the light fixture. The light fixtures shall have shields for reducing the glare and shall be odented away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted within 60 days and the lighting installed prior to commencement of entertainment use. No new trash enclosure is required at this time; however, the City Planner may require a trash enclosure, per City Standards, to be provided and completed within 60 days of said notice if the City Planner finds that the trash container is left in public view. Detailed plans to show the completed improvements to date and required new improvements or upgrades such as, but are not limited to, the outdoor patio area, the parking lot, the satellite dishes, the trash enclosure, etc., shall be submitted as a Minor Development Review application within 60 days for City Planner review and approval prior to commencement of entertainment use. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 5 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) All doors and windows shall remain closed after 7 p.m. or during live entertainment except in the case of emergency. The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division. The building shall comply with all requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Plans shall be submitted for the Fire Distdct's review and approval within 60 days. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to the commencement of the entertainment use. The building shall comply with all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Plans shall be submitted for the Building Official's review and approval within 60 days. The building and the site shall be inspected for compliance prior to commencement of entertainment use. If the operation of the business creates public safety problems such as but not limited to: loitering and disturbances, noise, overcrowding, blocked fire exits, etc., this entertainment permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration of modification and/or revocation. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval and applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension and/or revocation of the Entertainment Permit by the Planning Commission. 17) Provide a vestibule at the main entrance of the building for sound attenuation. Detailed plans shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The vestibule shall be completed prior to commencement of entertainment use. 18) All conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to commencement of the entertainment use. 19) Fencing for the outdoor patio area shall be behind the future property line. Remove the bamboo fencing material. 20) City Planner shall review and approve changes to the parking lot under a Minor Development Review application. Six months after commencement of the entertainment, the Planning Commission will review the permit and assess the success of the control measures. Engineering Division 1) An irrevocable offer of dedication for a total of 64 feet shall be dedicated on Foothill Boulevard, as measured from the centerline, or as approved by Caltrans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MOD. TO EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE November 12, 1997 Page 6 2) An irrevocable offer of dedication for future master planned storm drain improvements shall be dedicated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The easement shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide and generally located west of the developed portion of the site, over the existing drainage swale. 3) Proposed and future improvements to the site shall not be installed within the ultimate right-of-way. 4) The owner shall enter into an agreement acknowledging the elimination of on-site improvements within the ultimate Foothill Boulevard right-of- way at such time as the street is fully improved. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2595 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 November 6, 1997 Mr. William J. O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Reference:~ RECEIVED 'NOV 0 6 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Planning Commision Consideration (11/12/97) TPM No 15074 Dear Sir: At the present time, there are no sidewalks on LaVine Street. If the City requires us to be the first to construct one, it will have no utility; pedestrian traffic is not likely to depart the street to walk on 125 feet of sidewalk. And, I don't think it far fetched to anticipate that it' could be 30, 40, 50 or more years before there would be enough sidewalk in existence to lure pedestrians out of the street. It may never happen. It is likely that opportunities in the decades ahead for the City to require the construction of sidewalks will be few and far between. This is an area that is almost fully developed; most lots cannot be further divided. It is also an area of very modest older homes and it doesn't seem to me that most owners would be willing or able to do reconstruction or remodeling that would trigger a requirement to do costly off-site improvements. It is my sincere belief that we are being asked to undertake a costly improvement that may have no functionality into the distant future; perhaps never. Another consideration is the cost of sidewalks. This property is in the estate of my uncle, John L. Perdew and I am the executor. Acting in a fiduciary capacity for the heirs, it is my duty to be concerned about each cost, particularlly if we do not see it as a fair and necessary requirement. We are not a commercial enterprise that can pass along athe costs of real property improvements to the ultimate purchaser; we are a small estate with a small piece of real estate that we are now seeking to split into two equal properties in order that we might sell one of the lots (the other has been willed to the decedents niece) and distribute the proceeds to the beneficiaries of the will. The costs of the lot split, which I've identified or estimated to this point, amount to $45,037.00 which is approximately 41% of the property's recently appraised value of $110,000.00. You might question why I believe these expenses should be a consideration in arriving at your decision whether or not to require sidewalks. I would suggest that this decision should be made in the context of the enormous financial burden imposed on us by requirements of the lot split process. I respectfully request that you make the decision that sidewalks ~will not be required. Sincerely, Denning M./~Perdew Executor, Estate of John Lynn Perdew CC: Dan James Brad Bullet -2- DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT November 12, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEl, MAP 15074 - ESTATE OF JOHN I,YNN PERDEW. MR. DENNIS PERDEW. EXECUTOR - A subdivision of 0.9 acres of land into two parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of La Vine Street and 280 feet east of Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-071-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 0.43 Acres Parcel 2 0.43 Acres Total 0.86 Acres C. Existing Zoning: Single-Family Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North South East West Single-Family Residences Single-Family Residences Single-Family Residences Single-Family Residences E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations: North South East West Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 15074 November 12, 1997 Page 2 Site Characteristics: The site is an existing residential property fronting on LaVine Street with two existing single-family detached dwellings each having a detached garage. There is a small orchard containing 11 trees (Apricot and Fig) at the rear of the property. The site slopes from north to south at three percent with no natural drainage courses existing on site as it drains in a sheet flow manner. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to subdivide the property into two lots of equal size with one dwelling on each "new" lot. The property is part of the Estate of John Lynn Perdew and is being split to implement his last will and testament. There will be no construction, reconstruction or modification to the existing dwellings, and no change is contemplated in the current residential usage of the property. There will be no changes to the existing topography except as may be needed in the construction of the City required offsite street and parkway improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15074. If after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study Parts I and II CITY OF RA_N'Ct{O CUCAaViO_N-GA ENG~rNG DIVISION ~ Vlr IN I'I¥ IV~kp ' T ENTATI VE PARCEL MAP NO. 15074 Limle CJMI ~ S(neyo~. Ire. ~ IIJ'l ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part l- Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. 6~qERAL INFORMATIO~ Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: Estate of John Lynn Perdew - Lot Split Name & Address of project owner(s): Denning M. Perdew, Executor for the Estate of John Lynn Perdew 2595 Montcomerv Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007-2107 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: same Applicant: Denning M. Perdew Contact Person & Address: 2595 Montqomerv AVe., Cardiff, CA 92007 Engineer: Ken Linville, 9587 Arrow Route, Suite H Rancho Cucamonqa, CA 91730 Tel 909-989-3922 FAX 909-989-1699 Telephone N~m~er: Applicant (760) 753-2470 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone N~mher: C ! T Y O f R A N C "~-?~ C U C A M O N G A PROJECT INFORMATI(~N & DESCRIPTION Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) 3) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. . See Attachment C Project Location (describe): 9348 & 9358 La Vine Street, Alta Loma, California 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 0202 071 02 0 000 *5) *6) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft. ): 0.87 acre/37,847.5 square f~r. Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications ): same 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): none 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Construction permit for street improvements. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): Site is an existing residential property fronting on La Vine Street in Alta Loma, California. It is 125 feet wide and 302.78 feet deep (37,847.5 square feet or approx 0.87 acre). There are two single-family detached dwellings (each having a detached garage), one on the south-east corner and the other on the south-west corner. Both are in good condition. The area of each of the dwellings is under 900 square feet. One of the houses was built in the earlv 1930s: it is believed that the other was moved onto the property in the 1950s. There is a small orchard containing // apricot and fig trees (and a row of grape vines) at the rear of the oroDertv. Soil is stable and the land is level; it drains from north to south. There are no native plants or animals, no roads, no trails, no drainage courses and no scenic aspects. 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): NO known cultural or historical aspe_cts. Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: This is a~ developed residential area and there are no unusual noise sourc'es. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of u!tSmate use which wi~! result from'the proposed project. Indicate if. there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated Completion of each increment'. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: There are presently two dwellings with detached g~rages on the property. After the property has been split into two (2) lots of equal size, there will be one dwellingl (withtdetached garage) on each of the two lots. There is no change planned in current residential usage. 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-fan~ly, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Surroundinq area is developed residential (mostiv single-family detaached). No known cultural or historical aspects. Onlv domestic animals (Pets) & Dlantinqs. Property abutting the west property line contains apartment dwellings 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No, this is simply a construction. lot split and there will be no 15) Indicate the type of short-term ~nd long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? There will be no noise Generated. -16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: No tree removals planned with possible exception of apricot and fig trees in rear of peoperty (this would not be in conjunction with or as a result of the lot split). 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: none 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. NO change over current usage. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/m_in/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewag~ generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. NO change in current sewer usage. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS NO construction planned, this is simply a !or split. 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N/A 21) 22) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $ to $ Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: N/A 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: N/A 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a · Elementary: N/A b. Junior High: c. Senior High: COMMERCIAL, INDUS~R/3%L AND INSTITUTIONAL PRfkTECTS 25) N/A Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: N/A 27) Indicate hours of operation: N/A 28) 29) Number of employees: Total: N/A Maximum Shift: N/A Time of Maximum Shift: N/A Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30} Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: N/A '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): N/A AT.T. P l?fkT~ ~'~ S 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. No. There will be no change in the current use of this propcrty as a rcou!t of thc lot ~plit. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. Underqround qasoline storaqe tank was removed and disposed of May 14, 1997. Tank had been used in agriculture starting in the 1940s and continuino into the 1950s or early 1960s. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Signature: Title: Denning M. ~erdew Executor for the Estate of John Lvnn Perdew ATTACHMENT A Water Usa~ Average use per day ~esi~ential Single Family Apt/Condo Co~mercial/In~strial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park P~ak Usa~ For all uses Average use X 2.0 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Se~r Flo~s ~i4~ntial Single Apt/Condos 270 gal/day 200 gal/day ~rcial/In~u~trial General Co-m~rcial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac 1000-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and fees: payment of school El-~entar~ School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 987-0766 Central 9457 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA (714) 987-8942 91730 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA (714) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (714) 988-8511 91739 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II ..BACKGROUND Project File: Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 2. Related Files: None ° Description of Project: A subdivision of 0.9 acres of land into two single-family residential parcels Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Estate of John Lynn Perdew c/o Mr. Denning M. Perdew, Executor 2595 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007-2107 General Plan Designation: Low Residential Zoning: Single-Family Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Properties to the north, south, west and east are single-family residences o Lead Agency Name and Address: City off Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 o Contact Person and Phone Number: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2319 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Phil~bera ' Assistant Engineer August 20, 1997 Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL I_M~PACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supportins Information Sources: d) Potentially Significant [mgncl Lets PotentiallyUnless Than Significam Mitigation si~ninc~nt so LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinit),? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) Issues ~d SuT~or~ing Information So~tces Pot~ntlally Si~ificam Impacx Less PotentiallyUnlela Tha~ Si8nificam Mit*g~fion Stgnificant No POPULATION A~'I) HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial grox~xh in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 Comments: City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 a) b) c) o and Supportin8 lnformntion Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. [Yould the proposal result in or expose people to potential intpacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Comments: Potentially Signific. a~t Irn~a~-t Porenoilly lm!~cl Less Unlesa Than Mitigation Sisnificant In~r~o~ted Iml~act ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () () () () () () () () () No Impact (x) (x) (x) (x) a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Issues ~nd Supposing Inform&lion 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in.' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage parterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) b) c) d) g) h) Pot,~',aiall y Po~emidly Less Mitigation Si8~ificam [ncatl~om~ed [m~c~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 o issues ~nd Sup~nin8 Information Source: AIR QUALITY. WouM the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? Comments: a) b) c) d) Potentillly Sig~ificam Potentlally Sisnific.tnt Impact Unless Mitigation Si~nificam ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Issuea and Supporting [n."o~matlon So4zrces TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in.' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ( .,., bus turnouts, e ~, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? Pot~ntialty Si$nificant Iraoat! S,$ni6c. a~c Impact Less Si~i~ca.qt ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () (x) (x) Initial Study .for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) Issues ~nd $up~onlng IM'orm~fion 5ourcc~ BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. in impacts to.' a) b) c) d) e) Would the proposal result Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Comments: a) b) d) e) Significant () City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Sisnifi~l Lesl Than ( ) ( ) -(x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () ( ) ( ) (x) ( ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 LtlSU= ,~nd Supporting Information Sourc*s: ENERGY AND Mh-NIERAL RESOIYRCES. proposal.' a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? Comments: a) b) c) Pocemially Significant Potentially Significant Impact Leu Unless Th~n Significam ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) o Issues and Supponln~: Information FL-XZARDS. Would the proposal involve.' a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or.trees? Comments: a) b) Potentially Si~niflcant Potentially Significant Impact Lm.s Units Than ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 c) ct) e) 10. 11. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Comments: a) b) Issues nnd Supl~r~n$ Infoms&lion PUBLIC SERVICES. WouM the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) b) c) e) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? Pote~fi&lly Signifie~mt City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Potcrlti&lly S~nific, tm Pmemially Si~nificam [mpacz Less Unlms ~ Mitigation Sisnificant No ImDa¢! ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Potenllally Signific~m Unless 'Than ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 12. lssum ~d Suttonins lat'ormation UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) c) d) e) f) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? g) 13. Issues and Supporting InformatiOn AESTHETICS. }gould the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potemially Signi~ca.m City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Pot~tially Si$~i~cam Lm Mitiption Significanc [ncor~orited [mDKI Potentially lmD~c~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Po:entlally Si~ific.~nt lm!l~t~ L~ss [,'nless Tian Miti~adon Sisnificzm No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 Comments: a) b) c) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 14. Issue~ a.~d Supporting Information Source~: CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) b) c) d) e) a) b) c) d) e) }gould the proposal.' Disturb paleontologica[ resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Comments: Pot~miatly [roDaCt No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) Ix) ( ) ( ) ( ) Ix) ( ) ( ) ( ) Ix) () () () () () () Ix) Ix) 15. Issues a,'ad SuD¢or~in$ [aForma:ion Sources RECREATION. Would the proposa[.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () Significant Impact Unless () () Th~.~ () () No Ix) Ix) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 Comments: a) b) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 16. lss~ ~l $uppoming Inform&tion Potentially $i~:niflc~m 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 prehistoD'? ( ) 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.) ( ) 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.) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Comments: a) b) c) d) Impac~ ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) () Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) () Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) () Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) () Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981 ) () Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February. 16, 1983) () Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) () Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH .~482061801, certified July 6, 1983) () Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH .#89012314, certified April I, 1992) ( ) Other: ( ) Other: Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15074 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby a~ee to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. gstatsf of John Lynn Perdew ' Print Name and Title: Denning M. Perdew, Executor CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Brief Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAl, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15074 - ESTATE OF JOHN LYNN PERDEW. MR. DENNIS PERDEW. EXECUTOR - A subdivision of 0.9 acres of land into two parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of La Vine Street and 280 feet east of Hellman Avenue - APN: 202-07t-02. 2. Name and Address of Applicant: Estate of John Lynn Perdew c/o Mr. Denning M. Perdew 2595 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007-2107 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received by the Planning Division no later than 5:00 pm ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission decision. 6. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigating measures (if any) as listed on the attachments. Dated November 12. 1997 Meeting Date E. David Barker Planning Commission Chairman Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15074, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LA VINE STREET, 280 FEET EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-071-02 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15074, submitted by the Estate of John Lynn Perdew, Mr. Dennis Perdew, Executor, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into two parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 202-071-02, located on the north side of La Vine Street 280 feet east of Hellman Avenue; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public headng for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 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 Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15074- PERDEW November 12, 1997 Page 2 proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15074 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15074 Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access __ 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. 4. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: o 10. 11. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the t'mal parcel map. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the f'mal parcel map. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the f'mai parcel map. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided. /~/~ 1.5'o?"1 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: ao X Street Improvements 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. 3. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive Street Street Comm. Median Bike & Pvmt walk Appr. Lighls Trees Trail Island Trail Gu~er La Vine Street X X X X X X Other 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 will be curvilinear per STD. #114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2 X 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: X 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 parcel map approval. b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 6. 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. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 3 X 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the 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: Do Eo Drninage nnd Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone 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 parcel map approval. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs fwst. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 5. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of- way. 6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a matore tree trunk. 7. Public storm drain casements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin on a public street. Improvement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: La Vine Street 2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: 4 X 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. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD is required prior to final parcel map approval. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. General Requirements and Approvals 1. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date. 2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the f'mal parcel map. 4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to f'mal parcel map approval for: X 5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. 6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval. 7. Prior to fmalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. 10. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 5 11. Prior to recordation of the f'mal parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment ofa Mello-Roos Community Facilities District 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 parcel map. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map 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. 12. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. 13. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or f'mal, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Detemaination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Rev. 10/14/96 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15074, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LA VINE STREET, 280 FEET EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-071-02 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15074, submitted by the Estate of John Lynn Perdew, Mr. Dennis Perdew, Executor, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into two parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 202-071-02, located on the north side of LaVine Street 280 feet east of Hellman Avenue; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public headng for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 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 Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. S!=CTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15074 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary !, 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 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT November 12, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15091 - CENTEX HOMES - A subdivision of 1.09 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District of the Eftwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of East Rancho Estates Place, west of Etiwanda Avenue - Lot B of Tract 12659-1. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: Tract 12659-1 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 0.43 acres Parcel 2 0.35 acres Parcel 3 0.31 acres Total 1.09 acres C. Existing Zoning: Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - South - East - West - Existing Single Family Residence, Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units/acre) Vacant, Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units/acre) Existing Single Family Residence, Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units/acre) Existing Single Family Residence, Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units/acre) E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations: North - South - East - West - Etiwanda Specific Plan, Very Low Residential District Etiwanda Specific Plan, Very Low Residential District Etiwanda Specific Plan, Very Low Residential District Etiwanda Specific Plan, Very Low Residential District PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 15091 November 12, 1997 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes north to south at about 4-6 percent. Street improvements and the private equestrian trail are in place. The surrounding area is improved with single-family residences. The site was established as Lot B, with recordation of Tract 12659-1, for purposes of a retention basin. During construction of this subdivision an updated drainage report was submitted by the Developer. With installation of drainage facilities in the area, the report substantiated the basin was not required. ANALYSIS: The parcel map will establish three lots to be developed with single-family homes. Missing public improvements fronting East Rancho Estates Place will be completed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15091. If, after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval WI I a / ' · ~i ,.-i , 8pu. n. olCmpkunc. II ,.I,[ ,.,~! '/ .,,-..,.d- -, -:l',~1/ ~. u · wlknmL -.- J -- ~=- -~----- '" -',. '-_~ ~ ~ --'-~-" m..-.. ........_.m. ;'-----'~, / o., ,. ~ q' ~ !"! ..o,.'._,~__,,,E-__.,___ _ -. --\\ ..!~-L... !,,I ,,.'.., · . t It; ,.,, ..... eta o : olmr~Hm ·· "k,[:m ] ~nnAaom~"m, nmmvT'~'" I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGIi~IEEi~ING DIVISION ' ~'~'~ C" ....~:..-'..-'..-'..-~' -.' ~' ' :,..~':%'N.X'~ ",-X: ,.' · .'../,..~,::~,,,.,~..;..::~.-~.;:.-:/.~,~... ! ..,.,.:... \, ....,, ...,, ~. · "~....".,.~';;,,'-, "-o-;' .,,.".' C,'"~ ~ " "-' .~ ' ' "" · o" ' ' ....eo-.~ '~ " .... ;- ~""'. .i. .I ..~ ~ .= .~.-~:-........~~ .~~~ -. T.,~ ~-~_--~,-%,'~,_~.~,~, . ~ , .. .~ ~ ~ ... . < . ~ . ! ?, : ...... ~.~.. ~ .~~~~., ) ~..,~-~.~- ;_-~.~,,~,.f . . ,.-! .....s~ · . ~ -. ., . ,. ~ , · ' .........~' "~' '~/' ~~- - ~ ~ '~~ "~'"~E::'~ ' .' .'.I.'"':' ~ ' ~ ~ : . ~_~ , .....~-~- .,~ ~'~../.,~~ .~~,~,.'-,~-~-'~ ..... ; ~ ....... .~ .~. ;~.. ,, .....~~~. ~-~..~..,;.~,.-.._,-.,..,:~..,,,.... .. . ,:, , .., ~, . "_ ...... ;7~'-"ffd:;x/,.-',- '~,". ~. ', ..','1 .~~," .~'"",.~.:":-,,,._--'"~. .... ;: . " ":~--~.~..~'"~- -.. )/ ...~ ~1 --- ...;. ~.~' "-' '~ -'" '~:"'~' ' ''" '~ '~ ~~- '~~~-~~:.:-..~.,,. ., ~· - _.~ -_ .- ..........'as~ ....'"l . ~. .. . -4 ~:"'' ' ' - ~" ""~- ,~' ~' '~~ '~~-, i '~,z''-.."'"'-.-.-.-.-.-_~~ ------:- ...............................'-::"~',- ...... - , ~ .~. .... .., ~ ~ · . - .......... . ~... , ..~ ...... ~ , ,...-"--'-=',-~J~~..~..~,~~'.'.-,!, __---..,,~ ...... ,~,., · ~ ........ "' -,, ~":~'~,. ' .' ..'. :J ,~ . .... I J J ~J--...,I r .... , '' - 'l ..:...~..~ .... ~.. ·. "'" ..1 ..,,, ~.ds,. · l ' $' ,, ~ ,I ~' ' " .' 1 .'~ .- ,' :"~'-. '. -?:':~. . ' "~, ', .""... ~: ', .... ' ..,..=~ ~ ',: · '1 I ' ' s :., · · - . .: ,,,. :l ~ .~ ~i~ j: ,,,, ..! .. ~a. 2~e~.ee · ~,,~'~.~,,,-~ ',=~'""'" '!'"~A.-:~ .~T. ::' " t ., :..'.. · '.. ~ .. ~1 "~'""t ND ~1)6~'t ~ ~Pl,~,i:..g~ : ' :2 I - ; ,- /I I . · . ... _' ...... (D'~'"_,-,,...f~ · · I " ,,, J J.'.l . ' , ' - 4 " ~ '" ~ .... }" " · - ' I '.. ,-,.; ....'. ........,..-'. . , ;i ~ ~ ,~ . I · . .-' ..... .....~., J'~ - :.. ,. ,, :.'~ :~_L_tL · ./- ;~-~.--.~,~.-.-.-~- .1t.- ........- .~" ";"' " ' ': ,, ,i ~.,,.-. . .. .l /' F, /' " - "r~ ..... : III ...... ; :.. ~ "~. -: . "- = .............."::..''.. ~?· ,I_' ~.'""~'.. ' !! '. :"' ~..:..:_._.:'..--.-:~ .......... '~"~.- r,~ ..~ .... ' . · ~ " ' II ~ · '-", ........';" .................',,'.- ,'- ·?...' ''' ....', L; T~IV T.~ 7/V~= ~M/~'C~Z ~ ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENG~G DIVISION N ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part l- Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. gENERAL INFOI~MATIO~I Ap~licatibn Numbe~ for the project to which.this form Project Title: ~ %~t Name & Address of project owner(s): ~~ Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: Contact Person & Address: Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone N,~m~er: o, .^.c;Po C U C A M O N G A P~IIECT INFORMATIO~ & DESCRIPTIO~ Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) 3) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. Project Location (describe): FO~~ ~ 4) Assessor's P,a~el Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): *5) *6) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): q Net Site Area (~otal site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): B) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and ' ; condition) 'and' ~he' Use ' of 'the structureS. ' Attach photographs of significgnt features described. In addition, site all =sources of information .(i.e., geological ~nd/6r hy~trologic studies, 'biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): 11) 12) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc. ) and how they will affect proposed uses: Describe 'the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate .description of 0 the .site i,n terms, of .~ltfmat.e. use which will result f~om the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for developmen.t, th~ extent of development t.o. occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment · Attach additional sheet(s) -if- neces.sary; 13) '~4) Describe the s~rrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment. houses, shops, department stores, e{c.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? 15) '16) Indicate the type of short-term ~nd long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods' of sound proofing are proposed? Indicate proposed removals and/or .replacements of mature or scenic trees: - 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: Indicate e~pected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates){o For further. clarification, please 'contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) ~ Peak use (gal/day) %~ 19) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/~in/ac) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank ~ Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL P$~)JECTS ' 20) Nua%b~r of residential unit's: DetacSed '(indicate" rang~ of parcel sizes, 'minimum lo~ size and maximum lot size: Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) 22) Anticipated range of sale' prices and/or rents: Sale Price Rent (per month) $ Specify number of bedrooms by,unit type: to $ to $ 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Distric{s as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: ~ c. Senior ~{igh: ~ COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL ABD INSTITUTIONAL PRDJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hours of operation: ~/~ 28) 29) Number of employees: Total: ~ /~ Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, includ/ng wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if-necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. 33) In the know~ history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not lim/ted to PCB's; radioactive s~bstances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 34 ) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharg~ of hazardous and/or toxic materials, includ/ng but not lim/ted to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Title: ATTACHMENT A Water Usa~ Average use per day Resi4ential Single Faro/ly Apt/Condo C'----~rcial/In~ustrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Peak Usa~ For all uses Average use X 2.0 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Se~r F1o~s Resi~ential Single F~m~ly Apt/Condos 270 gal/day 200 gal/day Co~rcial/In4nstrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial Source: 2000 gal/day/ac 1000-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Cu~amonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 - ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 987-0766 Central 9457 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 989-8541 Cucamon ga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA (714) 987-8942 91730 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA (714) 899-2451 Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (714) 988-8511 91739 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 15091 2. Related Files: Tract 12659-1 Description of Project: A subdivision of a 1.816 acre parcel into 3 single family residential parcels. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Centex Homes 2280 Wardlow Circle Suite 150 Corona, CA 91720 General Plan Designation: Low, 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre 6. Zoning: Low, 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded on four sides by land zoned low, 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. The land to the north, west and east are fully developed with single family units. The land to the south is vacant. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2364 Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15091 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoide_,.d-~ mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation me~s~.~t ~,,~t~re impos.ed u,,~ the proposed project. Signed: Willie Valbuena Assistant Engineer September 17, 1997 Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rnncho Cucnmongn Pnge 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Signifmant Impaot Less Potentially Unless Than Signifyant Mitigation Significaot No tmoact Incorporated Impact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? () ( ) ( ) (x) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Potentially S~gnif~,ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~nificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoroo~ated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 Comments: a) b) c) Issues and SuppoSing Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche hazards? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Potentially Signit-mant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signit'~cant Mitigation Significant Iml~ect Inco~)oraled Impact No Impect ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () () () () () () (). () () (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 m Issues am:l Supporting Information Sources: WATER. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigauo~ S~gnificant Impact ImCOrDo~t~l Iml~ct I/trill the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 h) i) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Potertfially Issues and Supporting Info,marion Sources: Signifyant Iml:~Ct AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) Comments: a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Imoact No Im~ct ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially S~/nif.:ant Imoact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Potentially Slgllificent Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~nJficent Incoroo~ated Im~ct No Irnoact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Issues and Supporting Info~1~afion Souroes: f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless 'D~an Significant Mitigation S~gnificant No Impact Incorporated Imoac~ Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues and Suppo~ I~ormetion Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less Poter~tially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac~ Inco~;)orated Impact Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pooD? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 = issues and Supporting Information Sources: ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal: a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? Comments: a) b) c) Potentially Signirmant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~nificantMitigat~n Significant IrnDect Incomorated Imm~ct No Impact ( ) ( ) () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Signifmant Impact Less ~PolentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation Significant Imoact IncorPoratedImpact No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Issues and Supporting Infocreation Sources: 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco~oreted Iml~act Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Issues and Supporting I~ormation Sources: Potentially S~gnificant Impact Less Potefltially Unless Than S~nificant Mitigation S~gnificant No Impact InCO~l~r~ed Iml~act Impact 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 11. Potentially Issues and Supporting Info~mation Sources: S~gnifmant Impact PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signit'mant InCOrDorated IrnDact No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) 12. Issues and Supportlog Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentrally SignE~ant Impact () () () () () () () Potentially S~gnificant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated () () () () () () () Than Sig~ific~n! Impact () () () () () () () No (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 13. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: a) b) c) Potentially Signify. ant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~nif~ent Mit~gat~o~ Signirmant Iml~act Inco~oraled Impact No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () () () (x) (x) 14. Issues and Supporting Information Sources CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? Potentialty S~gnificant Impact Less PoterttmllyUnless Than S~nificantM'rtigetion S~gnJfmant ImpaCt Incor'13oratedImoact No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 Issues and Supporte3g Informatk~ Sources: d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentrally Unless Than Signifmant Mitigation Significent No Impact Incoroora~ed Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 15. Issues end Supporting Informstroh Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Comments: a) b) Potentially S~gnificent Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnificent Mitigation S~gnificent No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 16. Issues end Supfio~ing Informat~onSourcas: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnif~ant Mifigatio~ Significant No Impact Incomorate~ Impact impact 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 pedod of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Comments: a) b) c) d) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 EARLIER ANALYSES Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) () Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) () Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) () Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) () Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) () Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) () Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) (x) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) () Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) ( ) Other: ( ) Other: Initial Study for TPM 15091 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 15 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: ~ 18, 1997 Pdnt Name and Title: Date: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Brief Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15091 - CENTEX HOMES - A subdivision of 1.09 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District of the Eftwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of East Rancho Estates Place, west of Etiwanda Avenue - Lot B of Tract 12659-1. 2. Name and Address of Applicant: o Scott Nowak, Project Manager Centex Homes 2280 Wardlow Circle, Suite 150 Corona, CA 91720 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received by the Planning Division no later than 5:00 pm ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission decision. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigating measures (if any) as listed on the attachments. Dated November 12.1997 E. David Barker Planning Commission Chairman Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15091, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST RANCHO ESTATES PLACE, WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15091, submitted by Centex Homes, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into three parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Count;~ of San Bernardino, State of California, located on the south side of East Rancho Estates Place, west of Eftwanda Avenue; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 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 Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15091 November 12, 1997 Page 2 proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. SFCTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15091 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: F:ngineedng Division Missing public improvements shall be installed fronting East Rancho Estates Place. Refer to the Standard Conditions for requirements. Revise City Drawing No. 1281 Street to reflect the installation of the above public improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Lot Line Adjustment No. 410 shall be recorded prior to final map approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Those A. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. items checked are Conditions of Approval. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer &dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. 4. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: 10. ll. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided. 15o? 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: B. Street Improvements 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. A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40- foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive Street Street Comm. Median Bike & Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Gutter Other 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 will bc curvilinear per STD. # 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction t~c shall be provided for this item. 2 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 parcel map approval. b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall 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 othep,vise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections). or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pullrope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 6. 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. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be ploned for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 ? t Go Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parlovay landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Drainage and Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone __ 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 parcel map approval. 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 parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 5. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of- way. 6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 7. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin on a public street. 4 Eo Improvement Completion I. If the required publi.c.improvements are not completed prior to approval of the f'mal parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: 2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the f'mal parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: Utilities I. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD is required prior to final parcel map approval. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. General Reouiremen/s and Approvals 1. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date. 2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. ~]S 4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for: 5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. 6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval. 5 7. Prior to fmalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. 10. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 11. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment ofa Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance 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 parcel map. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map 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. 12. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. 13. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (l) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Rev. 10/14/96 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 12, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-03 - CASTILLO COMPANY. INC. - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance by adding regulations to allow for the identification of subtenants of a major or anchor tenant within shopping centers. BACKGROUND: On October 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 97-19 for the development of a commercial shopping center located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Conditions of approval for the project require submittal of a Uniform Sign Program to establish criteria for the placement of signs throughout the center. To address project needs and a current business trend that places financial institutions within supermarkets, the applicant submitted this request to allow for the placement of subtenant signage for their proposed tenants. Following the final determination on this amendment, the project's Uniform Sign Program will be reviewed by Planning staff. On a related note, the Planning Commission recently approved Sign Ordinance Amendment 97-01 to add regulations that allow for the identification of subtenants within Service Stations. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a request to amend the Sign Ordinance to allow signage for a subtenant of a major or anchor tenant as well to establish specific definitions and design requirements for their placement (see Exhibit "A"). Staff supports a revision to the Sign Ordinance to allow for the identification of subtenants of a major or anchor store. The specific criteria for the size and location of subtenant signs is not included as it will be established through each individual project's Uniform Sign Program. Proposed text changes to allow for the establishment of subtenant sign criteria include: The Uniform Sign Program may establish criteria for the placement of subtenant signs of a major or anchor tenant. A subtenant is defined as a business that is owned or operated by the major or anchor tenant, and/or franchisee or subsidiary of the major or anchor tenant; and whose operation is separate from, unrelated to, and different from the major or anchor tenant. A major or anchor tenant occupying a floor area in excess of 50,000 square feet may provide subtenant signage. 4. A subtenant must occupy a minimum of 400 square feet of floor area. iTEH F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SOA 97-03 - CASTILLO COMPANY, INC. November 12, 1997 Page 2 5. Only one subtenant of a major or anchor tenant will be permitted signage. 6. The identification of subtenants may be allowed on the monument sign. Only a manned subtenant may be provided signage. Interior or extedor ATM machines are not considered subtenants. Regarding the request to change the monument sign cdteda, the Sign Ordinance currently provides what the applicant is requesting. In addition to specific cdteda for project identification signs. there are two types of monument signs permitted. Either two 24 square foot monument signs per street frontage, 300 feet apart, or one 48 square foot monument sign for street frontages in excess of 500 feet. Both the Foothill Boulevard and the Vineyard Avenue street frontages of the project site are in excess of 500 feet. Letter sizes are limited to a minimum height of 8-inches without a limit to the specific number of tenants as the number of tenants identified will be determined by the Uniform Sign Program. The remainder of the applicant's request focuses on the establishment of specific definitions and design cdteria that are more appropriate for their project's Uniform Sign Program. Their Uniform Sign Program will identify and define on which elevations signs will be permitted, what constitutes a logo, and what tenants will be permitted subtenant signage. Further, the Uniform Sign Program will also define applicable specific design requirements, which must be consistent with all applicable Sign Ordinance requirements ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed sign regulations are categorically exempt per Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality ACt. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment 97-03. Res. per, fully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council June 2,1997 Nancy Fong, ^ICP Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Two proposals for Sign Ordinance Amendment to provide for secondary signage for a sub-tenant of a major or anchor tenant. NWC of Foothill Drive and Vineyard Avenue/97-340-11 Dear Ms. Fong: Enclosed please find our check of $2,866.00 for the Sign Ordinance amendment application fee. We are requesting Sign Ordinance Amendments involving the following two items: The existing sign ordinance does not provide for a sub-tenant sign on a major or anchor tenant front wall (such as a bank sub-tenant in a major chain grocery store). We are proposing such an amendment to the City's Sign Ordinance. Please see the attached Exhibit A for details of our proposal. The existing ordinance only permits the theme name of the shopping center plus two tenants (or three tenants) on the monument sign facing each street. The shopping center plan includes five buildings with the potential to capture approximately one dozen tenants. We are proposing that this monument sign be allowed to identify the theme name and four tenants (or five tenants). We would recommend minimum six inch letters, measured vertically, for the capital letters of the anchor and tenants. With the "eight line rule' applied to each tenant, the overall sign area would still be limited to 24 square feet. Please see the attached proposed sign drawing for an example sign. If you require additional information or have any question please call Bob Cummins or me at (800) 266-9080. Sincerely, /~la~ing, ~(ICP e Preside,!~ enclosures INFORMATION IS OUR BUSINESS · Software Development · Market Research · ReaJ Estate Servmes · Arch~tecture/E~gineermg · Financial Services Castillo Company. Inc. 2~,5 E. University Drive Phoenix. AZ $,50~.6~27 RO Box 21087 Phoenix. AZ 85036-!087 Tel 6O2 23190C© Fax 5C2 27:8,593 CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 2, 1997 EXHIBIT A A. DEFINITIONS Our proposed amendment would add the following definitions to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance: Front: Building or store frontage facing toward a street; building or store frontage facing toward the shopping center main parking lot; building or store frontage facing toward shopping center entrance drives. Logo: A graphic symbol representing an activity, use or business; logos shall be registered trademarks or symbols commonly used by the occupant's business and may include graphic designs in addition to lettering. Sub-tenant: A tenant of an unrelated business located within a major or anchor tenant occupancy that has a minimum of 30,000 square feet. (Example: A bank within a grocery store.) B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Where monument signs are located on shopping center or building frontages, for the identification of the businesses within the center, one of the tenant sign spaces may be used for sub-tenant identification. SUB-TENANT WALL SIGN DESIGN REQUIREMENTS A financial institution as a sub-tenant to a major or anchor tenant, may be provided a signage area on the building front of the anchor tenant. The sub-tenant shall be permitted a sign area up to 35 square feet, including logo and lettering. The sign may have a maximum logo height of 30" (2'-6") and letter height of 18" (1'-6"). This sign area shall not be deducted from the sum total sign area permitted for the major or anchor tenant. The sub-tenant signage shall be designed and placed as an integral part of the store or building facade in a manner complimentary to the overall design concept of the shopping center. Automated Teller Machine (ATM) signage shall be located on the face of the machine. The area of such signage shall not exceed 12 square feet. The bezel and architectural border shall not be calculated as a component of the sign area unless they contain sign characters, logos, or other signage graphic images. This sign area shall not be deducted from the sum total sign area allowed for the anchor tenant. Words and graphics which instruct persons on the use of the ATM shall not be considered a part of the sign area unless they remain readable beyond the boundaries of the shipping center. 12' ~-OUTI=I::2 OUT F:'LEX Lt=TTER~ / ALU~INUI',4 PAINTED ~ ~ TO I",4AT~.H tBLI2~. ~,I~N I.G INTEI~.NALL¥ 24 9~.FT. ~I~N AREA t~LEVA'r'ION I/4" AT ~t~,I~/I=IAIA¥ I=NTI~ANC,,t~ ~I®N A.GPI ~TORE #121-D'"/D RANC',.HO C. UC, AI,.4ON~A, NI,N~, FOOTHILL BLVD. ~ VINEYAI~E2 AV'IE. ¢A~,TILLO ¢-,OMPAN¥, INC,. F::'HOENIX, AZ ~q'/D4011 -/ 12' 7 .GAP ~IMILAt~ TO BLD~,~.% I/I/ PU.GH- THt~J,) PLI=X LETTER?., ? ~ ~ ALUNtlNI.Jlvl P'AINTEI:;2 TO IvlAT,¢.,t-I IDLI::2~. I,"4,ALL5 ~,I,~N I.G INTERNALLY' LI~,tNTED. EN~ V'IE~ ELEVATION ~HOF~t~'i N~ C~,ENTE~ ("~I~OJECT I.~. ~I~N") A'~PI 9TORE RANC, NO ,C. IJ~,AN'fON~A, NI~IC, I=OOTHILL BLVD. ~. VINE'f'AR[:2 Ax/E. C. ADTILLO (.,,OPIPANY, INC_... PHOENIX, AZ 4-11-~'1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBTENANTS OF A MAJOR OR ANCHOR TENANT WITHIN SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN SECTION 14.20.100 PERMITTED SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Castillo Company, Inc., has filed an application for Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Sign Ordinance Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of November 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on November 12, 1997, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. b. The Amendment will provide for development within the Distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City. 3. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-03 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SOA 97-03 - CASTILLO COMPANY, INC. November 12, 1997 Page 2 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-03, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBTENANTS OF A MAJOR OR ANCHOR TENANT WITHIN SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN SECTION 14.20.100 PERMITTED SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES. A. Recitals, 1. On the 12th day of November 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign Ordinance Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public headng, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 97- , thereby recommending the City Council adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-03. 2. On the __ day of __ 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing pdor to its adoption of this ordinance. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS Business Identification (business not within shopping centers including single tenant office buildings). SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER Wall One per building face, a maximum of three per business. and Monument One per street frontage, a maximum of 2 per business. MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 10% of the building face, not to exceed 150 square feet. 24 square feet, MAXIMUM HEIGHT Not to project above the roof and in no case be higher than 20 feet from finished grade. Up to 8 feet. REMARKS A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of three signs may be used to identify any one business. b. Wall signs and monument signs shall be architecturally designed to be compatible with the development. c. Monument signs shell be placed entirely on the subject property and shall not overhang into private or public property. 19 14.20.1(. ermitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The subject to the provisions listed: owing signs may be permitted in the commercial and ~_ .,;e zones CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER Business identification Wall One per building face, a (businesses within shopping maximum of 3 for any one centers). business. Subtenant sign. and Monument wall One per subtenant. One per street frontage MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 10% of the building face, not to exceed 150 square feet. To be Included as part of the 10~/, of the building face maximum sign area for the major or anchor tenant. 24 square feet. MAXIMUM HEIGHT Not to project above the roof and in no case be higher than 20 feet from finished grade. Not to project above the roof and In no case be higher than 20 feet from finished grade. UptoSfeet. REMARKS A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of 3 signs may be used to identify any one business. Wall signs are limited to business identification only. A center is one in which businesses and structures are designed in an integrated and interrelated development. Such design is independent of the number of structures, lots, or parcels making up the center. All shopping -~-,*~te-s shall develop a coordinated sign program for all tenants and uses. This includes size, color, sign typa, and location. Limited variation is parmitted, such as color, as long as the remaining components of the program remain the same. a. The Uniform Sign Program may establish criteria for the placement of subtenant signs of a major or anchor tenanL b. A subtenant Is defined as a buslneas that is owned or opem~d by the major or anchor tonan~ and/or f~anchlsea or subsidiary of the major or anchor tenant; and whose operaffon Is separate from, unrelated to, and different from the major or anchor tenant. c. A major or anchor tenant occupying a floor area In excess of 50,000 square feet may provide subtenant signage. d. A subtenant must nccupy a minimum of 400 square feet of floor area. e. Only one subtenant of a major or anchor tenant wfll be permitted signage. f. Subtenant Identification may be allowed on the monument sign. g. Only a manned subtenant may be provided signage. Interior or exterior ATM mnchlnes are not considered subtenants. e. Monument signs may contain up to three identifications per side; either the theme name of the center and two tenants or three tenants. The design (color, material, style) of all monument signs shell be consistent and compatible to the design of the center. Monument signs facing different streets need not contain identical information. Additionally, a two- sided sign need not contain the same copy. 20 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT Business identification or Monument Two per street frontage, 24 square feet. Up to 6 feet. (businesses within shopping minimum 300 feet apart. centers) (Continued), Business identification (multiple professional tenants more than three). The number and placement of wall and directory signs shall be subject to review by the City Planner. or Monument One per street frontage of 500 48 square feet. Up to 8 feet. feet or more. and Business To be determined through D i r e c t o r y approval by the City Planner. (Monument) Signs may be placed to form a single structure or kiosk. and Project I.D. One per street frontage, not to Monuments exceed 2 per center. Wall To be determined by the City Planner based on each individual building design. and Monument One per street, maximum of two. and Business To be determined by the City Directory Planner based on each individual building design. 15 square feet. Up to 6 feet. 24 square feet Up to 6 feet. 10% of the face of the structure where sign is to be placed. not to exceed 50 square feet. 24 square feet. 12 square feet. Not to project above the roof. Up to 8 feet. Up to 8 feet. REMARKS Monument signs shall identify major anchor tenants and provide sufficient area to idenUfy minor tenants as determined by the property owner. An 8-inch minimum letter height is recommended. Address of center required, but not counted as part of the monument sign area. The business director/signs are intended to provide direction and identification to the smaller individual shop tenants. All such signs shall maintain a minimum 60-foot setback from the street (as measured from the face of cur'o). Project I.D. signs are limited to only identifying the theme name and/or graphic logo of the center. Project I,D. signs shall be located at a major intersection or project entry. Project I.D. signs shall be part of an architectural theme wall (not freestanding sign). A pair of project I.D. signs flanking a project entry shall count as one sign. A conceptual sign program for each building shall be required at the time of design review. The City Planner shall review all office sign programs through the permit procedure to determined that it is within the criteda herein set forth and meets the intent of this Ordinance. Monument signs shall be limited to identifying the name of the professional complex. Business direc~ signs may be placed throughout the site as needed at entrances and shall be limited to listing the tenants name and suite number. 21 14.20.10~. ~rmitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The ,..~wing signs may be permitted in the commercial and o..e zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS Business identification (multiple professional tenants more than three). The number and placement of wall and directory signs shall be subject to review by the City Planner (continued). SIGN TYPE and Site Directory (monument) 4. a. Service Station Wall Identification and Pricing and Monument b. Special Service Signs c Special Advertisement d. Subtenant Signs 5 Pedestrian Traffic Signs 6. Regional Shopping Center Wall or Ground MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT One per vehicular entrance. 12 square feet. One per street frontage, maximum two, One per street frontage, not to exceed a total of two per station. REMARKS One for each pump island, not to exceed a total of four per station, Up to 8 feet. a. To direct visitors and emergency vehicles to buildings. b. Sign shall be conveniently located and shall not be located within the entry throat in a manner which could block access. c. Illuminated for legibility 24 hours a day. Sign shall locate buildings, driveways, and address of each building. Fire hydrant or Knox box locations may also be shown as required by the fire district. e. Copy shall be a minimum of 1-inch in heigh and legible from 20 feet. Window or Ground Two per station. Wall One per subtenant, not to exceed a total of two per station. 10% of building face not to exceed 150 square feet. 36 square feet. Not above roof line or 20 feet. a, Up to 8 feet. b. A combination of monument and wall may be used, but not more than a total of 3 signs. The monument sign shall be designed to include the identification of the station and gasoline pdces. No other pdce signs are allowed. c. Uniform Sign Program shall be required for service stations with a subtenant. Monument One per subtenant per monument sign. 2 square feet. If mounted on a wall or pole of the canopy, it shall be no higher than 8 feet. Ground signs shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Special service signs shall be limited to such items asself serve, full serve, air, water, cashier, and shall be nonilluminated. 6 square feet. A ground sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height, a window sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Special advertisement shall be limited to advertising special sales or services. 12 square feet, to be included as part of the 10% of the building face for the service station. Not above roof line or 20 feet. A subtenant is defined as a business that is owned or operated by the station and/or the franchisees of the station, or a subsidiary of the station; and, whose operation is separate from, unrelated to, and different from the station. Each subtenant shall occupy a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of a building. A maximum of two subtenants is allowed in a station. The identification of subtenants may be allowed on the monument sign. Products, services, price signs for the subtenants are not allowed. Wall, Window, or One per business. 6 square feet. Canopy Not to exceed 12 feet above Such sign shell contain only the identification of the business for finished grade. pedestrian traffic. Upon development of a "regional shopping center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 22 Revised 5~97 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS Movie Theaters Upon development of a "movie theater," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by Ihe Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 8. Regional Automobile Center Upon development of a "regional automobile sales center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by Ihe Planning Commissiofl with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The Cily Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 23 Revised 8/97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 12, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 97-18 - RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding tree replacement for the removal of 10 trees at the Red Hill Country Club Golf Course located at 8353 Red Hill Country Club Drive -APN: 207-011-49 and 207-101-03, 23, and 35 ABSTRACT: The applicant, Red Hill Country Club, is seeking to remove or modify a condition of approval for the above-referenced Tree Removal Permit requiring replacement of the removed trees on a one-to-one ratio. The Red Hill Country Club contends that the condition is unduly severe because many of the trees have already been replaced and because some were dead or wind damaged. BACKGROUND: In response to a complaint, Code Enforcement investigated the Red Hill Country Club and determined that 10 trees had been removed in August 1997 without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit as required by Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.08.050. Unfortunately, staff was unable to verify whether the trees were, in fact, dead or dangerous, because they had already been removed. On August 28, 1997, the Red Hill County Club Golf Course submitted a Tree Removal Permit application for the 9 Aleppo Pine trees and 1 Eucalyptus tree that were removed. The permit was approved on October 13, 1997 with a condition requiring that "the trees shall be replaced at a ratio of one-to-one with the largest nursery grown trees available within 60 days...the replacement trees shall be of the same species as those removed or Oak or Sycamore trees of the same species as exist on the golf course." The appellant filed the subject appeal on October 22, 1997, see Exhibit "A." ANALYSIS: The purpose of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance is to preserve heritage trees as a valuable, natural, aesthetic resource. The Tree Preservation Ordinance states that "heritage tree removal shall require replacement with the largest nursery-grown tree(s) available as determined by the City Planner or the Planning Commission." Replacement is on a one-to-one basis. Heritage trees are defined as "all woody plants in excess of 15 feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of 15 inches or more, as measured 24 inches from ground level." The applicant has not provided adequate documentation of the health, character, and appearance of the removed trees. The arborist report dated June 4, 1997 submitted with the application, which addresses more trees than those removed, only recommended removal of 3 Aleppo Pine trees and recommended natural pruning of the other trees. No trees were identified by the arborist as dead or dying. ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TRP 97-16 - RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE November 12, 1997 Page 2 Staff has informed the applicant that the 4 replacement trees which have been planted, and the 2 trees scheduled to be planted, will be credited towards satisfying the condition for replacement. However, that still leaves 4 of the 10 trees without replacement; hence, the reason for the condition of approval requiring replacement. PUBLIC COMMENT: Adjacent property owners were notified and given 10 days to comment on the tree removal. Several letters and petitions were received from over 150 persons, see Exhibit "D," all expressing opposition to the removal of the trees. Most of the responses are from members of the Red Hill Country Club and question not only the removal of these 10 trees but express concern with the potential removal of more trees on the golf course. The petition alleges that "a tree survey report from Killian Design Group has been in the possession of all board members since February 1997 that calls for removal of some 90 plus trees." The applicant did not submit a copy of this report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold, by minute action, the City Planher's decision to require replacement of the removed trees on a one-to-one ratio consistent with Tree Preservation Ordinance requirements. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Appellant's letter City Planner Decision Letter Tree Removal Permit Application Letters from neighbors Excerpts from Tree Preservation Ordinance RcU Hill October 21, 1997 Secretary of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 To whom this may concern: I received a letter from Mr. Dan Coleman regarding Tree Removal Permit 97-16 with a condition attached to the permit which Red Hill Country Club would like to appeal. The condition states: "The trees shall be replaced at a ratio of one-to-one with the largest nursery grown trees available within 60 days of the date of this letter. The replacement trees shall either be of the same species as those removed or Oak or Sycamore trees of the same species as exist on the golf course. It is our belief that this condition is unduly severe for the following reasons: 1. At least five of the trees removed were either dead or so severely damaged by the wind storms of this past winter that we felt they presented immediate safety concerns which could only be mitigated by their removal. Our Certified Arborist noted three of these should be removed in his survey dated June 4, 1997 ( a copy of which has been submitted with the request for a permit). We knew that because of the damage sustained by these trees and the likelihood of disease further weakening them, they would fall and become a liability. It is our understanding that when these trees fall due to natural causes we would not be required to replace them. To be required to replace dead and damaged trees which are sure to fall and present hazards to people seems beyond the intent of the code. We are also of the opinion that the code was designed for circumstances in which people would be likely to make radical changes to their property and thereby affect the quality of life for all in the city. Our Club has existed in the same location for more than 75 years and through those years it has made a sincere effort to do what 8358 Red Hill Country Club Drive · Rancfno Cucamonga. CalltO'rhea 91730 · (909) 982-1358 Fax (909) 982-8195 it could to beautify its property. Planting and maintaining trees are the most significant activities we have undertaken to further the beautification of our property. Appropriate maintenance of our trees includes removal when required to meet both safety and aesthetic value requirements. We have a long history of properly looking after our property and we have every intention of continuing to do so. The entire City and those who live in close proximity to our Club have and will continue to benefit from our responsible maintenance of the several thousand mature and young trees on our property. To require that we replace trees we remove encourages us to delay or fail to remove trees which are hazardous or otherwise mitigate the aesthetic value of our property enjoyed by our membership and the citizens of our City. It has never been and never will be in our interest to indiscriminately remove trees, we do so and will do so only when required to maintain a safe and aesthetically appropriate environment. It seems severe that we must replace trees which are hazardous or not able to complement the aesthetic beauty we have created and intend to maintain into the future. It is our opinion that for a piece of property as large as Red Hill Country Club dedicated to maintaining a truly beautiful and challenging golf course, as we are, that proper tree maintenance requires appropriate planting, pruning, and removal of trees. It is not in our interest nor the City's interest to do otherwise. Our commitment is to such a program, yet, the conditions attached to the permit disregard our history and commitment to such a maintenance program. The third issue of concern to us about the requirement to replace all of the trees removed is that no consideration was given to the four trees we have planted and the additional two scheduled to be planted which complete this project. We believe all of these trees should have been considered when issuing the requirement. If considered as replacements for the five trees removed which were not dead or so damaged as likely to fall by natural causes, then it is clear that what we have done to date and intend to do to complete this project will more than mitigate the removal of the five trees. We outlined these plans to Mr. LeCount and Mr. Buller in separate meetings. In summary, we do not think we should be required to replace the trees removed as required by the condition to the permit. Our appeal is based upon our history and commitment to proper tree maintenance practices which beautify our property, protect the environment we have created, and ensure safe access for our members and guests. The condition attached to this permit is severely penal for what we consider to be a responsible course of action to accomplish these goals. As noted in our permit application, our actions were not indiscriminate, rather, thoughtful and completed only after consultation with qualified professionals. The condition attached to our permit does not motivate us to act as prudently in the future, rather, it encourages us to do less. Please reconsider this requirement and advise us how we can continue to implement an appropriate strategy of tree management for our property, as noted above, which would not be injurious to the City nor be of significant financial harm to our Club. Thank you for your consideration of our appeal. We look forward to hearing from you in the very near future. Director of Golf /, T H E ANCHO October 13, 1997 Jim Porter Red Hill Country Club 8358 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 C I T Y 0 F CUCA ONOA SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 97-16 - RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE Dear Mr. Porter: The Planning Division has reviewed your application for Tree Removal Permit No. 97-16, requesting the removal of nine Aleppo Pine trees and one Eucalyptus tree located at 8353 Red Hill Country Club Drive (Red Hill Golf Course). As required by Section 19.08.070 of the Municipal Code, all contiguous property owners and residents were notified and given a ten (10) day period within which to express any concerns or comments. We have received several responses expressing concern with the removal of the trees. Based upon review of the application and site inspection, staff has made the following findings. 1. The trees have already been removed. The removal was necessary because many of the trees were crowding other more valuable trees and because of wind damage. 3. The replacement of the trees will mitigate the removal. The golf course contains a significant number of trees that are to remain which mitigate the removal. o The trees are generally located in the middle of the golf course; hence are furthest away from surrounding homes. Therefore, your request has been approved subject to the following conditions: The approval is for the nine Aleppo Pine trees and one Eucalyptus tree that were already removed. The trees shall be replaced at a ratio of one-to-one with the largest nursery grown trees available within 60 days of the date of this letter. The replacement trees shall either be of the same species as those removed or Oak or Sycamore trees of the same species as exist on the golf course. Jim Porter TRP 97-16 October 13, 1997 Page 2 This decision shall be final following a ten (10) day appeal period. Any appeals shall be made in writing to the Secretary of the Planning Commission along with a $62 filing fee. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Brent Le Count, project planner, at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COM, PI..,~N ING DIISION Dan Coleman Principal Planner DC:BLC/mlg CC: Fred Schlosser Jim Van Antwerp Jack and Arlene George Robert and Audrey Arcinage Mary Burgan, Code Enforcement Officer O Z 0 0 0 Z .,y of Rancho Cucamonga GENERAL INFORMATION Tree Removal Permit NON-DEVELOPMENT LESS THAN 5 TREES OR 50' LINEAR FEET OF WINDROW, I Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person remove or relocate any woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (30) inches or more (measured twenty-four (24) inches from ground level), without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the City. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE: 8358 Red Hill C.C. Dr., Cucamonga, CA 9] 730 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF APPLICANT: Red Hill Corinth/, Club, 8q58 R¢,S P~ ] ] Country Club Dr., Cucamonqa, CA 91730 (909) 982-1358 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PROPERTY OWNER (if other than aDPlicant): same as above REASONS FOR REMOVAL (attach necessary sheets)i see attached PROPOSED METHOD Of REMOVAL: Trees will be cut down with chain saw, roots be ground. APPLICANT S SIG NATU Ry 7 v 'v"'~-~' ~ ~' DATE: 8/28/97 ADDITIONAL FILING RE,,.,Q~IREMENTS'h'("[ This application shall include a plot plan indicating location of al trees to be removed and retained. The species, number, and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased, then a written statement from a licensed arborist stating the nature of the disease shall be required. A~ON -- EvaluatioF-~f this application is based on the criteria on the reverse side. .. o The permit shalt be valid for a period of ninety (90) days, unless an extension is requested fourteen (14) days prior to the expiration of the permit. [0 BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: 1. Condition of the trees? ¢-'~F5~/ 2. Any safety hazards to persons, adjacent property or utility installations? 3. Any conflict with proposed improvements? ~ ,~¢ '~--' ~ ~..,Ca~ ~_..~,x./~--~ 4 . Proximity of other trees in the area? ~ ~:~.-~'¢o¢~,~-~ ~_.~d.d.~ ~ ~---'~3t~"~'lA~_.. 5. Effect of tree removal on the aesthetics of the area and the public health, safety and welfare. 6. Are any of the trees required to be preserve by any specific plan, condition of approval, or historic landmark designation? 7. Is an arborist required? DECISION: -" DATE: \~ }',,~, XAq' EVALUATED BY: ~~'-- August25,1997 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RECEIVED AUG Lo97 City o_! Rancho Dear Mr. Buller: On the afternoon of August 15th, during a meeting With a Member of Red Hill Country Club, I was informed that Rancho Cucamonga requires a permit to cut down trees. At that time I was not aware of any such requirement and, before I had an oppommity to review this policy with Mr. Jim Porter (Director of Golf), we received a visit from Mary Burgan, Code Enforcement of Rancho Cucamonga. In response to the Correction Notice issued by Ms. Burgan, please find enclosed, our application for a Tree Removal Permit for the trees we recently removed. I trust you w411 find the necessary documents enclosed herein. Now that we are fully aware of the proper procedures, Red Hill Country Club will cooperate with the City Planning Department and will request permits for all tree removal in the future. I hope you will accept my apologies and work with us. Red Hill has many thousands of trees which we are attempting to care for on a regular basis to enhance the beauty and playability of our course, ensure their health and provide safety to our Members, staff and guests. Thank you for your consideration of the enclosed permit. please feel free to cal/~ Club President If you have any questions, ::;-; r;,.,e: ~-:tl Cou"'rq' Clut~ Dr,',.'e · Rcncr-,c "' .......California 91730 · (909:) 982-1358 Fax (90¢) 982-8195 (_ ,It~ TREE REMOVAL PERMIT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY: James S. Porter, Dir. of Golf~ DATE: 8/21/97 Please find the Reasons for Removal for the following trees: Four Aleppo Pines, in excess of 40 feet tall, located between the #12 and #17 fairways: - removed due to severe wind damage which weakened these trees, created potential safety hazards to players and staff, and significantly reduced the aesthetic values of the trees ,to a point where these trees did not have a shape nor could be shaped to resemble Aleppo Pines; - these trees were also growing into healthy Sycamore and Aleppo Pines causing stress and compromising the aesthetic values of the healthy trees; - at least one (1) Sycamore tree, at least 18 feet in height (60 to 72 inch box) will be planted in this area to complement the existing Sycamore grove in this area; - all efforts have been directed to enhance the health and aesthetic value of the Sycamores and healthy pines in this area. Two Aleppo Pines, in excess of 30 feet tall, located in the left rough of the #17 fairway: - removed because these trees were wind damaged to a point where they were weakened, presented safety hazards to players and staff, and had their aesthetic value so reduced that they did not appear to be Aleppo Pines; - removed because one was growing into a valued Sycamore and a valued Oak, the other was growing into a valued Oak, both causing growth, health, and aesthetic problems for the more important trees in this area. One Aleppo Pine, in excess of 30 feet tall, left of#5 tee: - removed due to severe wind damage which weakened the remainder of the tree, created safety hazards to players and staff, and reduced the aesthetic value of the tree to a point where it did not appear to be an Aleppo Pine.. Hill Count*~' C:,.,b Dri,,,= · Rcncnc Cuccmonac, California 91730 * (909) 982-',358 Fax (c'"~" 982-E':95 One Eucalyptus, in excess of 50 feet tall, to the right of the green on hole #7: - removed because it was dead and presented safety hazards to players and staff who constantly operate vehicles beneath it; One Aleppo Pine, in excess of 40 feet tall, to right of the fairway bunker on fight side of fairway: - removed because it split in two and the remainder of the tree was severely weakened, a safety hazard to players and staff, and no longer appeared to be an Aleppo Pine. One Aleppo Pine, in excess of 30 feet tall, on south side of lake on hole #8: - removed because of severe wind damage wlxich removed the top of the tree and weakened the remainder of the tree, created safety hazards to players and staff', and destroyed the aesthetic value of the tree to a point where it no longer appeared to be an Aleppo Pine. - four Pinus Pinea have been planted in this area, one approximately 15 feet from its location to replace the tree removed; - one tree a 60 inch boxed tree; - three trees in 48 inch boxes; - all approximately 15 feet tall. Photographs of many of these trees prior to their removal are available for review. Trees located between hole #12 and #17 were examined by Finch Tree Surgery, Inc. which noted in their site inspection report that the wind damage required the removal of these trees. They recommended removal because they could not prune the trees to preserve the health or aesthetic values expected from trees in this location. Site inspection submitted by Dan Thacker, Certified Arborist WC3416. June 4, 1997 RECEIVED Red Hill Country Club (5626) C/o Jim Porter 8358 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 SEP ~I 0 ~9~J? C~ty of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Division SITE INSPECTION REPORT Dear Jim, This is a brief outline of the proposed tree pruning on hole # 17 and in the green belt between fairways #12 and #16, with the best seasonal period for these actions. One of my concerns regarding the removal of the three pines on # 17, is how to minimize the impact to the course in the removal of the wood. Because of the amount of weight in the wood, only small quantities should be taken over the grass to prevent track marks. This might be best accomplished and less costly if done with your in house crew. If any action takes less time than anticipated on site discounts will be given, however any action that requires more time than planned costs given will remain firm. TREE LOCATION PROBLEM ACTION 3 aleppo Right side of fairway # 17 Wind damaged Cut down-Anytime pines 10 Along fairway # 17 both Provide a more open Natural prune- sycamores left and right sides appearance. Increased light. Anytime Oaks Ioak east of# 17 green. 7 oaks in green belt between fairway # 12 and # 16 Enhance natural appearance. Additional light will help reduce moisture around base. Natural prune- July - Sept. aleppo, Canary Island pines and deodars 1 aleppo right side of fairway #17. 2 aleppo, 3 deodars left side fairway # 17. 2 aleppo, 5 Canary island pines between fairways # 12 and # 16. 8 aleppo pines by # 12 Reduce weight in trees. Provide a more open appearance. Natural prune-Nov- Feb Professional Tree Management Sincerely, Dan Thacker Certified Arborist WC3416 Professional Tree Management RECEIVED SEP :t'0 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Div/sion RECEIVED City of Rancho Cucamonga PJanning Division (~c-Z7o,~.,,~, ,../, ,,,9(9.7 H C [ T Y O F ~2 A N C H 0 C U RECEIVED September 25, 1997 George, John C Tr 7507 Cerrito Rojo SEP 3'0 1997 Cily of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 C A M O N O A SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 97-16 - RED HILL GOLF COURSE Dear Property Owner: The Planning Division has received a Tree Removal Permit application requesting the removal of nine Aleppo Pine trees and one Eucalyptus tree located at 8358 Red Hill Country Club Drive (Red Hill Golf Course). The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance requires all contiguous property owners and residents be given a ten-day notice in which to comment. Therefore, any concerns or comments you may have about the removal of the trees should be submitted to the Planning Division, in writing, within ten days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call this office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner ~ n l,/~'~ [/ n ? ~ ]. , ~,~ ~.~ (~.~-'. BLCIjfs '~% ~ , ~' ' '~ ' Mayor 'W~ll~om J A!excnOer 0502 Civic Ce'-'ter Drive A Cod"',cilme,mber ~ "Bsr",e . >--- ~ ~ ..... me . ,,J~. !,:-3:, 3d+le:re-.!' ~ ,..,,rr,~m~r Jc'%es '~. .......... . ..-z, ,....~ · FAX , . ,.177-2840 RECEIVED OCT 0.6 1997 7650 Calle Casino Rancho C~ga, CA. October 2, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Coranunity Developmant Dept. 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho~Cucar~nga, CA. 91729 Pd~: ~"T~qZ. ~VAL P.~ NO. 97-16 - ~ HILL GOLF COUPLE Dear Brent Le Count, In responce to your letter dated September 25, 1997, I am concerned with the proposed ramoval of nine Aleppo Pine trees and one Ecalypt~m tree. ~f ~rife and I live on the fifth green of the Golf course and enjoy the trees and green faizx~ays. %/his [.~s one of the factors in our deceision to purchase our residence. If the trees in question are indaed diseased, then they must be cut down, I agree. We have heard ho~ever t~hat the cutting of some of-the trees are due to an expert on COif courses, suggesting that to beautify the course certain trees must be cut. ~is is where I do not agree. The course is lovely as it stands (tree wise) and the trees are not the problem that %~uld detract f~om the beauty. Therefore, ~Je protest .the tree removal permit. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely, Rober Audrey L. Arcinage 91730 RED 1tlLL COUNTRY CLUB TREE REMOVAL LIST 1 Maple tree removed on fairway #5 at the blue tee 4 Pine trees between # 12 and # 17 fairways-they were giant trees 1 Orchid or Carob tree behind the green on #13 1 Pine tree middle ofsouth side of fairway #17 Last year a giant Sycamore tree was removed from the # 10 green Rumor is that the plan is to removed 95 or more trees from the Country Club Two different tree trimming services were used to cut down the above stated trees SEPT. 9, 1997 THE RED HILL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GENTLEMEN, IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF MAJOR CHANGES BEING MADE ON OUR GOLF COURSE THAT ARE VERY DISTURBING TO US AND SHOULD BE TO YOU AS OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ENTRUSTED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE MEMBERSFlIPS BEST INTERESTS AND ASSETS. A TREE SURVEY REPORT FROM KILLIAN DESIGN GROUP HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF-ALL BOARD MEMBERS SINCE FEBRUARY THAT CALLS FOR THE REMOVAL OF SOME NINETY PLUS TREES ALONG WITH SOME REPLACEMENTS. HOW DO YOU REPLACE 30 TO 50 YEAR OLD TREES? TO DATE THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS TREES REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLAN ON THE 12 th AND 17th FAIRWAYS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY RECORDED BOARD VOTE OR ANY MEMBERSHIP APPROVAL TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN. ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 15th THE CLUB PRESIDENT IN THE COURSE OF HIS MEETINGS WITH CLUB MEMBERS WAS ADVISED BY A CITY OFFICIAL THAT RED HII JL WAS IN VIOLATION OF A RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ORDINANCE REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS REQUIRING PERMITS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF CERTAIN SIZE AND TYPES OF TREES. WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THIS NOTICE THE CLUB PRESIDENT IGNORING THE REQUEST OF SOME BOARD MEMBERS TO DELAY ORDERED THE REMOVAL THREE DAYS LATER ON AUGUST 18th OF THE LARGE TREE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAKE ON THE 8th FAIRWAY. AS A RESULT OF Tills ACTION RED HII.L COUNTRY CLUB IS NOW BEING SUBJECTED TO AN INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND HAS BEEN PUT ON NOTICE NOT TO REMOVE ANY MORE TREES COVERED BY THE CITY ORDINANCE PENDING THE RESULTS AND RESOLUTION OF RED HILL' S CODE VIOLATIONS.. IN ADDITION TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE TREES WH/CH ARE VALUABLE CLUB ASSETS, THE MAJOR DESIGN CHANGES AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TE. ES~ON #5, 9 and 17 HOLES WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT MEMBERSHIP OR BOARD APPROVAL ALSO RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF MORE VALUABLE TREES AND SHRUBS. IT APPEARS THAT A FEW INDIVIDUALS HAVE ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY AND HAVE EMBARKED ON MAJOR DESIGN CHANGES AND RECONFIGURATION OF OUR GOLF COURSE WITHOUT ANY MEMBERSHIP OR BOARD APPROVAL. IN ADDITION TO THE CITY CODE VIOLATION WE SUGGEST IT IS ALSO IN VIOLATION OF RED HILL BY LAW, ARTICLE THREE, SECTION SEVEN. THESE UNAUTHORIZI=~D UNILATERAL ACTIONS MUST BE ADDRESSED THERFORE WE REQUEST THE FOLLOWING; 1. A RECORDED VOTE OF THE COMPLETE BOARD IMMEDIATELY PUTTING A STOP TO ANY FURTHER DESIGN CHANGES OR RECONSTRUCTION OF OUR GOLF COURSE. 2. INSTITUTING CONTROLS TO ASSURE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY CANNOT OCCUR AGAIN. 3. IN A TIMELY MANNER CALL FOR A GENERAL MEMBERSHIP M'~-~TING TO ADDRESS THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM. PLEASE BE ADVISED A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS BEING SENT TO ALL REGULAR VOTING MEMBERS FOR THEIR INFORMATION. WE URGE ALL MEMBERS TO CONTACT THE BOARD MEMBERS AND TO PARTICPATE AND SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS TO PROTECT TI-{E CLUBS BEST INTERESTS AND ASSETS. I WOULD APPRECIATE A REPLY TO THIS LETTER, THANK YOU. RALPH LANGLEY PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PAGE FOR MEMBER ENDORSEMENTS OF Tiffs LETTER. .MBERSENDORSING RALPH LANGLEY'S LETTER DATED 9-9-97 1-°07 WrLLIAM AMAN RICHARD ANDERSON ANGELO ANTONE!.LI VINCENT ANTONETTO CATHY BARNES DOWLTON BERRY JOHN BAXTER WAYNE BLANTON ELLIS BIGNELl. LEONARD BROTZMAN VAUGHN BROWN PATRICK BRYAN DON BRLrECKNER JAMES BURKE KENT BURNS JAMES BUTLER VINCENT CAROLLO FRANK CASSIS CHARLES CHAMBERS MAURICE COX HARRJET CRUM JOHN DI BIASE FRANK DE SALVO RAY ELLINGSON JESS EVANS FRANK FLAHERTY JOHN FELTON JACK FIRESTONE FRED FREEHLING WILLIAM FREDERICKS ROYER FUDGE FRED GATTAS JACK GEORGE JOHN GOLLER OSCAR HAALAND JOHN HAENDIGES DONALD HALSEY CHARLES HAMBLIN LELAND HAMBLIN RON HAMER ROBERT HAMILTON JOHN HAYES WARREN HERSHEY NEAL HII.L JACK HOCKIN J. B. HOGAN WILLIAM HOWIE JERRY HUDSPETH CHARLES JENKINS JOHN JENKINS ROBERT JENSEN VIRGINIA JOHNS MAURICE JOHNSON JACK JONES ROBERT JONES KARL KAISER JOHN LESONDAK OLIN LORD JAMES LUCAS ORVILLE MANLEY PIERCE MARTIN HARRY Mc BETH DENNIS MICHAEL LLOYD MICHAEL WILLIAM MILTON RICHARD MII.LER TOM MOGA DEL MOONEYHAM HAROLD NELMS AL NELSON DAVID NEMETH TED NEWARD THOMAS OSBERGER TONY PAPA KENNETH PARKIN JOHN PFIZER WALTER PLASKE'!'I' WLLIAM PLASMAN KATHY PRUIT DAVID RAHN WALTER REARDON CLI~rON ROBERTSON G. M. ROCKWELL NICHOLAS ROSS JOHN SCHICK WAYNE SCHILLING FILED SCHLOSSER JAN Sn i ~ETTO WILLIAM SHARP EDWARD SHEA PAUL SKVAKNA MAGGIE SMELTZER MICHAEL SM1TS ROBERT SPENCER DEL STACY PERRY STEWART DONN STEWART WILLIAM STURGESS JANET SWAN CARLOS TERAN JAMES THOMAS VINCENT TOTARO BILL TRUEBLOOD THOMAS TURNER JAMES VAN ANTWERP HUGO VAVKINEK JACK VERNE RICHARD VERRUE DONALD WAKE GARY WALDRON LINUS WIEGENSTE1 N RAY ZIMMER GOI:kDON ZWISSLER NOTE TO MEMBEP~SHIP; TO EXPEDITE GETTING THIS LETTER TO THE BOARD QUICKLY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTACT THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. IF YOtJ WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR NAME ENDORSING Tt-I~S LETTER PLEASE CALl. RALPH LANGLEY AT 981-8304, AFTER ALL IT IS yOUR CLUB AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. ,,~ following l/st of RED HTLL Members after receiving a copy of RALPH LANGLEY'S · lett~ to the BORD of DIRECTOR'S 9/9/97 have requested their haree's be added to the Endorsement list. RALPH AGOSTINI DAVID ANAYA RICHARD AVENT FRANK BATOR STANLEY BARNES CLI]eFORD BAUER VIRGINIA BOOTH FRANK BOTTERELL DALE BRAGG CONRAD BRINER MEL BUNNELL ROBERT CAAN JERRY CARTY K. C. CARPENTER GEORGE CHALFANT DON E. CLARK MARK DEWESS WILLIAM DINGLE THOMAS DUGAN BRUCE DUVALL KEN EDMISTON JOHN KE3qDRICK RICHARD KIRKENDALL ROBERT KETTENHOFF3{N WALTER KORCEK JAMES LAIRD MRS. Wm. LE GRAND ERNEST LEONARD GILBERT LOPEZ PATRICIA MARK JOHN MILLER KEN NEUDOERFFER JOHN PELTON JOSEPH A. POWERS IRVING PRICE WILLIAM RUGG MERLE RUYAN LELAND SCHEU REID SHANNON HARRY SHIER NEAL THOMAS NILS STAMPS GEORGE VOIGHT ROGER WHEELER MARILYN WHITE FRANK WHITEHEAD ROBERT WRIGHT YU- SHENG WU KILLIAN DESIGN GROUP INCORPORATED GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS 17179 Braxton Street, Granada Hills, California 91344 (818) 368.0030 TREE SURVEY COMPLETED: February 6, 1997 and February 13, 1997 Ken KEllog_ Golf Course Architect, and Ywa Porter, Director of Golf, evaluated the location and species of trees currently growing throughout Red I-rill Country Club with concern for the appropriateness of each from an architectural design perspective. The following recommendations of tree removal and planting have been made to improve the playing quality of each hole and further enhance the beauty of the course by emphasizing those trees which compliment the design features of the course. Trees of importance were defined to be: Oaks; Sycamores; Pines; and Eucalyptus. Hole # 1: - add pines in the valley to right of fairway to define the direction of the fairway; - add Canary Island Pine to left of bunkers in fairway to complete roadway screen; - add Pines short of lake on right side to complete stand of Pines short of lake; t. - remove Silk Oak right of cart p,rldr!g ,re, hy greqn; _ - remove Honey Locust behind ~r~en on le~ ,. - remove leanlrko gray foliage tree behind gree_g; Hole #2: - add Sycamdre tree on left side of fairway at dogleg on top level; .-_remove two Pines on ri~t side nF~-een to ev~o~ ~b- behind gr_e_e_n; = remove l:-[one;~ T.om~qt behind {sree~ - add Oak behind green where Honey Locust removed; Hole #3: - remove damaged l::.ncalypt3,s trees between tee boxel; -- t - remove Ash st hsak of middle tee; _~ ,- ~ - remove l~fl~lherry hehlnd re, g~)l,r tee;'~. ~ ~ - pl~t 0~ be~een ~d~e ~d were t~ bo~ ~ I - p~t hedge b~d tee to scre~ fence; v ~ -. pome pine sm'eenlrtg Oak on right side approylm~tety 3off yards short oCgrcen; - remove weak Pine on risht side near Pop]aZ'S; --\ - remove Pt~lnrs on right ~ide;_ ~X. --% AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS. IRRIGATION ASSOCIATI~. A~ERiC~N SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Palatine Office: 639 First Bank Drive, Palatine, Illinois 60067 (312) 358.8884 ,( - plant Oak where Pclplzrs removed; - remove d.m~ed F. ne.lypm~ on le~ - remove dro~i~ C~ress ~e bn~h le~ ' - remove yellow fi~we~ tre~ h~hlnd ~e~ - add ~ee ~ow~g PI~ ~e~ 1~ of ~e~ - pl~t ~o Hon~ Lo~ ~ees b~d ~3 ~d ~17 ~ee~ o~ old tee bo~ Hole ~4: - remove l~.nc~tuS_0l~ right side between ~18 F2irwRy; ~x - add Sycamore wher~ Eucalyptus removed; ~-~ - add Sycamore behind green on left side to screen #9 tee; ~- [ Hole #5: - remove ~ereL3~ do,~qged Pi-e left of tee; ~'\ - add pine where damaged Pine removed; - remove three P~l~rs on ~t ~ide200.y~ ~om ~een; - remove Po~l~s on le~ side short of~ - pl~t O~ on 1~ where Popl~s removed; - ~d mo~d~g on le~ ne~ new 0~; ~ - removed topped pine in leR rn~ near tem~rs~ hole tee; - ~d O~ to ~t side of~een to s~een - remove C~ns~ Island Pine behind ~eeo; Hole #~: - remr~ve r)endnr2 Pines on lef~ side short ofh. nker; -L - add Oaks on lei~ side near bunker and #7 tee; '~- 1. - add Oaks on left side behind #5 green; ~-~ - remove Rottie Rp~sh tree behind sTeert; _~ - add moundlog behind green; - remove we~k Pine behind greelli '"\ Hole #7: - remove srnull Pine on right side blocking vi~.w of right fuirwuy b. nker; -4 - remove ~-c:ql~:)ms on right slde j))~ p~St erld Ofcnrt pnth: ~'\' - remove P~Ims on east side. oflakel. ~' - plant Honey Locust near Pines on east side of lake; ~' \ - remove damaged Pines on left side o££~irwa,y between left fairway bunker and lake; - plant Palms removed fi'om east side of lake in area left of green;, v~ Hole #8: - replace Pine removed on left side near cart path where small mound exists; - remove all.. trees on _f_~avzide of cart path a~er p.*h rn.ke.q trim tn greetl', - develop mounding to screen cart path where trees removed; - remove Elm amomz Svcamore~ on right side which wa~ damaged; - plant one or two Sycamores where Elms removed; B' Hole #9: : reshape fairway by planting Pines on left side; ~ ~- " - remove small Carob and Pepper trees along right .side within 150 yards ofg~een; ..1 - add more flowering Pear trees behind green; 0ci./ Hole #11: - remove Olive tree iust left'of_tee;_ ~. k - remove Ash t>ast l~ines left ofteel' _ ~ ~ ~ - remove bent Pine left of Oak in centerof fairway; ~ \ Hole #12: - add Sycamore behind two at dogleg on right side on new mound; - remove Olive on_right.side between #17_fai~tty; " --- - remove Silk Oak on left at dogleR; .- - remove small Pine on left at doglegl - remove Canary Island Pine just l~ast dol~le~ on lef~;- - remov~e_t_o. pp~ Canary Isl,nd___P_!_ne 9n rii, hl side ~nd replace with another; - remove hanging branch at 125 yards ~om green on left side; -X-mr~w, l~n~ ~n rich, ~;rt~. klt~.Mr~ ~., of right side bnnleer; - remove Olive at 100 yard bush on let~; - plant Oak where Olive removed on left side; "- - remove Pine between Oak and larRe Pine on riiht side near Avocado trees; - remove Pines on left side sbog ofrestrooms; ... \ - add Sycamores to replace Pines short ofrestrooms; ~.\ - add third Silver Oak on right side of green; - add Pine behind green; - remove Ash trees behind_gre_ea; ~- \ - remove Apple tree lei~ ofltree_n; .--\ - plant Honey Locust left of where Apple was located; k--\ - plant Honey Locust trees left o£green behind restrooms; ~\ Hole #13: - remove leaning Pine on left side n~ ,Sycamore; - remove Pines in ri~ht rout~,h obstructing Oaks - 180 yards off of tee; - remove Pines in ri~zht rough obstructing Sycamores - 180 yar___ds.__from green; - remove Orchid tree behind.~r~en; _ " - remove Mulberry tree lett of green; - add Sycamore behind green; - add Sycamore between #12 tee and #13 green to replace Mulberry; - remove Eucalyptus behind ri~l~.ht side of green; Hole #14: - add Pines to protect #13 green -. near path; ~c ~ - remove Olive in fi~ht rough p~st Iady's tee,; - remove Canary Island Pine and topped Pine near left fairway bunke.r; - remove Honey Tocust behind left fairway bnnker; - add Pines at 200 yards and 150 yards from green on right side; - remove Honey Locust at 150 ynrd mnrker on right; ~-- I - remove Pine obstr~lctlrl~ C)sk on ri~t side near #13 te~; ' - remove ,qilver O~k on lef~ side by de{nression~ ~- 1 - remove Eucalyptlllleft of green.- - remove .Almond tree behind green; - remove Pinto tree behind oreen: - add Honey Locust trees behind green; Hole #15: - remove ,Ash tree on left side of tee; ...~ - establish Championship tee left of cart path; - remove Oleander tree on ri~.ht side off ofteeL=--x - remove weedy bush on ri~t side off'of tee; - add Canary Island Pines behind green along path to screen Condos; - remove Olive behind green: - remove Mulberry tree left Hole #16: - remove Elm on left side oftee; ..\ - remove Silk Oak left s/de of fah'wav near path going up hill; - remove all trees at bottom half of hill short of green on left; - plant Honey Locust to left and rear of green to screen path up to #17; - remove Pines obstructi~ vi_'e_w of.Syc?_m..or_e..b.e_h_~_Rd Hole #17: - remove Mettle on way.~tp t0_ 71tlZtee;_. --\ - remove Honey Locust below stei~s upon. #17 tee;_?- x - remove tree in parkinl~ area - revlace with Oak; ~_~ - remove small Sycamore between large Sycamore and Oak on right side behind # 16green; - remove Pine at 100 yard marker in le~ rouj~h Rrowin~ into Oaks; -d - rernov~ Deodora vine On ri~ht side; ,..~. - remove Canary Island Pine on fight side 10P y~rds short of~reen; - I - remove Canary Island Pines between #12 fairway near ~reen; -- I - remove yellow flowering tree left of ~reerg. '. _ ~ Hole #18: - remove little trees near Practice Green; - move fairway mow lines to left side; r - plant Oak in fiat area on right side where fairway currently cut; - move rough line on right in to balance rough line on left; - lower hill on left near Practice Green to permit running shots; - remove Ash, Eucalyptus, and all Fruit trees on hillside to right and short of green; -~%" - remove Palm behind green; -~ - remove Orchid, Honey Locust and Carob trees on right side of green; - remove all Fruit and Carob trees on left side and short of'green;-- - remove damaged Eucalyptus tree on left side short of gre___en; - plant screening between green and Driving Range. Consideration must be given to the transplanting of any trees scheduled for removal. Sections: (Continued) 19.08.120 Tree maintenance. 19.08..130 Violation--Penalty. 19.08.010 Purpose and intent. A. The eucalyptus, palm, oak, sycamore, pine and other trees growing within the city are a natural aesthetic resource which help define the character of the city. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil ero- sion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and counter- act air pollution. It is pertinent to the public peace, harmony and welfare that such trees be protected from indis- criminate cutting or removal, especially where such trees are associated with a proposal for development. B. It is the intent of this chapter to establish regu- lations for the preservation of heritage trees within the city on private property in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the reasonable economic enjoyment of such property. C. In particular, the eucalyptus windrows are a unique inheritance whose cumulative value as a windbreak system is a desirable resource. It is the intent of this chapter-t~ perpetuate a windbreak system through protection of selected blue gum eucalyptus windrows' and expansion of the system through planting of new spotted gum eucalyptus windrows along the established grid pattern, as development occurs. (Ord. 286 §2(part), 1986). 19.08.020 Applicability. The provisions of this chap- ter shall apply to all heritage trees on all private proper- ty within the city, except as set forth in Section 19.08.040 of this chapter. Further, this chapter is not intended to supersede the tree preservation policies of the Etiwanda specific plan. (Ord. 286 S2(part), 1986). 19.08.030 Definitions. For the purposes of this chap- ter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as fol- lows: A. "Asm~iated with a proposal for development" means any land area for which an application for a specific plan, variance, parcel map, subdivision, development/design review or a time extension thereof, or special or conditional use per~it has been filed with and is pending consideration by the city or has been approved but the related project or applicable phase thereof has not been completed. B. "Drip line" means a line which may be drawn on the ground around a tree directly under its outermost branch tips and which identifies that location where rainwater tends to drip from the tree. ~ C. "Heritage tree" means any tree, shrub or plant 719 (Rancho Cucamonga 19.08.040--19.08.050 which meets at least one of the following criteria: 1~ All eucalyptus windrows; or ~h 2. All woody plants in excess of fifteen feet in eight and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen inches or more, as'measured twenty-four inches from ground level; or 3. Multitrunk tree(s) having a total circumference of thirty inches or more, as measured twenty-four inches from ground level; or 4. A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or 5. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the city planner because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. D. "Historic landmark" means, for the purposes of this chapter, any tree designated as a historic landmark by city council pursuant to Section 2.24.100. E. "Remove" includes any act which will cause a heri- tage tree to die, including but not limited to, acts which inflict damage upon root systems, bark or other parts of tree by fire, application of toxic substances, operation of equipment or machinery; improper watering; changing natural grade of land by excavation of filling the drip line area around the trunk; or by attachment of signs or artificial material piercing the bark of the tree by means of nails, spikes or other piercing objects. F. "Windrow" means a row of trees, usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted to provide a windbreak to protect property or agricultural crops. (Ord. 286 ~2(part), 1986). 19.08.040 Exceptions. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: A. Trees which are fruit or nut bearing; B. Trees planted, grown, and/or held for sale by li- censed nurseries and/or. tree farms or the removal or trans- planting of such trees pursuant to the operation of a li- censed nursery and/or tree farms; C. Trees within .existing or proposed public rights- - of-way where their removal or relocation is necessary to obtain adequate line-of-sight distances as required by the city engineer; or his or her designee; D. Trees which, in the opinion of the city engineer, or his or her designee, will cause damage to existing public improvements; E. Trees which require maintenance or removal action for the protection of existing electrical power or commu- nication lines or other property of a public utility. (Ord. 286 ~2(part), 1986). 19.08.050 Permit--Required. A. No person, firm or corporation shall remove, relocate or des=roy any heritage tree within the city limits, including an applicant for a (Rancho Cucamonga 5/86) 28O 19.08.080--19.03.1C,,~ party with the planning commission ~x · provided in this tit~e, such ..... ~ .- cep~ as otherwzse ' ' =~ is to De filed with the secretary of the planning commission - with any appeal f~ ..... in writing, · . .... , wl~n~n ten calendar da s o ~ .... ~lve actaon. The plannln~ .... ~--: Y f the decK- ~er and may =~ .... : ~-,~n~lon may consi~- wh~ ~- :z .... ~-, or reverse wholly r m~.~.. ~ une mat- · .-~,, ~ in question. _ o_ ~_.~, one action 2. Planning Commission Decision. Appeal of a plan- ning commission decision may be made by filing a written notice of appeal with the city clerk, together With any ap- peal fee, within ten calendar days following the planning commission's decision. The city council will consider the matter and may affirm or reverse wholly or partly, the action which is in question. E. Approval Period. Tree removal permits shall be effective following the ten-day appeal period and shall be valid for a period of ninety days, subject to extension. Where the tree removal permit is associated with a proposal for development, the ninety days shall start from the date of final map recordation or building permit, whichever comes first. (Ord. 286 ~2(part), 1986). 19.08.080 Emergency waiver. Where a tree is de- - termined by the city planner or designee to be in a danger- °us cbndition requiring emergency action to preserve the public health, safety and welfare, the permit requirement may be waived. In the event of an emergency caused by a hazardous or dangerous tree, which condition poses an imme- diate threat to person or property, any member of the Foot- hill fire protection district may authorize the destruction or removal of such tree without securing a permit therefor. (Ord. 286 ~2(part), 1986}. 19.08.090 Use of explosives. All persons engaged in felling or removing trees, and desirous of using explosives for this purpose within the city limits, shall first obtain approvals to use such explosives from the building division and the Foothill fire protection district which approval shall be noted on the tree removal permit prior to issuance of same by the city planner or planning commission. In ad- dition, the applicant shall furnish such bond or insurance as shall be deemed necessary for the protection of surround- ing property from any possible damage which might result from such activity. (Ord. 286 ~2(part), 1986). 19.08.100 Tree replacement policy. A. Where existing eucalyptus windrows are to be remove~, they shall be re- placed with Eucalyptus maculata (spotted gum) along the es- tablished grid pattern in fifteen-gallon size minimum spaced at eight feet on center and properly staked, unless other- wise specified by a specific plan or community plan. B. All other heritage tree removal shall require ~~-3 (Rancho Cucamonga 5 19.08.110 replacement with the largest nursery-grown tree(s) available as determined by the city planner or planning commission. Heritage tree relocation to another location on the site is the preferred alternative to replacement subject to a writ- ten report by a landscape architect or arborist on the fea- sibility of transplanting the ~ree. C. The city planner or planning commission shall con- dition tree removal permit for replacement of tree(s) within a specific time period and in accordance with the replace- ment policy established herein. D. To assist the city planner or planning commission in making a determination, the applicant for a tree removal permit may be required to submit an independent appraisal prepared by an horticulturist, arborist, or licensed land- scape architect to determine the replacement value of the tree(s) to be removed. Such appraisal shall be based upon the most recent edition of the "Guide for Establishing Val- ues of Trees and Other Plants,~ prepared by the Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers. (Ord. 286 S2(part), 1986). 19.08.110 Protection of existing trees. Care shall be exercised by all individuals, developers and contractors working near preserved trees so that no damage occurs to such trees. All construction shall preserve and protect the health of trees to remain, relocated trees, and new trees planted to replace those removed in accordance with the fol- lowing measures: A. All trees to be saved shall be.enclosed by an ap- propriate construction barrier, such as chain link fence or other means acceptable to the city planner, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and prior to com- mencement of work. Fences are to remain in place during all phases of construction and may not be removed without the written consent of the city planner until construction is complete; and B. No substantial disruption or removal of the struc- tural or absorptive roots of any tree shall be performed; and C. NO fill material shall be placed within three feet from the outer trunk circumference of any tree; and D. No fill materials shall be placed within the drip line of any tree in excess of eighteen inches in depth. This is a guideline and is subject to modification to meet the heeds of individual tree species as determined by an arborist or 'landscape architect, and E. No substantial compaction of the soil within the drip line of any tree shall be undertaken; and F. No construction, including structures and walls, that disrupts the root system shall'be permitted. As a guideline, no cutting of roots should occur within a dis- tance equal to three and one-half times the trunk diameter, (Rancho Cucamonga 5/86) 19.08.130 .periodically, or as may be necessary for reasons of public health and safety; 2. Dead or decaying branches shall be removed, trunks stripped, and tree structure trimmed at least every four years or as may be necessary for reasons of public health and safety as well as aesthetics; 3. Trees should be trimmed to preserve their natu- ral structure; 4. Remove unsightly or poorly crotched limbs and heavily leaning branches; 5. All cuts are to be made flush and/or in line with proper arboricultural practices; 6. Dead, diseased, or dying trees shall be removed as may be necessary, and shall be replaced with fifteen- gallon Eucalyptus maculata. E. Young eucalyptus windrow trees shall be maintained, fertilized, and irrigated as may be necessary to sustain them in health condition. Dead trees shall be replaced with same species of appropriate size; replacement trees need not exceed fifteen-gallon size. (Ord. 286 S2(part), 1986). 19.08.130 Violation--Penalty. Violation of any sec- tion of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor, pun- ishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each tree removed in violation of this chapter shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 286 S2(part), 1986). Chapter 19.12 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION* Sections: 19.12.010 19.12.020 19.12.030 19.12.040 19.12.050 19.12.060 19.12.070 19.12.080 19.12.090 19.12.100 19.12.110 Findings and determinations. Purpose. Methods of reducing flood losses. Definitions. General provisions. Establishment of development permits. Designation of administrator. Responsibilities of administrator. Maintenance of flood protection measures. Hazard mitigation plan. Standards of construction. * Prior ordinance history: Ord. 24. (Rancho Cucamonga 282-6 5/86)