HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/10/28 - Agenda Packet~U
WEDNESDAY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
OCTOBER 28, 1998
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Presentation of Proclamation to Bill Bethel
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 23, 1998
October 14, 1998
October 14, 1998, Adjourned Meeting
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. A~ such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
C=
D=
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request for an
extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the
development of 30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very
Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the
east side of Beryl Street, north of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman
Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03, 1062-111-03 through 06, and
1062-061-01 and 02. Related files: Development Review 98-15 and
Tree Removal Permit 91-28. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for the previously
appreved Tentative Tract Map No. 13951 consisting of 30 single family
lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to
2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Beryl Street,
north of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman Avenue
APN: 1061-761-03, 1062-111-03 through 06, and 1062-061-01 and
02. Related file: Tentative Tract 13951.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 13527 - GE CAPITAL CORPORATION - A
request for a time extension of a previously appreved tentative tract
map for a residential subdivision of 252 single family lots on 88.48
acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest
corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
VARIANCE 98-03 - AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/RICHARDS - A request
to increase the maximum allowable height of the base district from 50
feet to 70 feet for the construction of a freestanding cross in the
Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), for the Alta
Loma Brethren in Christ Church located at 9974 19th Street -
APN: 1076-051-05 and 12.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 98-04 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - A request to change the General Plan Land Use Map from
Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and
Civic/Community to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 17 acres of land on the north side of Base Line Road,
approximately 1300 feet east of the intersection of RochesterAvenue -
APN: 0227-091-18 through 21. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE
CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10, 1998)
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN AMENDMENT 98-03 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A request to change the Victoria
Community Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) and Community Facility to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17 acres of land on the
north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1300 feet east of the
intersection of Rochester Avenue. APN: 0227-091-18 through 21.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration. (TO BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10, '1998)
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
REQUEST TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AND VICTORIA
COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS TO REVIEWTHE RESIDENTIAL
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 6 ACRES OF LAND ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,100 FEET
EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 2% ACRES
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE
H=
DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR SIGN PROGRAM NO. 123 - LEWIS
HOMES - A review of sings for 24-hour Fitness Sport, a major tenant
within Town Center Square located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077421-90 through 97.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 -
MASI - A review of a request to change the location of placing the La
Fourcade arch on Building 5 -APN: 0229-011-39.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO 7:00 P.M.
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998. THE NOVEMBER 10
MEETING IS BEING HELD aN LIEU OF THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON NOVEMBEe, 11, 1998.
Page 3
I, Gai/ Sanchez, P/anning 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 October 22, 1998, at/east 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at ~0500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 4
VICINITY MAP
\" 0 0
0
~ir CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 28, 1998
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request for an extension of a previously
approved tentative tract map for the development of 30 single family lots on 22.56
acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre),
located on the east side of Beryl Street, north of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman
Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03; 1062-111-03 through 06; and 1062-061-01 and 02.
Related files: Development Review 98-15 and Tree Removal Permit 91-28.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of
building elevations and detailed site plan for the previously approved Tentative Tract
Map No. 13951 consisting of 30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very
Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of
Beryl Street, north of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1061-761-
03; 1062-111-03 through 06; and 1062-061-01 and 02. Related file: Tentative Tract
13951.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13951 was originally approved on August 14, 1991. The tentative
map and its design review were kept intact over the years with two City-granted time extensions and
two automatic State-granted time extensions. Concordia Homes recently purchased the site and
is proposing new and different house designs on the approved tract. Prior to the map's expiration
on August 14, 1998, Concordia Homes submitted a time extension request in conjunction with a
new Development Review application.
PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION: The site contains an abandoned vineyard, annual grassland,
coastal sage scrub habitai, and 57 heritage trees. A creek runs along the westerly property line and
connects to Beryl Street. A heritage oak tree is located on the banks of the creek just outside of the
project boundaries. The Grading Plan is designed to preserve the Oak tree in-place. The site has
a 6 percent slope. The lots range in size from 20,000 square feet to 35,600 square feet.
ANALYSIS.:
Time Extension: According to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City may
extend the time at which a tentative map approval expires by up to three years. Since the
applicant has received City-granted extensions totaling two years, this is the final time
Y
ITEMS A & B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'iF 13951 & DR 98-15 - CONCQRDIA! HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 2
extension that may be granted: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and
compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code.
Based on this review, the Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Very Low
Residential District. Ho v
we er, the Technical Review Committee recommends modifications
to cedain conditions of approval tO reflect current site conditions and Landscape Maintenance
District policies (see section beloW).
B. General: In 1991, there was considerable discussion of the alignment of the southerly-most
street of the proposed tract. The Planning Commission ultimately approved "Alternate A"
where the new streets connect only with Wilson Avenue and Beryl Street (Cottonwood Way
does not become a through street). The Site Plan is consistent with the approved tract
(Exhibit "E").
Concordia Homes is proposing three floor plans ranging in size from 3,188 to 3,865 square
feet. Each plan includes three architectural styles: French, Italian, and Santa Barbara. Plan
1 is single story and features two'side-on garages and a courtyard at the front entry. Plan 2
is two-stories and features a twoicar straight-in garage and a one-car side-on garage. The
third plan is also two-stories and has a two-car straight-in garage with a third-car tandem
space orthird-cargarage option. This plan also incorporates a porte-cochere on the driveway
side of the house, creating an interesting focal point with the garage in the background.
Desian Review Committee: On September 15, 1998, the Design Review Committee (Macias.
McNiel, Fong) reviewed the project and requested additional details of the single story Santa
Barbara elevation to be broughi back on a Consent Calendar basis (Exhibit "1"). The
architectural details were incorporated into the attached elevation and the Committee
concurred with the design (Exhibit "H"). The Committee recommends approval of the project
with conditions.
Technical Review Committee: O'n September 16, 1998, the Technical Review Committee
reviewed the project. The Committee noted that six conditions of approval of Tentative
Tract 13951 should be modified a~ this time to reflect current site conditions and Landscape
Maintenance District policies. :
1. Engineering Condition No. 5 should be modified to reduce City maintenance costs by
eliminating CiW-maintained ~round cover and irrigation in the parkway within Lot "A."
This lot would still contain a local equestrian trail and fencing.
2. Standard Condition No. N-1 'should be modified to reduce the land area to be annexed
into the Landscape Maintenance District by excluding side-on Lots 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, and
"A" (trail only to be City maintained along Lots 3, 4, and 18).
3. Planning Division Condition:' No. 8 which requires a perimeter wall on the southern
boundary of Lots 26-30 s~ould be eliminated since an updated arborist's report
concludes a masonry wall at ihis location would unavoidably damage or destroy hea thy
trees. which now exist south of the site. In its place, a Wall Plan shall be required for
Development Review 98-15 ~ubject to City Planner review and approval. The proposed
Wall Plan is included as Exhibit "G."
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
3'/' 13951 & DR 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 3
Planning Condition No. 12, pertaining to the Tree Removal Permit, should be revised to
reflect the findings and recommendations in the updated arborist's report.
Planning Condition No. 14 addressed a mated pair of Red Tail Hawks, which were
nesting on the site in 1991. This condition may be deleted since the April 1998
biological report included a survey of the site for raptor nests by a cedified biologist but
none were observed.
Planning Condition No. 15, which requires a masonry wall on the east side of "B" Street,
should be eliminated since the location and composition of all perimeter walls will be
addressed in the Wall Plan for Development Review 98-15.
The project includes construction of a master plan storm drain line and various flood control
measures. Drainage and flooding issues were studied in detail prior to approval of the tract
in 1991. The previously adopted conditions of approval pertaining to these necessary
improvements are included in the attached resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant has prepared Part I of the Initial Study. Staff
completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that certain environmental conditions have changed
since the original approval. The property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for
endangered or threatened species. The 22.56 acre site contains approximately 12 acres of coastal
sage scrub habitat. As a result. habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were required
to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher
and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The results of the surveys indicate the site is
not occupied by either of the two listed species. The report states that although the site contains
some good quality coastal sage scrub, gnatcatchers tend to prefer a variation in topography that
is not present on the site. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat was not captured during the three
focused trapping surveys where 273 traps were baited and set. Thus, it is concluded that this
species is absent on the property. Based on this information, the proposed development of the site
will not likely result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species.
The proposed project involves grading to fill a natural drainage ravine, which bisects the site in a
northeast to southwest direction. The ravine contains almost exclusively upland plant species and,
therefore, is not a "wetland" but does qualify as "other waters of the United States." As a result, the
drainage course falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California
Department of Fish and Game. The Army Corps of Engineers will likely require a permit under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the California Department of Fish and Game will likely
require a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game may impose additional
conditions or mitigation measures in their approvals of water-related permits.
In addition, the composition of trees has changed over the years. A Certified Arborists Report was
prepared by Mark D. Cobb, July 1998, to update the condition and status of all trees on the site as
well as adjacent trees. The report notes that many of the trees on-site have died or degraded such
that preservation is not recommended. The only trees on-site that are candidates to be preserved
in-place are five Eucalyptus trees located in the windrow along the southeastern boundary. On the
other hand, there is now a row of healthy trees south of the site, which would be negatively
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'IF 13951 & DR 98-15 - CONCORDIA' HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 4
impacted by the construction of a masonry wall. Conditions of approval will require preservation
of the five Eucalyptus trees, replacement trees for those removed, and design changes to avoid
negative impacts to trees south of the 'site.
All other environmental conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the project was
approved in 1991. Staff feels the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item wa~ advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was pbsted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300 foot radius of the project site. I
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time
extension for the Tentative Tract Map ~nd Tree Removal Permit, with modifications to conditions.
and Design Review through adoption~of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RVB:Is
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibit "H"
Exhibit "1"
Exhibit "J"
Resolution
Resolution
Time Extension Request from Applicant dated June 5, 1998
Resolutibn No. 91-114 Approving TI" 13951
Site Utilization Map
Tentativ'- Tract Map
Gradingiand Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Wall Plan
Building ~Elevations
Design Review Committee Action Comments dated
September 15, 1998
Initial StUdy Part II
of Approval with Conditions - Tentative Tract Map Time Extension
of Approval with Conditions - Design Review
June 5, 1998
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: TT13951
Dear Dan:
This letter is to request an extension of time on the above-referenced tract. Enclosed
herewith are the tbllowing items:
· Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study)
· Habitat Assessment prepared by Chambers Group, April 1998
· Check in the amount of $1,280
Please give me a call if you need for me to provide you ~vith any further information
Sincerely.
CONCORDIA FIOMES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Project Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 91-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE PL/~NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
M3tP NO. 13951. A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 30 SINGLE
FAMILy LOTS ON 23.4~5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), LOCATED NORTH] OF MANZANITA DRIVE, EAST OF BERYL
STHEET, ~/~D WEST OF HELLF~N AVENUE, ~/qD F~KING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; - A~N: 1062-111-03 THROUGH 06,
1061-61-03, ~_ND 1062-061-01 ~34D 02
A. Recitals.
(i) George Chou has filed an application for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 13951~ as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolutioh, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 14th of A~gust 1991, 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.
(iii) All legal prere~isites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred. j
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, Patti A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced p~blic hearing on August 14, 1991, including
written and orai staff repQrts, together with public testimony, this
Co~unission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located east of Beryl
Street, west of Hellman Avenue, and on either side of the proposed Wilson
Avenue extension with a street ,frontage of 420 feet on Hellman Avenue and 670
feet on Beryl Street and a street frontage of 1,300 feet along the proposed
wilson Avenue and is presently ~acant.
(b) The property!to the north of the subject site is developed
with an existing church facility, the property to the south of the site
consists of existing single family residences, the property to the east is
vacant but approved for single family residential (Tract 13930), and the
property to the west is existing single family residential to the south of
proposed Wilson Avenue and vacant but approved for single family residential
(Tract 14207) to the north of pEoposed wilson Avenue.
pLA/qNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 2
91-114
(c) The project, with the recommended conditions of approval,
complies with all minimum development standards of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga; and
(d) The development of 30 single family units on 23.45 acres of
land is consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation of the
General Plan; and
(e) The proposal, with the Community Trail along Wilson Avenue
is in compliance with the Master Plan of trails and the objectives of the
Equestrian Overlay District; and
(f) The vacation of an existing offer of dedication for Mustang
its replacement with Wilson Avenue is consistent with the General
has 77 heritage trees,
Road and
Plan; and
(g) The subject site
applicant has proposed to remove.
49 of which the
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 tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, and specific plans; and
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed; and
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable
or their habitat; and
(e) The tentative tract is not
health problems; and
injury to humans and wildlife
likely to cause serious public
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with
any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access
through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a mitigated
Negative Declaration.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU '
August 14, 1991 ~
Page 3
91-114
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
~ . .
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard
Condition3 actached hereto ana incorporated herein by this reference.
EnTineerino Division:M
1) The ex, isting overhead utilities
(telecommun'ications) on the project side of
Hellman Ave~nue shall be undergrounded along the
entire proj'ect frontage extending to the first
pole off-site (north and south) prior to public
improvement, acceptance or occupancy, whichever
occurs first. In addition, an in-lieu fee as
contrlbutl n to the future undergrounding of
o
the utilities on the opposite side of Hellman
Avenue shall be paid to ~he City prior to
approval of the Final Map. The fee shall be
one half the difference between the
undergrounding cost of the utilities
(electrical) On the opposite side Of the street
minus thosel (telecommunications) on the project
side times the length of the project frontage.
2) The eX'isting overhead utilities
(telecommun~cations and electrical) on the
project side of Beryl Street shall be
undergrounded along the entire project frontage
extending t6 the first pole off-site (north and
south) prio'r to public imprsvement acceptance
or occupanay, whichever occurs first. The
developer may request a reimbursement agreement
to recover ~one-half the Cit-:. adopted cost for
undergrounding from future development as it
occurs on the opposite side of the street.
3)
4)
Construct C6mmunity Trails on the south side of
wilson Avenue and on the east side of Beryl
Street.
Sidewalks shall be construtted on one side of
the interior public streets ~s follows:
a) North side Of ~.$ilson Aver~ue,
b) North s%de of "D"
c) West side of "B" Sz:'.ac~, south of Wilson
Avenue
d) East side of "B" Street, north of Wilson
Avenue,~and
e) South side of "C" Street
7)
PI3~NNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-114
TENTATIVE TP~ACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 4
6 The developer s e owner
adjustment to merge Lot "A" with APN 1061-761-
wfth the Final Hap.
Construct "B" Street along the east tract
boundary south of Wilson Avenue full width,
including street lights. Off-site parkway
improvements on the east side of that street
may be deferred until development of the
adjacent property. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement for improvements east
of the centerline of "B" Street from future
development on the adjacent properties.
8)
9)
Beryl Street shall be widened to 22 feet
measured from the centerline from the project's
north boundary to Manzanita Avenue. The
developer may request rei~Dursement agreements
for off-site improvements from future
redevelopBent as it occurs south of the south
project boundary.
The developer shall be eligible for fee credits
against and reimjoursement from the
Transportation Development Fee for the middle
38 feet of Wilson Avenue and for the ultimate
intersection geometrics at Wilson/Beryl and
Wilson/Hellman in conformance with Ordinance
NO. 445.
lo)
If the easterly leg of the Wilson/Hellman
and/or the westerly leg Of the Wilson/Beryl
intersection exists or is under construction
upon Final Map approval, the developer shall
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 5
91-1!4
ll)
12)
13)
14)
install adequate traffic signalization and/or
signage to make Wilson Avenue the through
street, to ]the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer. :
There shall be no cross gutters across Wilson
Avenue. ~rovide an intersection drain in
Hellman Avegue and a lateral to the storm drain
in Beryl Street.
b)
Plan Storm Drain line 2F as
Construct Master
follows:
a) If a plan check for Tentative Tract 14207
has been initiated to divert Master Plan
flows f~om a line 2E to line 2F, then line
2F shall be upsized to accommodate the
additioDal tributary area and line 2F shall
be installed in Beryl Street from Sunflower
Street ~to Wilson Avenue, then east on
Wilson Avenue, then north along the west
projecti boundary to connect with the
existing 48-inch RCP near the north project
boundary. The developer shall be eligible
for fee~credits and reimbursements for the
cost of the portion designated a City
Master ~lan facil[ty fn accordance with the
City's Storm Drain Master Plan policy.
Otherwise, line 2F shall be installed in
Beryl St'rest from ~4anzan~:a Drive to Wilson
Avenue, then east on Wf!son Avenue, then
north a~ong the west project boundary to
connect iwith the existing 48-inch RCP near
the north project boundary. The developer
shall bE eligible for fee credits and
reimbursements for the cost of the portion
designated a City Master Plan facility in
accordance with the City's Storm Drain
Master Plan policy.
Storm drainage facility plans, including the
spillway and overflow rzute design, shall be
prepared by, a Registered Czvit Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer and San
Bernardino Cgunty Flood Can%rot District.
The existing!storm dra~nakD facilities north of
the project site shall be ~r!spected by the City
prior to apbroval of the storm drain plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 6
91-114
15
16
17)
ls)
19)
20)
Unnecessary structures shall be removed and
facilities which do not meet City Standards
shall be replaced.
Provisions shall be made to accept drainage
from all areas currently draining to the
existing earth channel along the west project
boundary.
Right-of-entry easements shall be obtained for
the construction of off-site drainage
facilities prior to Grading Permit issuance.
Provide a flood wall on the south side of
Wilson Avenue opposite the overflow path for
the public storm drain north of Wilson Avenue.
Provide an overflow path within the public
storm drain easement and private trail easement
along the west tract boundary north of Wilson
Avenue to conduct Q100 overflows in the event
of blockage of the pipe inlet north of Lot 12.
The existing San Bernardino County Flood
control District (SBCFCD) easement within and
south of Wilson Avenue shall be purchased from
the SBCFCD prior to Final Map approval. The
portion of that easement north of Wilson Avenue
shall be reduced to what is necessary for a
pipe system, as follows, prior to Final Map
approval:
a) The easement to be retained shall be
purchased from FCD and deeded to the City;
b) The surplus easement on-site shall be
purchased from FCD;
,
c) The surplus easement on the property to the
west shall be purchased from FCD and deeded
to the underlying property owner; and
d)
SBCFCD and the City shall enter into an
agreement regarding the operation and
maintenance of the storm drain between
Demens Basin No. 2 and Wilson Avenue.
Driveways On corner Lots 3, 7, 8, 21, and 26
shall be located as far from the intersection
as possible to reduce conflicts with traffic
turning right.
PLA/qNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 7
91-114
21)
22)
P!annin~
l)
All drive a.pproaches for local trails shall be
located on local streets.
All trail clrossings of public streets shall be
located at intersections.
Division:
The equestrian trail in the north west section
of the tract shall include a public overflow
easement which shall be maintained by the City
in the even~ of an actual overflow occurrence.
2) A step-throUgh detail shall be provided at the
intersection of the conununity trail and the
local equestrian trail to Lots 18 and 22.
3) A standard~ gate (Detail 1008A) shall be
provided from Lots 24 and 25 to the adjacent
community trail.
4) Sections P-P and Q-Q shall accurately reflect
the co~unun~ty trail standard of a 5-foot
parkway, 12~foot trail and 3-foot landscaped
area.
5) The area on~ the north side of the "C" Street
cul-de-sac between Lots 5 and 8 shall be left
open to allow equestrian access between the
local trails] for these two lots. In addition,
a disclosures statement shall be provided to the
buyer of Lot 5 indicating that this area is to
remain open~ and shall not be landscaped or
blocked off in any way,
6) A textured, 8standard trail crossing shall be
provided across Beryl Street on both the north
and south sides of Wilson Avenue. A similar
crossing sha'll also be prcvided across Wilson
Avenue on the east side of Beryl Street.
7) The local trail at the northwest corner of Lot
24 shall be] eliminated since a local trail
directly adjacent to a Community Trail is
undesirable. Rather, a standard gate from Lots
23 and 24 to the Ccmmunxty Trail shall be
provided. ~
8) The southerl~ tier of lots shall be provided
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 8
91-114
9)
Any manhole covers located within private local
trail easements shall be either buried
underground or covered with wood or neoprene
for equestrian safety.
~o)
Prior to the recordation of the final map or
the issuance of building permits, whichever
comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or
participate in, the establishment of a Mello-
Roos Community Facilities District pertaining
to the project site to provide in conjunction
with applicable school 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 map or the
issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first. Further, if the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District within twelve months of the
date of approval of the project and prior to
the recordation of the final map or issuance of
building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
11) Pursuant to provisions of California Public
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 (1) the Notice of
Determination (NOD) regarding the associated
environmental action is filed and posted with
the Clerk of t~e Board Of Supervisors Of the
County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all
required filing fees assessed pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4,
together with any required handling charges,
are paid to the County Clerk of the County of
San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide
the Planning Department with a stamped and
conformed copy of the NOD together with a
recei s 'ng that all fees have been paid.
e=eby
approved subject to the~win~
PLANNING COMMISSION P, ESOLUTION! NO. 91-114
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991 '
Page 9
' a) The CoaSt Live Oak tree shall be preserved
in place in accordance with the
recommendations of the arborist's report Of
Februar9 27, 1989, which include filling
the DemOns Creek channel with sandy loam or
loamy ~and, removal of deadwood by an
arborist, and removal of the treehouse.
The applicant shall retain an arborist who
shall conduct periodic on-site inspections
to supervise the preservation of the Oak
tree. ! The arborist shall review the
grading~plans prior to issuance of permits
b d shall report thelit findings and
recommehdations to the Planning Division.
to issuance of any grading or building
permits~and one year after completion of
the tract and shall prepare a report to the
Plannin~ Division of their findings and
recommendations.
) he following 28 trees shall be preserved
in place' or transplanted in accordance with
the recommendations of the arborist's
port of February 27, 1989: l, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8~ 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 29, 36, 37,
38, 44, 54, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
c) e
enclosedi with a construction barrier as
required, by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Section .19.08.110, and clearly stated on
1
d) e o 11 be chipped, removed and
buried At ~ dump site or tarped to the
ground for minimum six months, sealing the
tarp edg'es with soil, to prevent emerging
borer beetles from reinfesting other trees
or wood.
e) The windrows within the site (45 trees)
shall
15-gallon Eucalyptus Maculata at 8 feet on
center. i The location of replacement trees
shall hollow the existing alignment,
whenever, possible, and shall be shown on
the fina~ landscape plan, which is subject
to revieQ and approval by the City Planner
· ! .... .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU
August 14, 1991
Page 10
91-114
13) Right-of-en e tree
preservation work associated with the Oak tree
prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
i4)
Prior to the issuance of any permits and prior
to the removal of any trees, a biologist or
ornithologist shall be retained by the
applicant. The consultant shall verify the
location of the birds and their nesting
patterns and prepare a report indicating the
impacts this project will have on the birds'
habitat. Mitigation measures and a monitoring
program shall be developed to address this
issue. The applicant shall bear the full cost
of this condition of approval.
15)
A decorative masonry wall shall be located
along the east side of 'B" Street subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer and
City Planner.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~arry McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
/
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 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMI SS IONERS:TOLSTOY
ABSENT:C0 =SSIONERS:
;DEPARTMENT OF
COMrvl]UNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: 1'1'
APPLICANT: ~ ~O-
fhose items che~ are ~ions of ~pmval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING;DIVISION, ~14) ~1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDfflONS:
A. TIme LIm~s
I
L A~roval shall expire, unless e~end¢ by Ihe Planni~ ~mmiss~n. ff ~ildi~ peruits are
~l issu~ or approv~ use has ~t ~mme~ w~hin 24 ~hs from the date of ~mvaL
2. Developme~Des~n Re~ s~ll
Approval of Ternalive Tract No. is granted subject to the ap~oroval of
The developer shall commence. par~icipale in. and consummate or cause to be commenced.
participated in, or consummated. a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire slation to serve the development. The stallon shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Prolection District. and shall become the
District's properly uPon completion. ! The equipment shall be selected by the Distrio-1 in
accordance wi~h its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The :CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordalton of the final map occurs.
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building pen'nits, whichever comes
first. the applicant shall consent to, 'or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facililies. However, if any school d~strict has previously established s4jch a Communily
Facilities District. the applicant snail, l in the allernative, consent to the annexation of the
projeCt site into the terrilory ol such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance ol building permitS, Whichever comes lirsl. Further, it the affected school
distrio1 has not lonned a Mello-Roos qommunity Facilities Dislriot within twelve months lrom
the date of approval of lhe project and priOr tO the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condi'tlon shall be deemed null and void.
C. omDIcdc~ D~
__/ / il
___/ /
__/ /
_J /
7
This condition shall be waived ff the City receives notice thai 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 proied.
6. Prior to recordalton of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is
involved, wr~en certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submi~ed to the
Department of Community Development, Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance
of permits in the case of all olher 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, e~terior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions centainecl herein,
Development Code regulations,.end
Spoc~io Plan
4~lanncd Communi,'h/.
_J /
_J /
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all __J /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed Io the satisfaction of the City Planner.
d /
Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such lime as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshairs regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancbd Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdcl and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior tO
occupancy.
Revised site plans and building elevations incoq::>orating all Conditions of Approval shall be __J /
submitled for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
/
All site, grading. landscape. irrigation. and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consislency pdor Io issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal. encroachment,
building , etc.). or prior to final mad approval in lhe case of a custom lot subdivision, or
ap,proved use has commence~l. whichever comes first.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all seclions of the Development
Code, all other ap~ioable City Ordinances, and applicable Comrr',jnity Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
SC 2/'~ [
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and
Shentf's Deparlmenl (989-6~11) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination. location, height. and metned of shielding so a5 not to adversely
affect adjacerit properlies.
8. If no cenlralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pid<-up shall be for individual units
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet Cily standards. The final design, locations,
and the number of trash receptacles snail be sub{ecl to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits,
__ 10. All ground-mourned utilrty app~Jnenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.. Shall
be located out of publk:: view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls. berming. anYor landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
2o/12
_J /
__/ /
,._/ /
__/ /
/ /
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
C. Building
= ,,~ .
! I
1 t. S~reel names shall be submitted lor~City Planner review and approval in accordance with i "J /
[be adopted Street Naming Policy ~rior to approval ot the final map.
12. All building numbers and iridividua] ~nits shall be identified in a clear and concise manner.
including proper illumination. ~
._j /
All dwellings shall have the front. side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural
treatment. detailing and increased delineation of surface Ireatment subject to C~ty Planner
review and approval pdor to issuance~of bui~.ng~a_,%.
3of[2
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physk;al conditions, lencing, and .~/ /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, snail be submitted lor City
Planner review and approval prior Io approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and conslruct
all Irails. including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with slreel improvements.
The Covenants Cond n
· , it~o sandRestficl~ons(CC&Rs)shallnotprohibitthekeepingofequine __J /
animals where zoning requirements fgr the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
5. The Covenanls. Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Inc~r'p~ration of the J /
Homeowners' Association are ub ect the approval of the Planning and Engineering
s I to
Divisions and lhe City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with lhe Final Map or
prior to Ine issuance of b~jilding permits, whichever OCCUrs first. A reCOrded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
6. All parkways. open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property J /
owner. homeowners' association, or other means acceptable Io the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
I.
7. Solar access easemerns shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or ._.J /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunligtl across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easemeht.s may be comained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
Ihe subdivision which shall be reoorded concurrently with the recordalton ol the final map or
jssuance of permils, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other obiecl, except for utility wires and
similar obiects, pursuanl to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
8. The project contains a designated HiStorical Landmark. The site shall be developed and ._J /
maintained in accordance with the Hi&loric Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, bul not limited to, e~edor alterations and/or
interior aiteral ons which affect the ext~dor of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demelition, teloration, reconstruction of b,uiidings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Atleration Permit subiecl to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
Design
An alternative energy system is requir,ed Io provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units _J /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capagity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be Supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be subtarried for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance ot building permitS.
3. Standard patio cc, ver plans for Use by the Homeowners' Association Shall be Submitted for
City Planner and Building C~ioial review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _._/ /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated wi~h the l:~jilding design and constracled to lhe satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 leer and shall / /
conlain a 12-inch walk adjacent To the parking slall (including cu~).
.~/ /
Texlured pedestrian pathways and texlured pavement across circulation aisles shall be
provided throughOut the development to connect a~,vellings/units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recrealional uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,
entrances, and exits shall be slriped bet City standards.
4. All units shall be provided wilh garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in
depth from back of sidewalk.
The Covenants, Condilions and Restrictions shall restrid the storage of recreational vehicles
on lhis site unless lhey are the principal source ol tran,,~porlalion Ior lhe owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
Plans for any security gales shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and
RanchO Cucamonga Fire Proleclion Disldcl review and aRoroval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape ar6as, refer to Section N.)
'~1. A delailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap-
ing in the case ot residential development, shall be p~repared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitled for City Planner review and al:~:x'oval prior to lhe issuance of building
pertorts or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot sul:idivision.
2. E~is~ingtreesr~quiredt~pe~:~.e~ervedinp~ace~ha~be~:m~ec~edwithac~n~ruc~lonbar~er
inaccordancewiththe Municipal CodeSec:~lon lg.08.110, andsonoledonthegradingplans.
The location of those trees Io be preserved in place and new locations for Iransplanted trees
shall be shOwn on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendalions regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods.
A minimum of trees per gross acre. comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided
within the project: % - 4.8- inch box or larger. % - 36- inch box or larger.
% - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon. and ~ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of ~ % ol trees planled within the project shall be specimen size trees
24-inch box or larger.
~ 5. Within parking lots. trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-galldn tree for every three
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
40f12
_.J /
J /
J /
._J /
_.J /
__J /
/ /
/ /
I I
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent Io and along sfruct, ures at a rate ol one
tree per 30 linear feel of building, j
7. A~~privatesiopebanks5~ee~~r~ess:inver~Ca~heigh~and~f5:1~rgreatersldpe.but~ess~han __._/
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover tot
erosion conlroh Slope planting required by Ibis section shall include a permanent irrigation
system Io be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AIIPrivatesiopesinexcessof5feet,bullessfhan8 feet invedioalheightandot2:l orgreater -~/ /
slope shall be landscaped and irdga!ed for erosion conlro and to soften lheir appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -galldn or larger '
size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area and appropriafe ground cover. In adrift on slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical i~eight and of 2:1 or grealer 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
seclion shall include a permanent irrigation syslem to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
I
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irdgalion shall be continu- __/ /
?usly maintained in a healthy and thdging condition by the developer until each individual unit
~s soldandoccupiedbylhebuyer. Priortoreleasingoccupancyforlhoseunits, aninsbection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to delermine lhat they are in satisfactory
condition. !
10. For multi-family residential and non-residenlial development, property owners are respon- ___/ /
sible for lhe continual maintenance ~ I I landscaped areas on-site. as well as contiguous
oal
plar~ed areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and main'iained ir~ a healthy and lhdving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning. fertilizing. mowingJ and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased. or
decaying plant maferial shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
1 I. Front yard landscaping shall be reqHired per the Developmerrl Code and/or / /
dThis requiremenl shall be in add lion Io the required
street frees and slope planling.
12. The final design of the pedrneter pa'd<ways, walls. landsca,o ng. and sidewalks shall be j /
included in the required landscape pl'ans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
aPc. roval and ¢oorclinated for consistency with any parkway landstaping plan which may be
rec!~ired by the Engineenng Division.
13. Special landscape lealures such as mounding, alluvial rock. ,~oecirnen size trees. meander- __/ / j
ing sidewalks (with horizorrlal change}, and infensffied landscaping. is required along
. 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public fight-of-way on
lhe perimeter of this project area sha(l be continuously maintained by the developer.
V/
15. All
walls shall be provided with decorative lreafment. If located in public maintenance areas,
IRe design shall be coordinated with II~e Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be de eloped and subm~led for City Planner review and
b ·
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
growlh c-j'~aracteristics of the selected free ,.%oecies.
I
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles ot
Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19. t6:of the Rancho Cucarnonga Municipal Cede.
5 of
J /
__/ I
/¸ /
__/ /
F. Signs
The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of lhis approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shah comely with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and
approval pnor to issuance of building permits.
3. Direclory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes
prior to occupancy and shall require separale application and approval by the Planning
Division pdor Io issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
The developer shall provide each prospeclive buyer wri'nen notice of the Fourth Sireel Roc~
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepling a
cash deposit on any property.
The developer shall provide each prospeclive buyer written notice of the City Adopted
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
The developer shall provide each prospective buyer writlen notice of the Foothill Freeway
projecl in a standard formal as determined by lhe City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
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 lhe level of interior noise
anenualion fo beiow45CNEL, lhe building matedals and conslruction lechniques provldeq,
and it aPCropdate, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conforrnance wilh the miligallon measures contained in lhe final report.
H. Other Agencies
V/1. Emergency secondary acce5~ shall be provided in accordance with Rancho Cucarnonga Fire
Prolection District Standards.
2. Emergency access sha be provided, maimenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feel wide
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construclion, evidence shall be
submitled to the Rancho Cucamenga Fire Proteciion District thal lemporary water supply for
fire protection is available, bending completion of required fire protection System.
The applicant shall conlact the U. S. Postal Service to doteft'nine 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 localion of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prRar
to the issuance of building permits.
J /
~_/ /
J /
/ /
/ /
_J /
/ /
For projects using septic tank facilities. wntlen certification of acceptability, including all
supportive nforrnafion, shall be oblained from the San Bernardino County Departmere
Environmental Heaifh and submitted to the Building Official pdor to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of buildin~][e~.~ts~
6o/12
_J /
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4,
K. Grading
1. Provide compliance wilh the Unifo;rm Building Code for the properly line clearances __/ /
considering use. area. and lire-resist=iveness of existing buildings.
2. Exisling buildings shall be made Io COmply with COlTed building and zoning regulations for ---/ /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
Existing sewage di!oosal facilities sh;ll be removed. Illled and/or capped Io cornlaly with the ___/ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform, Building Code.
Underground on-site utilities are Io b~ located and shown on building plans submitted lor ._.J /
building betraft application. '
V 1. Grading ol the subiect proberty shall be in accordance with the Uniform 13uiiding Code, Gify / /
Grading Slandards, and acceplecl grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
subsfanlial COnform, ance wilh lhe aCeroved grading plan.
,y .
2. A SOilS report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the Slate of Galifornia to / /
perform such work. '
3. The development is located within the SOil erosion COntrol boundaries: a Soil Disturbance _.J /
Permit is regu red. Please COritacl San Bemardino County Deparlment ol Agriculture at ( 714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance ol rough grading 'permit.
4, A geological repen shall be prepared lay a qualified engineer or geok:x:j sl and submitled a[ ----/ /
lhe time of application tor grading plan check.
5. Thefinalgradingplansshallbecompletedandapprovodpnortoissuanceotbuildingpermits. j /
:
7of [2 '
I. Site Development
V'/ 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- / /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Cede,! National Electric Code, and all other applicable COdes, i
ordinances, and regulations in effecl al the lime ol issuance of relative permils. Please ,
contact Ihe Building and Safety Division/or copies ol lhe Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts. ~ ' '
j
2. Prior to issuance of building permits Ior a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major adoifion ----/ ,
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. SoCh tees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautfficalion Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Develdpmenl Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of bailding permits tor a new commercial or industrial development or ._J
addition to an existing development' the applicant shall pay development Fees at the
established rate. Such lees may inc!ude, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit 'and Plan Checking Fees.
4, Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance ot building permits.
J. Exlsllng Structures
6. AS a cuslorn-lot subdivision, lhe toilowing requirements shall be met:
a. Surely shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteetrig corr~letion of all on-s~te
drainage facilities necessa~ for alewatering all parcels to the satisfaclion of the Building
and Safely Division prior to final map aT>pngval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b ADpropdale easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducled onto
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewaleMng and proletting lhe subdivided
properlies, are to be installed prior Io issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subjecl to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative Io which a b~jilding permit is requesled.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safely
Division for approval prior to issuance ol building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or cor'ni~site basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in verlioal heigfl snail be seeded with native grasses
or planted wi~h ground COver for erosion COntrol upon COmpletion of grading or SOme other
alternative method of erosion COntrol shall be compJeted to the safistaclion of the Building
Oiltotal. In addition a pen'nanenl irrigation system sttall be provided, This requiremenl
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requiremares of Section 17.08.040 I ol the Development Code.
__/ /
._./ /
/ /
__J /
PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, ('/14) 91~-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
JTH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and VehicuLar Access
1. Righis-of-way and easements shall be ded~,.aled to the Cily for all interior public streets,
commentw trails. public paseos, public Landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
tactlilies as shown on the plans and/or lamalive map. Private easemares for non-public
lacilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder traits, etc.) s.~all be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedicalion shall be made of the following dgh~s..of-way on the perimeter streets
(measured from s~reet camedine):
'2;3 to, ,fee, o. I
total feet on
total leel on
3. An irrevocable o~er of tiedcarton for
for all private streets or dnves.
.~/ /
2/9
.__/ /
-loot wide roadway ea. semem snail be made ~ /
__ 4. Non-vehicuLar access snail be dedicated to the City for the following greets:
5 Recital a~ess ease~s shall be p~ e~un~ a~ess to all par~ls by CC&Rs
or by ~s a~ shall ~ re~ ~rmmly w~h I~ ~ Or p~r to t~ is~an~ of
o~ 12
6. Private drainage easements for cr0ss-!ot drainage snail I:>e. prowded and snail De delineated
or noted on the final map. ~
The final map shall clearly delineate a 10-1oo! minimum bulk:ling ref, rictlon area on the
neighboring lot adjoining the zero Io/line wall and contain Ine/ollowir',<:j language:
'I/We hereby dedicate to the City of Ranthe Cucarnonga the rfgnt to prohibit the
construction of (res~ential) buildings (or other structures) within tt~se areas designated
on the map as bui~ing restriction areas.'
A maintenance agreemen[ shall also be granted from each hat to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R'S. ~
8. Allexislingeasementslyingwithinfulurerights-of-wayshallbequitclaimedor delineated on __/ f
lhe final map. I
9. Easements for ptrblic s/dewalks and/or Street frees placed outside the p,~jblha right-of-way _._/ / il
shall be dedicaled to the City wherever lhey encroach onto pdvale property.
I ' aledaongrighltumlanes. to provide a minimum .~/ /
I 0. Additional streef right-of-way shall be ded~c
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street free maintenance easement shall be provided.
11.ThedeveloPershallmakeagoodfai~heffotlloacquirelherequiredo~-sileproperly nterests .__/ '/
necessary to construm the required, l:x~blic irrlprovements, and it he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreemen[ Io COmplete Ihe improveme~s persuant To Government Code Section
6rc>462 at such time as lhe City acquires The property interests required for he improvements
Such agreemen~ shall provide for paymenl by the developer of all COsts incurred by the C~ly
to acquire the off-site property interests requ red n COnnection with the subdivision, Secunty
for a porlion ol these COsts shall de,in the form of a ~-,~sh deposit in the arr~unt given in an
aD,praisal reborI obtained by the developor, at developers cost. The appraiser Shall have
Deen approved by Ihe City prior to commencement ol the appraisal.
M. Sirset Improvernent:s
1. All l:~Jblic improvements (interior slrpets. drainage lacilities. COmmunity trails. paseos. ~ /
landscaped areas. elc,) shown on the p~arts and/or lentalive map shall he COrLstrucled to
City Standards. Interior street improvemen'Is shall incJu~le. ~ are not limited to. curd and
gullet. AC pavement. cldve approac'hes. sidewalks. slreel ligl~s. and street trees.
2. A minimum of 26- foot wi:~e pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicaled ngtl-of-way shall be
COnstrueled for all ha,-secfion streets.
V'/' 3, Construcl lhe following portmeter streel improvements if~,ckx:ling. b~t not limited to:
STR~'CT NA,~$ CLrFt8 & A.C. SIDE DRrCE b'I'REET
GUii~,R FV'M'r WALK Ag?R, LIGHTS TREE5
sf. v/,/ ¢' v'
COMM. MEDLA,q OTHER
TRA~L ISLAND
v/
_J /
__J /
~otes~ la/~ian is~a~ i~u~es ~a~s~.~i~ ~ ir~afio~
re~ns~n and over~ays will be delermined duri~ plan check. (c)
walk snail ~ cuNilinear per STD, 304. (d) If ~ mated. an in-lieu of ~nstm~ion tee shall
~ prov~ed for this ~em,
,/'
4. Im~rovemenl plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- --.J /
tered Civil Engineer, shall pe suDmitled to and approved by the City Engineer. Secunly
shall be posted and an agreemere executed lo the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the publio and/or pdvate street improve-
ments. prior to final map approval or the issuance of b,uiiding permits, whichever occurs
lirsl.
b, Prior to any work being performed in public dght..of-way, fees shall be paid and a / /
constnjclion permit shall be obtained from the Cit't Engineers Office in addition to any
other pen'nits required.
c. Pavement stdpir~, marking, traffic. streel name signing, and interconnect conduit
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal condu it wit h pu II boxes shall be installed on any new construction or reconstruct ion
of major. secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major. secondary or
colleclor streets for future Ira~ic signals. Pull poxes shall be placed on l:x3th sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR. ECR orany other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) A~I pull boxes shall pe No. 6 unless otherwise specified by fhe City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized sleel with pullrope.
e. Wheel chair rar'neps shall be installed on all four comers of intersections per City
Standan:is or as direcled by the City Engineer.
Existing C/ty roads nequidng construction shall remain open to traffic a~ all times with
adequate detours dudng construction. A street closure pen'nit may be required. A Cash
deposjl shall be provided tO cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of tr'm constnjc'lion to the salislaclion o1 the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows styall not c~ss sidewaks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standan:Is. except for single family lots.
n. HandtaD access ramp design shall be as spec~'fied by the City Engineer.
i. StreetnamesshallbeapptovedbytheCityplannerl:hnortosubmittalforfirstpiancheck
5. Street improvement ptans per City Standards for all i:~vale streets shall be provided for
review and approval by the City Engir, s. er. Prior to any work being performed on the prh
vale streets, fees Shall be paid and construction permits shall be dotaine:l from the City
Engineers Office in ac~:iifion to any other penrods required.
Stree rees. a minimum of 15-gallon site or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
._J /
__/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
_._/ /
_J /
I0 oF I?
7. Interseaion line of site designs shaz/be reviewed by fne City Er'~ineer for conformante w.ln
adopled poEicy.
a. On colle~or or larger s~reels. lin'es of sign! shall be plotL-~:~ tar all projec~ intersections.
including driveways· Wafts. signS. and sbpes shall be Iocated outside the fines of sight·
Landscaping and other obstrucliOns wilhin the lines of sight shall be approved by lhe City
Engineer.
b. Local resldemial street interseclions shall have their noticeability improved. usually by
moving me 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed jR a streel
free easement.
.__/ /
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following dgtTbof-way: __J /
I I~
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the ---J / !1
· suance of building permits: ;~ ~
v/ ,. ,, sepa,afe se, o, ,andscape and p,ans pe, Eng,nee,ing Pub,": "'orks S,anda,ds
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or issuance of b~ilding permits, whichever occurs first. The tollowing landscape parkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance Distrio1: ~ ~
/
Districts snail be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final map approval or issuance of building
pertorts whic.~ever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
/
V' 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation syslems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the CilyJ
4. Parkway landscaping on the followin.
Beaulification Mas~er Ran:
O. Drainage and Flood Cofftrol
I street(s) shall conform to the results of the respeaive / / l,
1. The proiecl (or portions thereof) s located within a Flood Hazard Zone: therefore, flood
proteclion measures shall be ~ovided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. I~ snail be the developers reSponsibil!ity to have lhe current FIRM Zone
des&gnation removed from the project area. The beveloper's engineer Shall p4'epare all
necessary reports, plans, and m/drologicJhydraulic caioulations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be oDlained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shah
be issued by FEMA prior Io occupancy or improvement acce~ance, whichever occurs firS:
V/ I
3 A final drainage study shall be submitted to and a. pCroved by the Cily Engineer prior to hna,
map apCroval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs firsl. AJI drainage
tacllities shall be installed as required by the C~ty Engineer.
4. A permit from the County Flood Control District, iS required for work w~hin rts right-of-way.
V,/
5, Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outstee Ciameter of any pu01ic storm drain pipe
measured from Ihe outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded Io convey overflows in the evem of a -----/ /
bloc~age in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utllllles
l. Provide separate utility services Io each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water,
gas, electric power, lelephone, and cable T'V (all underground) in accordance wi~n the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
/ /
2. The developer Shall be responsible Ior the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / /
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and conslnJclecl to meet the requirements ol the / /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Dislrict.
and liqe Environmental Heallh Department of the County of San Bemardino. A leher of
compliance from the CCWD is required pdor to linal map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the projec~ boundanes shall be legally combined into
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easemenl for a joint use ddveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or
issuance of building pertrots. whichever occurs first, for:
I I
/ I
3,Prior to approval of the final map a deposil shall be posted with the City covenng the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessrnenl Disl nct
among the newly crealed parcels.
4, EfhvandazSan S~vaine Area Regional Mainline. Seconclary Regional. and Master Plan
Drainage Fees Shall be paid p~'lor Io final map aleroyal or prior Io building parrnit issuance if
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be o~ained tmrn the following agencies for work within their right-of-way:
/ /
/ /
/ /
6 A signed conseht and waiver form to join and/or lorm the Law Enforcement Community
Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer pnar to final map approval or the
issuance of building perrr~ts, whichever occurs firsl. Formation costs shall be borne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any developrneht phase. sur~icieht improvement p~ans shall be com-
pieled beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage proteclion fo
the satisfaclion of the City Engineer. Phase boundahes Shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the aDOroved tentalive map.
/ /
!2 o[ 12
SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
TRACT No. 13951
Scole 1" = 150'
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP Nb. 2756. AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN PARCEL
MAP BOOK 25. PACES 24 AND 25, PARCELS I. 2, 3. AND 4 OF PARCEL ~ NO, 878.
AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 8. PAGE 4, A PORTION OF LOT 3. BLOCK
tO OF CUCAMONG,~ HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION U~NDS AS PER P~r RECORDED
IN MAP BOOK 6. PAGES 46. RECORDS OF ~lO COUNt,
/
/
/ ) 'Z'IF
c'.~ ~ C: ': '
I 25
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SITE PI.)d~
PRECISE GRADING PLAN
FOR
TRACT NO. 13951
NOTES:_
"~l ' ' ~ ~ ..........="== ............
.L_:~ ' _ :~: I, i-y~.a,,?~,:~,~::~=:=:
- ', .. ;' '~ ~ ' . ::
NDEX MAP I
; ] 7. 7:~ :: .: X ;7: 7;. ?;'7 ';..7. ;77' =.'X :"~;};'~* '
:~:; ZZ'~. ~=' '~ X :::=:'::~;:=;':X;:2=;:7 ............
SEE SHEET 3 '~'* ' ;~':~v:~;7~'~%:~': ...............
AVENUE
I0
SEC'nON 'J'-'J' SECTION "B"-"B"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PRECISE GRADtNG PLAN
TRACT NO 1395t
SEE SHEET 2
2 ,, V "'
>LOt
SECTION 'F'-"F"
SECTION "H'-"H"
'%" OUT'~R
®,
W I L S ON
COURT
· ~ ........................... ;- ............. // CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
I SECTION 2
\VILSON
COURT
TRACT NO. 15951
FENCING PLAN
[~ SITETECH ~c
CONCORDIA HOMES
PLAN 1
1LA._NCHO CUC.A./VIONGA
TRACT #13951
_~=____ CONCORDIA HOMES
PLAN 1
RA_NCHO CUCA_MONGA
TRACT #13951
PLAN 2
R_A/qCHO CUCAIVIONGA
TRACT #13951
PLAN 2
R_~/~CHO CUC,A_IVIONC2iA
TRACT #13951
[] FIB
PLAN 3
RJ~I~CHO CUCA/VlONGA
TRACT #13951
TALIA mOu.-U~
CONCORDIA HOMES
PLAN 3
P,,~dqCl-IO CUC~VIONGA
TRACT #13951
CONCORDIA HOMES
PLAN 3
GARAGE OPTION
TRACT #13951
CONCORDIA HO/%4ES
RJ%_.'qCj{O CUC.4_-N4ONGA
8:20 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
Rebecca Van Buren September 15, 1998
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of building elevations
and detailed site plan for the previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 13951 consisting of 30
single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (less than 2
dwelling units per acre), located on the;east side of Beryl Street, nodh of Manzanita Drive, west of
Hellman Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03, ~062~111-03 through 06, and 1062-061-01 and 02.
Backaround: Tentative Tract 13951 wa~ originally approved on August 14, 1991. The tentative map
and its design review were kept intact over the years with two C ty-granted time extensions and two
automatic State-granted time extensions. Concordia Homes recently purchased the site and is
proposing new and different house designs on the approved tract.
The site is contains an abandoned vineyard, annual grassland, coastal sage scrub habitat, and 57
heritage trees. Demens Creek runs along the westerly properly line and connects to Beryl Street. A
heritage oak tree is located on the banks of Demens Creek, just outside of the project boundaries. The
grading plan is designed to preserve the !oak tree in place. The site has a 6 percent slope. The lots
range in size from 20,000 square feet t6 35,600 square feet.
Desjan Parameters: Concordia Homes] is proposing three floor plans. Each plan includes three
architectural styles: French, Italian, andi Santa Barbara.
Plan I is a single story with 3,188 square feet, features two side-on garages (one attached the
other detached), and a courtyard at the front entry.
Plan 2 is a two-story with 3,428 square feet and features a two-car, straight-in garage and a one-
car, side-on garage. ,
Plan 3 is a two-story with 3,865 square feet and features a two-car, straight-in garage with a third
car tandem space or third car garage option. This plan also incorporates a porte cochere on the
driveway side of the house, creating ian interesting focal point with the garage in the background.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to proviae an outline for Committee
discussion. I
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project: '
1. Plan I Italian and Santa Barbarai elevations appear too similar in roof form and window
punctuation to achieve a significant difference in streetscape appearance.
2. Distinguishing detailing on front elevations should be replicated in side and rear elevations
(shutters, pot shelves, exposed raft ~er tails).
3. The updated arborist's report states the existing trees at the southern tract boundary are too close
to the property line to survive construction of tract boundary walls. The adjoining neighbor
indicated she does not want her tre~s removed. Tract boundan/wall should be located at the
property line (south side of local trail)!where there is no conflict, and on the north side of the local
trail where there is a conflict with trees (Lots 27-30). When the wall is nodh of the trail, the
existing chain link fence may remain on the property line augmented with the equestrian rail
fencing to identify the trail.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 13951 & DR 98-15
September 15, 1998
Page 2
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issue:
1. The grading plan contains drafting errors regarding the placement of vehicle gates and step-
through details on equestrian trails to be addressed at Technical Review Committee.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and any
walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti
potential. Corner side yard walls should be shifted to provide a 5-foot wide landscape area
between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy.
2. All retaining walls exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish (i.e.,
stucco) or be composed of a decorative material (i.e., split face, brick, slump block, etc.).
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as
recommended above.
Desi~ln Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren
The Committee reviewed the project and the project return on a consent calendar basis with the
following additional details:
1. Provide wrought-iron courtyard fencing for Plan 1 Santa Barbara elevation.
2. Provide minor alterations to window or shutter details on Plan 1 elevation for greater distinction
between the Santa Barbara and Italian styles.
A Wall Plan to include masonry walls between houses (return walls) compatible with the colors
andmaterialsonfrontelevationsandthelocationoftractboundarywalls. At the southern portion
of Lots 27-30 where there is a conflict between the tract boundary wall and the trees to be
preserved in-place, the developer shall make a good faith effort to replace the existing chain link
fence with wrought iron with the permission of the abutting property owner. In addition to tract
boundary fencing, Lots 27-30 shall be provided with wrought iron fencing at the top of slopes.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
Project File: Tentative Tract 13951 Time Extension Development Review 98-15
Related Files: Tentative Tract 13951 Tree Removal Permit 91-28
Description of Project: A r~quest for an extension of a previously approved tentative
tract map for the development =of 30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very
Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). located on the east side of
Beryl Street, north of Manzanit~ Drive. west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03; 1062~
111-03 through 06; 1062-061-01 & 02 and the design review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 13951 consisting of
30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located on
the east side of Beryl Street. n~rth of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman Avenue -
APN: 1061-761-03; 1062-111-03 through 06; 1062-061-01 & 02.
Project Sponsor's Name and :Address:
Liz Griffin
Concordia Homes
408 S. Stoddard Avenue
San Bernardino. CA 92401
General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
Zoning: Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and ;Zoning:
10.
Nodh: Single family residential. church; Very Low Residential
South: Single family residential; Very Low Residential
East: Single family residential; Very Low Residential
West: Vacant land and Heri!age Park; Very Low Residential and Open Space
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga ,
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone NUmber:
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate planner. (909) 477-2750
Other agencies whose approv~al is required:
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S, Army Corps of Engineers I
Cucamonga County Water District
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
7f' 13951 & DR 98-15 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
(X) Geological Problems
(X) Water
( ) Air Quality
(X) Transportation/Circulation
(X) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
(X) Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
()
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(x)
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
in bold herein 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 althoug~ 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:
Rebecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
August 17, 1998
Initial Study for
TT 13951 & DR 96-15
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
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.
LAND USE AND PLANNING.; Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with generali plan designation or ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible withe existing land use in the
vicinity? i ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c)
POPULATION AND HOUSING,. Would the proposal.'
a) Cumulatively exceed ~official regional or local
popu ation 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)? , ( )
Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? i ( )
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. WoUld the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a) Fault rupture?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TF 13951 & DR 98-15 Page 4
b)
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?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
()
(x) ( )
g)
h)
~)
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
()
()
()
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Comments:
The topography of the site will be altered to accommodate the street
improvements and residential buildings. The grading will be supervised by a
licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with building
code requirements. This impact is not considered to be significant.
WATER.
a)
b)
d)
Will the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
water runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Discharge into surface water or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements? ( ) (X) ( ) ( )
Initial Study for
TT 13951 & DR 98-15
f)
g)
h)
l)
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 groundwaier quality?
Substantial reduction' in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies?
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
Comments:
a,d&e)
The proposed projectSinvolves undergrounding a drainage ravine. The results of
a field su~ey (Chamgers Group, April 1998), indicate the drainage course falls
within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The drainage course contains
almost exclusively upland plant species and, therefore, is not a "wetland" but
does qualify as "other waters of the United States." As such, the ACOE will
require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the CDFG will
require a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1603 of the State Fish
and Game Code. Because of the size and characteristics of the drainage on the
site, the ACOE may allow Section 404 permits using one of the existing
Nationwide Permits (e'.g. NWP 26). The ACOE will require cedification (or waiver
thereof) under Section 401 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. All
waters will be conveyed to appropriate drainage facilities designed to handle the
flows. The conditions of approval shall require the applicant to comply with
the Clean Water Act; and Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code,
prior to recordation of the tract map.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a)
b)
d)
Violate any air quality ;standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? ;
()
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants'~( )
Alter air movement, mpisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
orea,eob, ectonab.eo.ors?
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 13951 & DR 98-15 Page 6,
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
bicycfists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e,g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g)
Rail or air traffic impacts?
(x)
()
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Comments:
a)
The proposed development will result in 30 single family dwelling units which will
generate additional passenger car and truck trips. The proposed density of
development and its traffic impacts were factored into the design of the street
system. As a result. the project is not expected to cause traffic congestion.
b)
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)?
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?
(x) ( )
(x) ( )
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Initial Study for
TT 13951 & DR 98-15
Comments:
a)
b)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
The property iS located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered
or threatened specieS. The subject site contains indicator species of sage scrub
habitat. As a result'habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were
required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the fedorally-listed
threatened California!gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo
rat. The habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by the
Chambers Group in April 1998 by a biologist permitted by the U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service. Th~ results of the surveys indicate approximately 12 acres of
the entire project site are coastal sage scrub dominant and approximately
11 acres are annual grassland. The report indicates the habitat on-site is not
occupied by either of'the two species pursuant to surveys conducted according
to USFWS protocol. :, The report indicates that although the site does contain
some good quality co~sta sage scrub, gnatcatchers tend to prefer a variation in
topography that is not present on the relatively fiat project site. The San
Bernardino kangaroo' rat was not captured during the three focused trapping
surveys where 273 traps were baited and set. Thus. it is concluded that this
species is absent on:the property. Based upon these findings, the proposed
development of the site will not likely result in adverse effects to endangered,
threatened, or rare Species; therefore. the impact is considered less than
significant. There is no knowledge of other unique, rare, sensitive, or endangered
species potentially living on the project site.
There are 57 trees on2the site as well as a Coast Live Oak nodh of the site in the
ravine and Eucalyptus windrow trees south of the site. which could be impacted
by the project. A Certified Arborist Report was prepared (Mark D. Cobb, July
1998) to update the condition and status of all trees on the site as well as
adjacent trees. The report notes that many of the trees on-site have developed
poor structures and have suffered damage from storm, insect, disease and
vandalism. The proEposed construction will require major grade changes
throughout the project to address drainage issues. These grade changes will
also necessitate the re, moral of trees, The only trees on-site that are candidates
to be preserved in place are 5 Eucalyptus trees located in the windrow along the
southeast property lin~. The conditions of approval shall require grading and
wall plan design changes to avoid negative impacts to the Coast Live Oak
in the ravine and to the windrow trees south of the project. The conditions
of approval shall also require replacement trees consisting of 15-gallon
Eucalyptus maculatai planted 8 feet on center. The location of replacement
trees shall follow the existing alignment, whenever possible, and shall be
shown on the final landscape plan, wh ch is subject to review and approval
by the City Planner prior, to issuance of building permits.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TT 13951 & DR 98-15 Page 8
a)
b)
c)
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? ( )
()
()
()
No
(x)
(x)
(x)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or ( )
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation ( )
plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
()
()
()
()
()
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for
'iF 13951 & DR 98-15
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need/or new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ~
b) Police protection? i
c) Schools? '
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Other governmental services?
e)
Cornmerits;
c)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
(x) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( (x)
Schools in the elementary and high school districts are at or near capacity at this
time. The Districts state mitigation beyond the state statuto~ fees will be needed.
As a condition of approval, the developer shall execute an agreement with the
Districts to provide the additional mitigation or to provide full mitigation. Full
mitigation may be acc:omplished by means of a requirement to form, or participate
~n an existing, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for school facilities.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all
affected school disiricts have entered into an agreement to privately
accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project.
12.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( )
b) Communicat on systems? ( ) ( )
c) Local or regional wate,r treatment or
distribution facilities? ( ) ( )
d) Sewer or sept c tanks? ( ) ( )
e) Storm water drainage~ ( ) ( )
f) Sol d waste disposal? ' ( ) ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( )
(x)
(x)
(x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
TF 13951 & DR 98-15 Page 10
13.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a)
b)
c)
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
Create light or glare?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
Comments:
c)
New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the
vacant site. The residential development and associated street lights will be
checked to ensure it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess
light and glare onto adjacent properties. This impact is not considered to be
significant.
14.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical or cultural resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) (x)
15.
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for
'IF 13951 & DR 98-15
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substa~ntially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal. or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California ( )
history or prehistory?
b) Short term: Does the project have the
potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-
term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( )
c) Cumulative: Does t~e 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 fuiure projects.) ( )
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( )
EARLIER ANALYSES
( ) ( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
( ) (x)
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 earlibr 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 complet!ng 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)
Sent by: CONCORDIA HOe4ES 909 885 9902; 10;20/98 11:12~,M;}p,,~#a83;Page 2/2
Initial Study for
~ 13951 & DR 98-15
City' of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
(x)
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115. certified January 4. 1889J
(X) Tentative Tract 13951 Negative Declaration (NOD filed August 14. 1991)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. 1 acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Sludy arid the proposed mitigation measures. Further. I have revised the
project plans Or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed miligafion measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate tile effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur. CCRC 30, LLC
By: Concordia Homes o Suul;hern California, Inc., rts Manager
Signature: ~ ~rft ,-~ Date; 10/20/9~
Print Name and Title: Liz Gri f~in. Pro~ect ManaGer
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Time Extension Tentative Tract 13951 Public Review Period Closes: 10/28/98
Project Name: Project Applicant: Liz Griffin, Concordia Homes
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Beryl Street, north of
Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03, 1062-111-03 through 06, and
1062-061-01 and 02.
Project Description: A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the
development of 30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to
2 dwelling units per acre). Related files: Development Review 98-15 and Tree Removal Permit 91-28.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Inilial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
October 8, 1998
Date of Determination
Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
AN EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 13951, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THEREOF, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
22.56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, NORTH OF
MANZANITA DRIVE, WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-761-03:1062-111-03
THROUGH 06; AND 1062-061-01 AND 02.
A. Recitals,
1. Concordia Homes has filed an application for the extension of the approval of approval
of Tentative Tract Map No. 13951. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On August 14, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-114, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits. Tentative Tract No. 13951.
3. On the 28th day of October 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, 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 October 28, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public
health and safety problems; and
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State lawand local ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28. 1998
Page 2
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application. the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findingsi as follows:
a. That the Negative D~claration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon th~ changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations. the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further. based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration. the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of th~ California Code of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs l , 2. and3above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Tentative Tract Map
Tentative Tract 13951
Applicant
Concordia Homes
Expiration
August 14, 1999
5. Baseduponthefindingsandconclusionssetforthinparagraphsl.2, and3above. this
Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 91 - 114 and the
Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows:
Planninq Division ~
1 ) The Equestrian Trail in the northwest section of the tract shall include
a public overflow easement which shall be maintained by the City in the
event of an actual overflow occurrence.
2) A step-through detail shall be provided at the intersection of the
Community Trail and !he local equestrian trail to Lots 18 and 22.
3)A standard gate (Detail 1008) shall be provided from Lots 24 and 25 to
the adjacent Community Trail.
4) Sections P-P and Q-Q shall accurately reflect the Community Trail
standard of a 5-foot pa 'kway, 12-foot trail, and 3-foot landscaped area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'Fr 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 3
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
11)
The area on the north side of Zimmerman Court between Lots 5 and
8 shall be left open to allow equestrian access between the local trails
forthese two lots. In addition. a disclosure statement shall be provided
to the buyer of Lot 5 indicating that this area is to remain open and
shall not be landscaped or blocked off in any way.
A textured. standard trail crossing shall be provided across Beryl Street
on both the north and south sides of Wilson Avenue. A similar
crossing shall also be provided across Wilson Avenue on the east side
of Beryl Street.
The local trail at the northwest corner of Lot 24 shall be eliminated
since a local trail directly adjacent to a Community Trail is undesirable.
Rather. a standard gate from Lots 23 and 24 to the Community Trail
shall be provided.
Any manhole covers located within private local trail easements shall
be either buried underground or covered with wood or neoprene for
equestrian safety.
Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building
permits. whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to. or
participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District pertaining to the project site to provide in conjunction with
applicable school 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 map or the issuance of building permits.
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not
formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within 12 months of
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the
final map or issuance of building permits for said project. this condition
shall be deemed null and void.
Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources code Section
21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested orfinal, norwill
building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of
Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action
is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees
assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4,
together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County
Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the
Planning Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD
together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid.
Tree Removal Permit No. 91-28 is hereby approved subject to the
following:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 4
a) The Coast Live Oak tree on the west bank of the creek channel
shall be preserved in-place in accordance with the
recommendatidns of the certified arborist for the project, which
may include filling the creek channel with sandy loam or loamy
sand. removal of deadwood by an arbodst, and removal of any
remnant tree house. The applicant shall retain a certified arborist
who shall conduct periodic on-site inspections to supervise the
preservation off the Oak tree. The arborist shall review the
Grading Plans, prior to issuance of permits and shall report their
findings and recommendations to the Planning Division. Fur,her.
the arborist shall re-inspect the health and condition of the Oak
tree, prior to issuance of any grading or building permits and one
year after completion of the tract and shall prepare a report to the
Planning Division of their findings and recommendations.
b) The following five Eucalyptus trees shall be preserved in-place
in accordance With the recommendations of the arborist's report
of July 27, 1998: trees numbered 27, 29.36, 37. and 38.
c) Trees to be preserved in-place shall be enclosed with a
construction barrier as required by Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code~ Section 19.08.110, and cleady stated on any
Grading Plans. :!
d) infested wood shall be chipped, removed and buried at a dump
site or tarped to !he ground for minimum six months, sealing the
tarp edges with soil. to prevent emerging borer beetles from
reinfesting other trees or wood.
e) The windrows within the site shall be shall be removed and
replaced with 15rgallon Eucalyptus maculata at 8 feet on center.
The location of replacement trees shall follow the existing
alignment, whenever possible. and shall be shown on the final
Landscape Plan', which is subject to review and approval by the
City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits.
f) The remaining irees on-site proposed for removal shall be
replaced with the largest grown nursery stock available and their
location shall be shown on the final Landscape Plan to be
reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to issuance of
building permits.~
12) Right-of-entry shall be obtained for the tree preservation work
associated with the Oak tree. prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits. I
Miticlation Measures i
1 ) The developer shall comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TI' 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 5
2)
The developer shall modify Grading and Wall Plan designs as needed
to avoid negative impacts to the Coast Live Oak tree in the ravine and
to the windrow trees south of the project.
Enclineerinq Division
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications) on the project side
of Hellman Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project
frontage extending to the fist pole off-site (north and south), prior to
public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first.
In addition, an in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergounding
of the utilities on the opposite side of Hellman Avenue shall be paid to
the City, prior to approval of the final map. The fee shall be one-half
the difference between the undergounding cost of the utilities
(electrical) on the opposite side of the street minus those
(telecommunications) on the project side times the length of the project
frontage.
The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on
the project side of Beryl Street sha II be undergrounded along the entire
project frontage extending to the first pole off-site (north and south),
prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever
occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement
to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from
future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If
the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within
6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
Construct Community Trails on the south side of Wilson Avenue and
on the east side of Beryl Street.
Sidewalks shall be constructed on one side of the interior public streets
as follows:
a) North side of Wilson Avenue
b) North side of Sharp Drive
c) West side of Cousins Place. south of Wilson Avenue
d) East side of Cousins Place, north of Wilson Avenue
e) South side of Zimmerman Court.
Both a standard parkway with street trees and sidewalk and a private
local trail within Lot "A" adjacent to the parkway shall be provided on
the north side of Wilson Avenue between Beryl Street and the west
boundary of Lot 17. Provide a 12-foot parkway, trail surfacing and
fencing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner.
The developer shall grant Lot "A" to the owner of APN: 1061-761-01
to the north. A lot line adjustment to merge Lot "A" with
APN: 1061-761-01 shall be recorded, prior to or concurrent with, the
final map.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 6
7) ConstructCousinsPlacealongtheeasttractboundarysouthofWilson
Avenue full width,i including street lights. Off-site parkway
improvements on the east side of the street may be deferred until
development of the adjacent property. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement for improvements east of the centerline of
Cousins Place from future development on the adjacent properties. If
the developer fails tolsubmit for said reimbursement agreement within
6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
a) Excess land owned by this developer east of Cousins Place and
north of Lot 30 shall be incorporated into the street right-of-way
and a rocksca~e treatment (no maintenance) installed for the
entire parkway. If the adjacent property owner agrees to a Lot
Line Adjustment, it shall be processed concurrent with the final
map. If that owner does not agree, Cousins Place shall be
shifted 10 feet to the east, with a 50-foot right-of-way along the
Not-A-Part parcel. so as to minimize the amount of hardscape.
8) Be I t I
ry S reet shall be widened to 22 feet, measured from the centerline,
from the project's north boundary to Manzanita Avenue. The
developer may request reimbursement agreements for off-site
improvements from future redevelopment as it occurs south of the
south project boundary. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements
being accepted by! the City, all rights of the developer to
reimbursement shall !erminate.
9) The developer shall be eligible for credit against and reimbursement of
cOSts in excess of the Transportation Development Fee for the middle
38 feet of Wilson Ave0ue and for the ultimate intersection geometrics
at Wilson AvenuelBpryl Street and Wilson/Hellman Avenues in
conformance with City policy.
10) If the easterly leg of th2e Wilson/Hellman Avenues and/or the westerly
leg of the Wilson Avenue/Beryl Street intersection exists or is under
construction upon filial map approval, the developer shall install
adequate traffic signa!ization and/or signage to make Wilson Avenue
the through street, to !he satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.
11) There shall be no cross gutters across Wilson Avenue. Provide an
intersection drain in Hellman Avenue and a lateral to the storm drain
in Beryl Street.
12) Construct master Plan Storm Drain line 2F as follows:
a)
If a plan check for Tentative Tract 14207 has been initiated to
divert Master Pla'n flows from line 2E to 2F, then line 2F shall be
upsized to accommodate the additional tr butary area and line 2F
shall be installed in Beryl Street from Sunflower Street to Wilson
Avenue. then east on Wilson Avenue, then north along the west
project boundary; to connect with the existing 48-inch RCP near
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 7
15)
16)
17)
18)
the north project boundary. The developer shall be eligible for
fee credits and reimbursements for the cost of the portion
designated a City Master Plan facility in accordance with the
City's Storm Drain Master Plan policy. If the developer fails to
submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
b)
Otherwise, line 2F shall be installed in Beryl Street from
Manzanita Ddve to Wilson Avenue, then east on Wilson Avenue,
then north along the west project boundary to connect with the
existing 48-inch RCP near the north project boundary. The
developer shall be eligible for fee credits and reimbursements for
the cost of the portion designated a City Master Plan facility in
accordance with the City's Storm Drain Master Plan policy. If the
developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement
within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by
the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall
terminate.
Storm drainage facility plans, including the spillway and overflow route
design, shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer and San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
The existing storm drainage facilities north of the project site shall be
inspected by the City. prior to approval of the storm drain plans.
Unnecessary structures shall be removed and facilities which do not
meet City Standards shall be replaced.
Provisions shall be made to accept drainage from all areas currently
draining to the existing earth channel along the west project boundary.
Right-of-entry easements shall be obtained forthe construction of off-
site drainage facilities, prior to Grading Permit issuance.
Provide a flood wall on the south side of Wilson Avenue opposite the
overflow path for the public storm drain north of Wilson Avenue.
Provide an overflow path within the public storm drain easement and
private trail easement along the west tract boundary north of Wilson
Avenue to conduct Q 100 overflows in the event of blockage of the pipe
inlet north of Lot 12.
The existing San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD)
easement within and south of Wilson Avenue shall be purchased from
the S BCFC D, prior to final map approval. The podion of that easement
north of Wilson Avenue shall be reduced to what is necessary for a
pipe system, as follows, prior to final map approval:
a) The easement to be retained shall be purchased from SBCFCD
and deeded to the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 13951 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 8 ,
b) The surplus ea§ement on-site shall be purchased from SBCFCD.
c) The surplus e&sement on the property to the west shall be
purchased from' SBCFCD and deeded to the underlying property
owner.
d) SBCFCD and the City shall enter into an agreement regarding
the operation ~nd maintenance of the storm drain between
Demens Basin No. 2 and Wilson Avenue.
20) Driveways on corner;Lots 3, 7, 8, 21, and 26 shall be located as far
from the intersection ~s possible to reduce conflicts with traffic turning
right. !
21) All drive approaches for local trails shall be located on local streets.
22) All trail crossings of public streets shall be located at intersections.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C'ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATFEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planninl r Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certifythattheforegoingResolutionwaSdulyandregularlyintroduced passed andadoptedbythe
Planning Commission of the City of R~ncho Cucamonga, at a regular meeiing of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of October 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Tentative Tract 13951 and Development Review 98-15
Concordia Homes
Located on the east side of Beryl Street. north of Manzanita, west of Hellman 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:
General Requirements
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents. officers. o~ employees. because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative.
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents. officers. or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
Completion Date
-/
The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations, The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to. or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities, However,
if any school district has previously established such a Communib/Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City: receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
4. A copy of the signed Resolution of ApprOval or City Planners letter of approval, and all Standard
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
Site Development
1. Thesiteshal~bedeve~~pedandmaintainedinacc~rdancewiththea~~r~ved~lanswh~chinc~ude
site plans, architectural elevations, exter,ior materials and colors landscap rig, s gn program and
grading on file in the Planning Division, ,the conditions contained herein, and the Development
Code regulations. :
Prior to any use of the project site or bus~ness activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
All site, grading, landscape. irrigation, ~nd street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes;first.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code.
all other applicable City Ordinances, and!applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
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 wa Is, herruing. and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
Street names shall be submitted for City, Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to a~proval of the final map.
A detailed plan indicat ng tra I widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed
control. in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review
and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of
street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including
fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
a. Local Feeder Trails (Le.. private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced
with two-rail 4-inch lodgepole "peeler' logs to define both sides of the easement' however
developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material.
b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as
veterinarians orhaydeliveries, including a 12-footminimumdriveapproach Entrance may
be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs.
/
sc - ~r27zge 2
Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a
distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching
the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official.
Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail
with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association. or other means acceptable to the City. Proofofthis landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
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 ¼-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.
10, Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint. or water sealant.
11. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback bet~veen walls/fences and sidewalk,
12. For residential development, return wails and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
13. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
Landscaping
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 arborisrs
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming 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 prior 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.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
D. Environmental
Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00. prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.i
E=
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
Other Agencies ~
1. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Pos!al 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. Th~ 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:
F. Site Development ~
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check, and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project.file number (i.e.,i CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building
and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for: a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay d~velopment 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. .
Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday. with no construction on Sunday.
4
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (g09) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
)WING CONDITIONS:
G. Dedication and Vehicular Access
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.
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline}:
33 total feet on Beryl Street
33 total feet on Hellman Avenue
3, Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
All existing easements I;,ing within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
Street Improvements
All public improvements (interiorstreets, 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. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A,C Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvrnt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Beryl Street X X X X X
Hellman Avenue X X X X X X
Completion Date
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114 (d) If so marked. an in-lieu of construction fee shaU be
provided for this item,
Improvement Plans and Construction:
5
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 completiGn of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required. ~
Pavement striping, marking. traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal conduit with pull boxes sh'~ll 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 a[ intersections and No. 5 along streets. a maximum of 200
feet apart. unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at; intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gaffon Size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
5, Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of gight plotted as required.
Public Maintenance Areas
1 A separate set of landscape and irrigatibn plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs:first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos. easements. trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: W~lson Avenue, excluding side-on Lots 2, 3, 4.17, 18. and "A" (trail only to by City-
maintained along Lots 3.4, and 18). and Beryl Street between Wilson Avenue and Sharp Drive.
Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble
or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be flied with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
J. Drainage and Flood Control
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.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed
from the project area. The developerrs engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologidhydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from F EMA prior to final map approval or issuance of build ing permits, whichever occurs
first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
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.
Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
K. Utilities
Provide separate utility Services to each parcel including sanitan/sewerage system, water. gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shah be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary,
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardinc. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
7
L. General Requirements and Approvals
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X b. For the purpose of final ;acceptance. an additional fire flow test of the on*site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel afte? construction and prior to occupancy.
All r
3. Fire hydrants are required. equ'red ~public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed. flushed.
and opelable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber. roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shaH be witnessed by fire department personnel
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any. will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) si~all be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection. I
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. $132.00 Fire District fee(s). and a $1 p~r "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. **
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
lan h f I .
'*Note: Separate p c eck ees 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 pFior to construction in accordance with 1994 U BC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
N. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
O. 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.
P. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 98-15, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS
AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO 13951 CONSISTING OF 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
22.56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, NORTH OF
MANZANITA, WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-761-03; 1062-111-03 THROUGH 06;
AND 1062-061-01 AND 02.
A. Recitals.
1. Concordia Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No.
98-15, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as '"the application."
2. On the 28th day of October 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred,
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1, This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on October 28, 1998, includ ng wr tten and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Beryl Street, north
of Manzanita Drive, and west of Hellman Avenue with a street frontage of 665 feet on Beryl Street
and 410 feet on Hellman Avenue, and is presently undeveloped; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is single family residences and a
church, to the south and east are single family residences, and to the west is vacant land and
Heritage Park.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the object ves of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
Q, e 7b
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28. 1998
Page 2
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore
reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, furmer, this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application. '
b. That, based upon the Changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration fo~ 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 during the public
hearing. the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abc~e.
this Commission hereby approves the ~pplication subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
Planninq Division
1 ) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 13951 shall apply to this
project. ~
2) The garage windows on the front elevation of the single story Santa
Barbara elevation shall!be recessed, consistent with the architectural
style it represents.
3)
The developer shall construct the tract perimeter fences and walls
pursuant to the wall plan approved by the City Planner. prior to final of
building permits.
4)
At the southern portion Of Lots 27-30 where there is a conflict between
the tract boundary wall and the trees to be preserved in-place, the
developer shall make a: good faith effort to replace the existing chain
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 3
link fence with Wrought iron with the permission of the abutting property
owner. In addition to tract boundary fencing, Lots 27-30 shall be
provided with wrought iron fencing at the top of slopes.
Enqineerinq Division
1) All conditions of Tentative Tract 13951 shall apply.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel. Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby
certify 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 28th day of October 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Tentative Tract 13951 and Development Review 98-15
Concordia Homes
Located on the east side of Beryl Street. north of Manzanita, west of Hellman 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:
General Requirements
Completion Date
The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees. because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers. or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities 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 map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a MeUo-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City Ireceives 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.
A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. 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 heroin. and the Development
Code regulations. ,
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the s~,tisfaction of the City Planner.
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.
+
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.
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,
Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to ~pproval of the final map.
A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes. physical conditions, fencing. and weed
control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings. shall be submitted for City Planner review
and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of
street improvementand grading plans. Developershall upgrade and constructali trails, including
fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e.. private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced
with two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler'' logs to define both sides of the easement: however,
developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material.
b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles. such as
veterinarians orhay deliveries, inCluding a 12-foot minimumdrive approach. Entrance may
be gated provided that equestria0 access is maintained through step-throughs.
2
Completion Date
Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0,5% at the downstream end of a trail for a
distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching
the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official.
Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail
with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners'association or other means acceptable to the City. Proofofthis landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
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.
10. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
11, On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
12 For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
13, Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
Landscaping
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/
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 arborisrs
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming 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-gaUon oi' larger size tree per each 150 sq, ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. tt. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition. slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane, Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
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.
All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas. the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
D. Environmental
Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including~monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits. guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City
to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation
measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents
shall be considered grounds for forfeit.
In those instances requiring long term monitoring (Le.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the
applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified
to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented.
E. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes, Multi-family residential d~velopments 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:
F. Site Development
1 Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e.:~ CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code. Title 24 Accessibility requirements. and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building
and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. 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 th~ Building Official. after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits. ;
Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday. with no construction 'on Sunday.
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Dedication and Vehicular Access
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.
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
33 total feet on Beryl Street
33 total feet on Hellman Avenue
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
/
/
.!
/
+
All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
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. Construct the following perimeter street improvemen s nc uding. but not limited to:
Curb & A.C, Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Beryl Street X X X X X
Hellman Avenue X X X X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check, (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked. an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
5
P~jeClNO.
Street improvement plans, including street trees, street fights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be insta lied 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, amaximumof200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (ateintersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Handicapped access ramps sh~ll be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon Size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways, Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
Public Maintenance Areas
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 map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs, first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
6
K=
District: V~lson Avenue, excluding side-on Lots 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, and "A" (trail only to by City-
maintained a ong Lots 3, 4, and 18), and Beryl Street between VVilson Avenue and Sharp Drive.
Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble
or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
J. Drainage and Flood Control
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.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed
from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologicJhydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from FE MA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
/ /
A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
/ /
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.
/ /
/ /
Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
Utilities
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,
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
7
]1
L. General Requirements and Approvals
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X b. For the purpose of final :acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy.
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shal,I be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4, Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire DiStrict. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4*inch and a 2-112-inch outlet. Substapdard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for spqcifications on approved brands and model numbers.
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 Cucambnga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
7. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 pBr "plan page'" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District pri9r to Building and Safety permit issuance. **
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal
*'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.
Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, U FC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
N. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors.
2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
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,
Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
SC - 8r27/98
9
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 28, 1998
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 13527 - GE CAPITAL CORPORATION - A request for a time extension of
a previously approved tentative tract map for a residential subdivision of 252 single
family lots on 88.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2--4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13527 was approved by the Planning Commission on
September 28, 1988. On September 26, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a 12-month
time extension extending Tentative Tract 13527 until September 28, 1991. In April 1992, staff noted
that Section 66452.6(a) of the Subdivision Map Act provides for a 36omonth time extension if certain
public improvements are required of a project; this criteria automatically extended Tentative
Tract 13527 until September 28, 1994. In 1993, Senate Bill 428 automatically extended, by 24
months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by September 13,
1993. As the map was still valid on that date, Tentative Tract 13527 was extended until
September 28. 1996. In 1996, Assembly Bill 711 automatically extended, by 12-months, the
expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by May 14.1996. As the map
was still valid on that date, Tentative Tract 13527 was extended until September 28. 1997, And
finally, on September 24. 1997, the City Planner approved a 12-month time extension extending
Tentative Tract 13527 until September 28, 1998. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the current
time extension request.
In 1991, prior to recordation and design review, Tentative Tract 13527 was broken down into
smaller tracts which include Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, 14382 and the remainder of Tentative
Tract 13527 (see Exhibit "C"). Tracts 14379 and 14380 have been recorded. The initial Design
Review approval for Tracts 14380, 14381, and 14382 expired in September 1992 and the Design
Review for Tract 13759 expired in September 1993. Two Design Review applications
(Development Review 96-27 and Development Review 98-11 ) have been submitted for portions of
Tract 14380, and are currently under construction by Mastercraft Homes.
ANALYSIS: Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act states that the City may approve a time
extension for a period or periods not exceeding a total of three years. This time extension is in
addition to the automatic three year extension provided in Section 66452.6(a). Since the applicant
received City-granted time extensions in 1991 and 1997, this is the final time extension request that
may be granted. The requested 12-month time extension for Tentative Tract 13527 win
automatically extend Tracts 14381 and 14382.Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and
compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan. Based on this review, the tentative tract meets the development standards of the Low
Residential District.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF!REPORT
TT 13527 - GE CAPITAL CORP.
October 28, 1998
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part l ofthe Environmental Checklist.
Staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that certain environmental
conditions have changed since the original project approval. The project site is located in an area
identified as potential habitat for endahgered or threatened species. The site contains indicator
species of sage scrub habitat and, asia result, habitat assessments were required to determine
potential impacts, particularly to the faderally-listed threatened Califdrnia gnatcatcher (CAGN) and
the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR}. The results of the habitat assessments
indicate that the site is not occupied by either of the two species.
The results of the surveys indicate thie subject site is highly disturbed and shows signs of dirt
movement in the past. The high level of disturbance has added to the presence of non-native
plants. The habitat assessment consisted of a search for plant species known to be elements of
the coastal sage scrub and alluvial scrub communities. Vegetation on the site is characterized as
a low quality coastal sage scrub, dominated by California buckwheat and deerweed, as well as
several other non-native plants. Whit~ sage bushes were observed on the site; however, these
were sparse and scattered, and as habitat appeared to be low quality and unsuitable to support a
CAGN population. The alluvial scrub community is similar to the coastal sage; however, it is
similarly sparse and highly disturbed.
The report concludes that because of the highly disturbed nature of the site, a lack of suitable
habitat and the extensive surrounding development further development of the site would not have
a significant impact on the CAGN or it's! habitat. Low quality habitat for the SBKR was observed on
the site; however, no SBKR were observed on the site nor were there signs of habitation present
on the property. The species is not likely to occur on the site and further development of the site
would not have a negative impact on:'the species. Based upon this information, the proposed
development will not result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species or their habitat.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing' in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted. and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300 foot radius of the project site. i
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year time
extension for Tentative Tract 13527 (including Tracts 14381 and 14382) through adoption of the
attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:TG:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Resolution of Approval ,
Time Extension letter dated July 13, 1998
Site Utilization Map
Tentative Tract Map
Initial Study Pad II
GECapital
Commercial Real Estate Financing and Services
General Electnc Capital Corporation
18300 Von Karman Avenue. Suite 700
invine. CA 92612
714 477-1500
Hand Delivered
July 13, 1998
City ofRancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Arm: Tom Grahn
Re: TTM 13527 Extension
Dear Mr. Grahn:
We respecffiHly request that 'ITM 13527 be extended one year ~'om its present expiration
date of September 28, 1998.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $549 for the l-year extension.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Cordially,
anA. Roca
anager
OF R~CAMONGA
~'~'~
Exhibit: "~" Date:
CITY OF R ~.~~
TF-. 14'~Bo j ~
Project: 7'F-V~-I T~w~, E~rfl~
Title: 'q",/~r..j' ,,HO~,~7
Exhibit: t Date:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File:
Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13527
Related Files: '
Tentative Tracts 13527, 14381, and 14382
Description of Project:
A request for a time extension Of a previously approved tentative tract map for a residential
subdivision of 252 single family. lots on 88 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner
of Etiwanda Avenue and VV'dsoh Avenue - APN: 225-071-68.
Project Sponsor's Name andsAddress:
Juan Roca i
GE Capital Corporation
18300 Von Karman Avenue, SUite 700
Irvine, CA 92612
General Plan Designation:
Low Residential
10.
Zoning:
Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North - Existing residential development
South * Existing residential development
East - Vacant
West - Vacant
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
Other agencies whose approval is required:
None
EXHIBIT "D"
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PbTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning
( ) Population and Housing
(v') Geological Problems
( ) Water
( ) Air Quality
(v') Transportalion/Circulation
(V) Biological Resoumes
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
(t/) Mandatory Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Aesthetics
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(v)
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.
()
Signed:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because 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
Associate Planner
October 6, 1998
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAl_ IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Califbrnia 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.
LAND
c)
d)
USE AND PLANNING. ' Would the proposah
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( )
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ; ( ) ( )
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ! ( ) ( )
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( )
c)
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)? ~
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
NO
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
No
() () (v) ()
() () (v) ()
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 4
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
0 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:
()
()
(v) ()
() (v)
() (v)
(v) ()
()
() () (v)
() () (v)
a)
In completing the Environmental Checklist for the original subdivision in 1988, staff
identified that the site may be subject to significant adverse impacts as a result of a
location of the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the Red Hill Fault. The
applicant has conducted a geologic investigation which located a fault trace along
the east boundary of the project. in the area of Bermuda Court within Tract 14379.
(Tract 13527 has recorded in phases; Tracts 14379 and 14380.) With the fault trace
being identified, a 50 foot building setback on either side of the fault was recorded
on the final tract map to indicate locations where buildings could be safely
constructed. With the setback included as part of the subdivision, a Negative
Declaration was issued for Tract 13527.
b) See"a"above.
c) See "a" above.
The topography of the site will be altered to accommodate the proposed street
improvements and residential buildings. Grading will be supervised by a licensed
soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with building code
requirements. This impact is not considered to be significant.
WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 13527
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
c)
d)
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? I
g)
h)
i)
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 inl the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
Co~en~:
()
()
)
NO
Irapad
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
The project site is bounded on the north by an existing subdivision that provides flood
protection from upstream. Further, a master plan storm drain was installed in conjunction
with surrounding development to collect runoff from this development.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected!air quality violation? ( )
b) Expose sensitive recep!ors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement. mo!sture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 6
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Rail or air traffic impacts?
g)
Comments:
() (v) ()
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
a)
The proposed development will result in the development of a total of 252 single
family units which will generate additional passenger car and truck trips. The
proposed density of development and its traffic impacts were factored into the
design of the street system.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) LocaUy designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 13527
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Comments:
a)
The project site is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered
or threatened species. The site contains indicator species of sage scrub habitat
and, as a result, habitat' assessments were required to determine potential impacts,
particularly to the federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher (CAGN) and the
endangered San Berna~rdino kangaroo rat (SBKR). The habitat assessments were
conducted by L&L Environmental, Inc. in March 1998 by a biologist permitted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The results of the surveys indicate the subject site is highly disturbed and shows
signs of dirt movement in the past. The high level of disturbance has added to the
presence of non-native plants. The habitat assessment consisted of a search for
plant species known to' be elements of the coastal sage scrub and alluvial scrub
communities. VegetatiOn on the site is characterized as a low quality coastal sage
scrub, dominated by California buckwheat and deerweed, as well as several other
non-native plants. White sage bushes were observed on the site, however these
were sparse and scatteied, and as habitat appeared to be low quality and unsuitable
to support a CAGN population. The alluvial scrub community is similar to the
coastal sage, however,2~it is similarly sparse and highly disturbed.
The report concludes that the CAGN is absent from the site. Further, that due to the
highly disturbed natur~ of the site. a lack of suitable habitat, and the extensive
surrounding development, that further development of the site would not have a
significant impact on the species or it's habitat. No additional surveys for the CAGN
were recommended. LOw quality habitat for the SBKR was observed on the site,
however, no SBKR were observed on the site nor were there signs of habitation
present on the property. The species is not likely to occur on the site and that
further development of the site would not have a negative impact on the species.
No additional surveys for the SBKR were recommended.
c) See "a" above.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted e0ergy conservation
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
(v)
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 8
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.'
a)
b)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including. but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency
response p an or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
10.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases n existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )
()
()
()
()
No
(v)
(v)
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas.'
a)
b)
C)
d)
e)
Fire protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
Other governmental services? ( )
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
Impact
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
(v)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 9
12.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b)
c)
d)
0
g)
Power or natural gas?
Communication systems?
Local or regional water:~treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?~
Storm water drainage?'
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
() () (v)
13.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Affect a scenic vista or Scenic highway?
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
()
()
()
()
()
()
No
Impact
(v)
(v)
(v)
Comments:
c)
New light and glare impacts will be created with the residential development of the
vacant site. The residential development and associated street lights will be
checked to ensure compliance with City policies relative to avoiding the casting of
excess light and glare Onto adjacent properties.
14.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological r~sources?
c) Affect historical or cultural resources?
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 13527
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
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? ( )
( ) ( ) (v)
( ) ( ) (v)
15.
RECREATION. Would the proposal
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
() () () (v)
() () () (v)
16.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a ram or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Shod 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.)
No
Im0ad
() () () (v)
() () (v)
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract 13527
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
c)
d)
Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when Viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of
probable future projectS.)
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects Which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings.
either directly or indirectly?
() () (v) ()
() () () (v)
Comments:
c)
Adoption of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulativety considerable. The proposed project will pay development impact
fees established by the City. the rates of which have been designed to mitigate the
potential impacts to fire protection services. police protection services. parks or other
recreational facilities. and other governmental services to a level of non-significance.
To the extent the project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility
companies, potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated by the payment
of rates and charges tolthese companies.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where. pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process.
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(v)
General Plan EIR ;
(Certified April 6, 1981):
(v)
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(v)
Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 13527 Page 12
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
OCCUr.
Signature:
Print Name and Title:
Date:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Time Extension Tentative Tract 13527 Public Review Period Closes: 10/28/98
Project Name: Project Applicant: Juan Roca, GE Capital Corporation
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and
Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68.
Project Description: A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for a
residential subdivision of 252 single family lots on 88 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted
an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for pubtic review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report wilt not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
October 8, 1998
Date of Determination
Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME
EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13527. A RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION OF 252 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 88.48 ACRES OF LAND
IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND WILSON
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 225-071-68.
A. Recitals.
1. GE Capital Corporation has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 13527, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On September 28.1988, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88-200, thereby
approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract Map No. 13527.
3. On September 26, 1990. this Commission adopted its Resolution Nos. 88-200A and
90-120, thereby approving a time extension and specific conditions for Tentative Tract Map
No. 13527.
4. On March 21, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No, 88-200B, thereby
approving specific conditions for Tentative Tract Map No. 13527.
5. On July 13, 1998, the applicant filed a request for a 12-month time extension.
6. On October 28, 1998, 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.
7. 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 October 28, 1998, including written and oral staff reports. together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with
the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances. plans. codes, and policies: and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
3'1' 13527 - GE CAPITAL CORP.
October 28, 1998
Page 2
b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans. codes, and
policies; and
c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public
health and safety problems; and
d. The extension is wi,thin the time limits established by State law and local
ordinance.
3. 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:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore
reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further. this Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the, changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations. the Planning CommisSion finds as i'ollows: 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 during the
public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set
forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings ~nd conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,
this Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Project Applicant Expiration
Tentative Tract No. 13527:
Tentative Tract No. 14381'
Tentative Tract No. 14382,
GE Capital Corporation
GE Capital Corporation
GE Capital Corporation
September 28, 1999
September 28, 1999
September 28, 1999
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,
TT 13527 - GE CAPITAL CORP.
October 28, 1998
Page 3
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify 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 28th day of October 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SENT BY:ROY E. DALY & CO. ;10-28-98; 2:22Pi; CORPORATE OFFICE-
RECEIVED
OCT $ 8 1998
City of Rancho Cucamonga
planning Division
To: City ofR.~mcbo CucsmoaBa planni~ Division
Cecilia Williems
From' Roy E. DoJy &, Co.
Dolly Powers- Property Supervisor
Date: Ocs~ber 28, 1~)8
Airtouch Staff Report
Project. VAR 98-03
Th~ R~y E. Daly & Co is the owner lind ~ann~g,~n~t enm.n~ny of SunrldSe
Pines Townhomes which is imm_,~Ji_,tdy ~j~..em to AJt~ Lx~ai Brctl~n in
Christ Church. Tl~s apartment ~omplex bonl~'~ on dm east mad wesz of the
propos,cl 70 foot emss metare.
We would like to go on roconi th*f we are opposed to the varianc~ that is
being proposed. Our nml~-tmily n~id~tiat community would be directly
influence merleally by this proposed vari:mce. We feel that this variance
would be mat~riMly injurious to this property and would set a pmcodent for
the developmere of neessive height muctux~a. This Compaay feels sm3ngly
~ ~¢~ i~ ao ~xtraa~li~qn/citcam~m~ that would m~t~e ~e L_~Jing
ofthls v~rieac~.
Thenit you in ~vanee for your on--ideration to this matter. PieaM call me at
(913) 491-1B51 if you should have any que~on~
C/14) m,~Irr5
9974 19~ S~eet Alta Loma, C,tlffomla 91737
Majl~g Address: P.O. Box 485 (909) 989-3119
A/ca Loma. Czliforrda 91701
October ~ 1998
Mr. Dan Coreman, Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10509 Civic Center Ddve
Ranchc Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: AirTouch Cellular Wireless Fadlify, VAR 98-03
Dear Mr. Coleman:
The Trustees of Brethren in Chdst Church wish to express our support of the
proposed AirTouch cell site and the 7e-foot cross structure that will house the
antennas, located on the Church property at 9974 Nineteenth Street_
The facility will improve coverage and upgrade the overall capacity of the
AirTouch network !hroughout Rancho Cucamonga. This will benefit the
community at large by improving public safety. and enhancing business ond
personal communistions.
The benefit to our Church is dear. The proposed cross structure will serve to
identify our place of wgrship and create community exposure for the good work
of our church members. The revenues generated by the lease will be allocated
to the construction of a ball field for the students at the school.
We urge the Planning Commission and staff to approve the "mono-cross" as
proposed. Thank you for your consideration ~ flee to contact me
at if you have any questions.
cc: /
ease ee
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 1998
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
VARIANCE 98-03
PLANNING COMMISSION
10-28-98
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM D
AIRTOUCH CELLUILAR
ARCHIBALD CELL SITE
BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
Overview of Rancho Cucamonga Cell Sites
Suggested Findings
Coverage Simulations
VARIANCE 98-03
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM D
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
ARCHIBALD CELL SITE
BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
VARIANCE TO EXCEED 50-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY 20 FEET.
MEDIUM DENSITY
The staff report recommends denial of our variance request on the basis that the
required findings can not be made. The report addresses the matter in context of a
freestanding cross structure. However, the primary purpose of the cross is to conceal
cellular antennas pursuant to the City's Wireless Facilities Code (Ord. No. 570).
Therefore, the objectives of that Code also should be folded into the consideration of
this request. (in fact, Section 17.26.080 of Oral No. 570 links it to.the Variance
provisions contained in the Development Code. )
In this regard, we offer the following to support the required findings:
FINDING: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this Code.
The purpose of this facility is to improve cellular telephone coverage in the
Rancho Cucamonga area and to establish capacity and adequate coverage for
the Highway 30 corridor. A 70-foot tower is necessary to meet that coverage
objective (See attached coverage simulations). Strict adherence to the 50-foot
standard contained in the Medium Residential District would result in
practical difficulties: achieving adequate coverage, and capacity in the City.
Furthermore, reducing the proposed height of the cross-tower to 50 feet will likely
require additional facilities along the Highway 30 corridor. This is not consistent
with the goals of the Wireless Facilities Code, which seeks to minimi~;ij'~he
overall number of facilities within the City.
FINDING: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the indented use that do not apply generally to
other properties in the area.
Wireless facilities are unique uses that require special consideration, and the City
has acknowledged this fact by adopting distinct rules and guidelines. If this
special use is to meet the primary objective of the Code, namely, stealth or
concealed antenna arrays, then a carrier must be selective when choosing a
property for a cell site. AirTouch selected the Church property for three reasons:
1. The property was one of the few parcels that was not in residential use;
2. It met the technical requiraments in terms of facility spacing and location;
3. The church use gave us the opportunity to create a stealth design (e.g. a
cross to hide the antenna arrays).
In this regard, the use does involve special circumstances that do not apply
to other properties in the area.
FINDING: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the same zone.
The signal transmission of cellular antennas and microwave dishes is affected by
several factors including topography, trees, and buildings. Therefore, it is necessary
to install antennas at heights well above structures that may interfere with
transmission, and allow antennas to physically "see" other network signals. This
unique characteristic associated with wireless communication uses can require
height exceptions for any site proposed in the Medium Residential District.
AirTouch is accepting the opportunity conveyed by the Wireless Facilities Code, and
proposing a stealth design at a height necessary to meet its service needs. The
same opportunity is offered to other wireless carries that can meet the objectives of
the Code. Therefore, strict adherence to the height limit of 50 feet will deprive
AirTouch of opportunities available to other carriers that: may wish to site
facilities in the Medium Residential District.
FINDING: Granting of the variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the same zone.
In the near future, other wireless carriers will likely wish to locate along the Highway
30 corridor. These future sites may also require some exceptions to land use rules,
including height limitations. However, there is sufficient discretion within the process
to insure this and future sites will meet the intent and purpose of the Wireless
ordinance. Therefore, granting of this height variance will not covey any
special privileges to AirTouch.
FINDING: Describe how the variance will not harm others or be detrimental to the
public welfare or adjacent properties.
The cross-tower will be visible from surrounding areas, including residential
neighborhoods. Howaver, antennas will not be visible, as they will be enclosed. in
the cross structure. Therefore, the cross will be perceived as a design element
of the church, not as a wireless facility; and will not be detrimental to adjacent
properties.
2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 28, 1998
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner
VARIANCE 98-03 - AI RTOUCH CELLULAR/RICHARDS - A request to increase the
maximum allowable height of the base district from 50 feet to 70 feet for the
construction of a freestanding cross in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling
units per acre), for the Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church, located at 9974 19th
Street - APN: 1076-051-05 and 12.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Project: The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an increase in the maximum height,
within the Medium Residential District, from 50 feet to 70 feet for the construction of a
freestanding cross. AirTouch Cellular is proposing to construct the cross to install a stealth
wireless communication facility inside the cross structure.
B=
Surroundine Land Use and ZoninG:
North - Vacant (future Route 30 Freeway); Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Single family residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East Multi-family residential; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
West Multi-family residential; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
C=
General Ran DesiGnations:
Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
West Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
Site Characteristics: The 5.6 acre site slopes approximately 2 percent from north to south.
The site is bordered on the north by the future Route 30 Freeway, on the east and west by
multi-family residential development, and on the south by 19th Street. The proposed cross
tower location is in the undeveloped northwest comer of the site abutting the Route 30
Freeway right-of-way.
ITEM D
PLANING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 98-03 - AIRTOUCH/RICHARDS
October 28, 1998
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Backaround: In order to meet the growing demand for cellular phone communications,
AirTouch is proposing to construct a 70-foot high cross to conceal a cellular antenna which
will be hidden inside. As the number of cellular phones increase, cellular antenna sites are
becoming overloaded and unable to handle the number of calls. According to the applicant,
more antennas are needed to provide service for these phones. Therefore, the radius that
each cell site serves is shrinking causing the need for more cell sites. Technical
considerations, such as line-of-sight and elevation, determine the proposed antenna height;
hence the height of the cross. The viability and design of the project relies on the subject
Variance request. If the Variance is approved, AirTouch will follow-up with a Minor
Development Review for the installation of cellular and microwave antennas for a wireless
communications facility enclosed within the 70-foot high cross. The steel tower is proposed
to have a textured fiberglass exterior in a white color. The attached exhibits illustrate the
appearance of the proposed cross from surrounding properties.
Applicable Rec~ulations: The Development Code provides flexibility for churches by allowing
crosses, spires, and bell towers to exceed the height limit of the zone by 15 feet. The height
limit of the Medium Residential Distdct is 35 feet, or 50 feet for crosses and spires. The
Development Code guidelines for cellular antennas state that "stealth facilities and concealed
antennas are preferred." ,
FINDINGS: The purpose of a Vadance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of
development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape,
topography, or location depdve a property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and inthe samedistdct. In considering a'requestfora Vadance, thereare aseries offindings under
State Law that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. All of the findings
must be substantiated in order to approve the Variance. Generally, these findings center around
the uniqueness or special circumstances of a particular property or the use of the designation. Staff
cannot find special or unique circumstances associated with the proposed development of the site
which would warrant approval of the Variance request. This is supported by the following:
1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would
not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Development Code.
The Development Code recognizes the need for institutional uses to have crosses and
spires as architectural elements and representative symbols, and thus allows an
increase in the base height of"35 feet to 50 feet to accommodate such elements without
a Variance. Staff cannot find that the additional 20 feet is necessary for the construction
of a cross for the church. The applicant has not demonstrated why a cross of lesser
height would not suffice.
PLANING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 98-03 - AIRTOUCH/RICHARDS
October 28, 1998
Page 3
That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property in volved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same district.
The applicant has not demonstrated that unique physical site characteristics exist. Staff
cannot find that there are unique physical features present on the site that prevent the
construction of a cross for the church that can meet the development standards. The
church already has crosses on top of their sanctuary roof and on top of their main
education building which are approximately 45 feet in height and meet all development
regulations.
That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not
depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same
district.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the height regulations deprive them of special
privileges provided to property owners in the same district. Structures in the Medium
Residential District have been developed within the height regulations imposed by the
Development Code.
4. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
There are no other churches in the area with crosses, steeples, or spires in excess of
50 feet, which is the maximum allowable.
That the granting of the Variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
we/fare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The development standards are intended to ensure good quality and compatible
projects. Maintenance of the height regulations is necessary to preserve the
neighborhood quality of the area. The cross-tower will be visible from surrounding
areas, particularly residential neighborhoods. The renderings submitted by the applicant
demonstrate that the cross will be visible from surrounding properties and extend
approximately 35 feet higher than the two-story roof lines of the adjoining residences.
The granting of the Variance would set a precedent for the development of structures,
towers, or architectural features in excessive height of what the residential district
currently allows.
CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff finds no facts to support the required findings
and, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission deny the request for the Variance. Staff
cannot find special or unique physical circumstances associated with the property or the proposed
development of the site which would warrant approval of the Variance request.
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.
PLANING COMMISSION STAFF REISORT
VAR 98-03 - AIRTOUCH/RICHARDS
October 28, 1998
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance 98-03
through the attached Resolution of Denial.
City Planner
BB:CW/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" ~ Site Plan/Elevations
Exhibit "C" - Photos of~the Site with Cross Tower Simulation
Exhibit "D" - Letter from Alta Loma Brethren Church in Christ
Exhibit "E" - Letter of Justification from Applicant
Resolution of Denial
MFR ~
CITY OF R.Id~IC%~L, CUCAMON GA
'O0
r-m
0
Z
e ~ ~ I
FIR 1 ~ll~T1 I~D1
PROJECT
,SITE
PHOTO # 1 - SITE
SITE IS LOCATED AT THE BASE OF THE SMALL HILL, ADJACENT
TO THE FENCE.
,..O?
II , I
/' A i
L · ~-,
997~ 19th Street Alia Loma, Call/omiR91737
Maillng Addzess: P.O. Box 485 (9Q9) 989-3119
Alia Loma. California 91701
17 JUNE 1998
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
RE: Authorization and Acknowledgmgnt - Filing of Land Use Application
To whom it may concern:
I certify that the Alia Loma Brethren in Christ Church is the legal owner of the property
identified as APN 1076-051-12 (9974 19Ih. Str~e[), and hereby authorize AirTouch
Cellular and its planning consultant, Richards Mueting, Wilkes, to file land use
applications, and secure the n~.,essary approvals for a wireless communication facility
on said parcel currently being negotiated for lease between the Alia Loma Brethren in
Christ Church and Airtouch Cellular.
:::::':.,-J
...' / /
C~istopher A. Taylor
Chairman - Trustees
"A,~d my God will prou,de your needs <~ccordin9 to His riches ,n Sllory by Christ Jesus" --Philippians 4:19--
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
ARCHIBALD CELL SITE
BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
AirTouch Cellular proposes to install a wireless communication facility on the grounds
of the Brethren in Christ Church 'at 9974 19th Street. The site will consist of the
following elements:
· A 12' x 30' x 10':' prefabricated concrete enclosure
telecommunication and electrical equipment;
to house
Cellular and microwave antennas will be enclosed within a 70-foot cross-
tower (steel tower, within :a texture fiberg ass exterior
The site will be enclosed within a chain link fence.
RICHARDS MUETING WILKES
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
ARCHIBALD CELL SITE
HOW PROPOSED FACILITY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CITY WIRELESS
ORDINANCE
The City Code sets out both general and specific guidelines and standards for
antennas. Applicable provisions are summarized below, followed by a bdef explanation
of how the subject proposal meets the standard.
Code
Stealth facilities with
concealed antennas are
preferred.
Response
The proposed facility is located within a church complex. The
tower will be designed as a cross, with all antennas enclosed
in the cross structure. Therefore, the antennas will not be
directly visible. The equipment enclosure will be constructed
as an accessory building at the base of the cross, and will not
be visible from the surrounding areas.
Wsreless facilities shall
be located where
existing features
provide the greatest
opportunity for
screening.
Screening of the cross-tower would be counter-productive, as
the cross is a stealth facility and is a compatible design
feature within the church complex. The cross-tower will be
visible from surrounding areas, including residential
neighborhoods. However, antennas will not be visible, as
they will be enclosed in the cross structure. Therefore, the
cross will be perceived as a design element of the church, not
as a freestanding wireless facility.
Screen facility with
landscaping.
The cross-tower is planned at 70 feet, and therefore
landscaping, for purposes of screening, is not practical.
However, existing on-site trees (approximately 50 - 60 feet)
will mitigate the visual impact of the structure's height. No
landscaping is proposed to be planted around the equipment
building, as it is not directly visible from the surrounding area.
No major facility in a
residential District.
The church is within a Medium Residential District, however, the
code allows a carrier to make a good faith effort to meet
Ordinance 570 guidelines.
Good faith effort to
locate per site selection
guidelines.
Cross-tower meets the first site selection critena: Stealth facilities
and concealed antennas are preferred.
RICHARDS MUETING WILKES
1
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
ARCHIBALD CELL SITE
VARIANCE
Height: The height limit of the M Residential District is 35 feet or 50 feet for crosses and
spires (PR 98-437 Comments), The City's wireless code indicates that a stand-alone
facility can not exceed the height limit of the underlying zone. AirTouch proposes a 70-
foot tower (cross), therefore a variance must be granted.
Distance from Residential: Ordinance 570 indicates that a major facility must be 500
feet from a residential structure. The proposed facility is approximately 250 feet from
residential development. A vadance to this standard must be granted.
Section 17.04.040. E outlines the findings required to grant a variance.
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this Code.
The purpose of this fadlity is to improve coverage in the Rancho Cucamonga area
and to establish capacity and adequate coverage for the future Highway 30 corridor.
A 70-foot tower is necessary to meet that coverage objective,
The 500-foot standard was established to mitigate the visual impact of a wireless
facility on surrounding residents~ The cross-tower is a stealth facility and is a
compatible design feature within the church complex. The cross-tower will be visible
from surrounding areas including residential neighborhoods. However, antennas
will not be visible, as they will b~ enclosed in the cross structure. Therefore, the
cross will be perceived as a design element of the church, not as a freestanding
wireless facility. :
The subject parcel is located adjacent to the Highway 30 dght-of-wey. Most property
long the future freeway corridor is residentially zoned or developed. It is not
possible to locate a freestanding fadlity in the area and meet the 500-foot standard;
and there are no buildings or structures of sufficient height that can substitute for a
tower. Furthermore, alternative properties in the area do not offer the same
opportunities for a stealth tower.:
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the indented use that do not apply generally to other
properties in the area.
Same as above.
RICHARDS MUETING WILKES
2
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
ARCHIBALD CELL SITE
· Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the same zone.
A cell site is a unique use of property. The signal transmission efficiency of cellular
antennas and microwave dishes is affected by several factors including topography,
trees, and buildings. Therefore, it is necessary to install antennas at heights well
above structures that may interfere with transmission, and allow antennas to
physically "see" other signals. This is a unique characteristic associated with
wireless facilities. Carriers wishing to site facilities in the area will require similar
exceptions.
· Granting of the vadance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the same zone.
In the near future, other wireless carTiers will likely wish to locate along the Highway
30 corridor. These future sites will also require some exceptions to land use rules,
including height limitations and the 500-foot distance requirement. Howaver, there is
sufficient discretion within the process to insure this and future sites will meet the
intent and purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, granting of this height vadance will
not covey any special privileges to AirTouch.
· Describe how the vadance will not harm others or be detrimental to the public
welfare or adjacent properties.
The cross-tower will be visible from surrounding areas, including residential
neighborhoods. However, antennas will not be visible, as they will be enclosed in
the cross structure. Therefore, the cross will be perceived as a design element of
the church, not as a wireless facility.
ALTERNATIVE SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Zone Use Positives Negatives
Brethren in Chdst M Church * Adjacent to Hwy 30 , Residential zone
Church
· Opportunity for Stealth · W'tuhin 500 feet of
design residential
· Mature tall trees
Safeway Plaza NC Commercial. · Adjacent to Hwy 30 · No suitable Stealth
· Commercial zone design at r~:luired
height
· W~thin 500 feet of
residential
RCCWD Well M Well Site · Adjacent to Hwy 30 · Too far west
Site
· No suitable stealth
design at required
height
· Within 500 feet of
residential
PdCHARDS MUETrNG WE,KES
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 98-03
TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE BASE
DISTRICT FROM 50 FEET TO 70 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A FREESTANDING CROSS IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), FOR THE ALTA LOMA BRETHREN
IN CHRIST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 9974 19TH STREET, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1076-051-05 AND 12.
A. Recitals.
1. AirTouch Cellular and Joseph Richards have filed an application for the issuance of
Variance No. 98-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the
subject Vadance request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 28th day of October 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 28, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 9974 19th Street with a street
frontage of 248.22 feet and let depth of 725 feet and which is presently improved with a church,
school, and playground. The church has two existing crosses, one on top of the sanctuary roof
and one on the main education building roof, which are approximately 45 feet in height; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the future Route 30 Freeway, the
property to the south consists of single family residences, the property to the east is multi-family
residential, and the property to the west consists of multi-family residential; and
c. The application contemplates the construction of a 70-foot tall cross to be located
in the undeveloped northerly half of the church property contrary to the 50-foot height limit allowed
by Section 17.08.060.D of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code for spires or bell towers
or similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features; and
d. The application has been submitted to allow concealing a cellular antenna within
the proposed cross structure; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 98-03 DENIAL - AIRTOUCH/RICHARDS
October 28, 1998
Page 2
e. The variance as specified in the application would be inconsistent with the
objectives of the Development Code. No evidence was presented by the applicant, other than
unsubstantiated opinion, to demonstrate that there is a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship. The fact that the church has two crosses which comply with the 50-foot height limitation
of the Development Code indicates that there is no practical difficulty or physical hardship for this
property; and
f. The subject property has no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions that do not apply generally to other properties in the same Medium Residential District.
The applicant has not submitted technical evidence to support a conclusion that such conditions
exist on the subject property and do not exist on similar properties along 19th Street; and
g. The variance, as speoified in the application, would contradict the objectives of
the Development Code and approval of the application would adversely affect the welfare of
residents living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cross site for the following reasons:
(i) The communities to the west and east of the subject site consist of two-story
residential condominiums, approximately 35 feet in height at roof peak;
(ii) The application, as proposed, would allow construction of a 70-foot high
cross, which would subject residents tO views of the cross which projects approximately twice the
height of surrounding buildings. contrary to the stated purpose of Section 17.08.010A.4. of the
Development Code which is "to promote development compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
and protect neighborhoods from harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development."
3. Based upon the substantiai evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above. this Commission hereby finds 'and concludes as follows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Development Code.
b. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved 6r to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same district.
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
d. That the granting of.the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the variance will 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.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 98-03 DENIAL o AIRTOUCH/RICHARDS
October28, 1998
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby ce~ify 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 28th day of October 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF Ibx, NCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 28, 1998
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-04 -
RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A request to change the
General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
and Civic/Community to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
17 acres of land on the north side of Base Line Road. approximately 1300 feet east
of the intersection of Rochester Avenue - APN: 0227-091-18 through 21.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 98-03 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A
request to change the Victoria Community Plan Land Use Map from Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Community Facility to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17 acres of land on the north side of
Base Line Road, approximately 1300 feet east of the intersection of Rochester
Avenue - APN: 0227-091-18 through 21.
This is a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) generated application to change land use designations on
RDA owned properties along Base Line Road. In researching the area, staff believes the study area
should be expanded to include adjoining parcels for additional study. This will necessitate additional
land use amendment applications that should be reviewed with the RDA request.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that these items be continued to the November 10, 1998
Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:AW:mlg
ITEMS E & F
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 28, 1998
CITY OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
REQUEST TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO REVIEWTHE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
6 ACRES OF LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD
APPROXI MATELY 1,100 FEET EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 2¼ ACRES
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE
BACKGROUND: Recently the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (RDA) filed land use
amendment applications to change the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17 acres north
of Base Line Road and east of Rochester Avenue. Between the RDA site and the utility corridor to
the west, there are 6 acres of land owned by the San Bernardino Flood Control District that are also
designated Medium Residential.
Staff believes these 6 acres should also be reviewed at this time for land use compatibility with the
larger RDA site. Also. between the RDA property and the recently amended Southern California
Edison Corridor (GPA 96-02B) to the east is 2¼ acres of land owned by William Lyon Company to
be used for the future Day Creek Boulevard. Again, for land use consistency, staff believes this
parcel should be included in the land use amendment study.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission authorize staff to file City-
initiated General Plan and Victoria Community Plan Amendment applications for the 6-acre site
between the RDA site and the utility corridor to the west and the 2% acre site to the east of the RDA
site.
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Y
ITEM G
Victoria Park La
LM
i
d d
LM
%
%
\
%
P
L
~ ~ . LM '.
a . M . ,_____ % ' -:..
· ' uvM LTC, M VC ~ '= ["""
\ H
\ . .
M '
p .'
LM
IV[H '
Project:
Title:
Exhibit:
LDc..A'rToM
A Date:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 28, 1998
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad BulleL City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR SIGN PROGRAM NO. 123 - LEWIS HOMES - A
review of signs for 24-hour Fitness Spoa, a major tenant, within Town Center
Square, located at the noaheast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue -
APN: 1077-421-90 through 97.
ABSTRACT: The applicant requests approval of their proposed two wall signs, one at the main
building entry off the south elevation and a second at the west elevation. Staff forwarded the
requests for Commission review because of a possible precedent setting issue with the proposed
sign.
ANALYSIS:
Genera!: Family Fitness is presently in Terra Vista Office Park located at the southwest
corner of Church Street and Elm Avenue. Representatives of Lewis Homes and Family
Fitness informed staff that they intend to expand their fitness center by taking over the building
vacated by Home Express within Town Center Square (Exhibit "A"). The building is
approximately 44,000 square feet in size. The City has reviewed and approved the tenant
improvement plans; however, the applicant has not obtained a building permit forthe interior
construction. Also, with the move to the new location in the future, Family Fitness intends to
change it's current name to 24-hour Fitness Sport.
Current Siqn Proqram: Each shopping center in the City has their unique Uniform Sign
Program. The Planning Commission approved Uniform Sign Program No. 123 for Town
Center Square. Building 1 (24-hour Fitness Spoa) as a major tenant is a Sign Type I, which
allows one wall sign per building entry with sign dimensions of 2 feet high by 24 feet long.
Also, Sign Type I allows an increase in the letter size if the sign is paa of the design for the
building elevations subject to Planning Commission approval. In 1995, the Commission
approved the building design for Home Express, which included the approval of a main entry
wall sign with the dimensions of 3.5 feet high by 32 feet long.
Y
ITEM H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SIGN PROG. NO. 123 - LEWIS HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 2
Proposed Siqns: The proposed ~ign for the business includes a round cannister logo with the
words 24-hour on it and a sign copy consisting of individual channel letters for the words
"Fitness" and "Sport." The colors:for the logo are red background with white letters. The color
for "Fitness" is blue and the color for 'Sport" is red, The proposed sign dimensions are
3.5 feet high by 33.5 feet long, The sign is a registered trademark for the business.
1. Wall Siqn at South Elevation: The proposed sign is placed at the building entry face
(Exhibit "C"). The proposed dimensions of 3.5 by 33.5 feet are very close to the
previous sign approval and it is well proportioned with the building design. Staff is
supportive of the proposed ~ign dimensions and colors forthe main building entry. The
issue of the logo is discussed at Section 3 below.
st E evat~on: The applicant proposed to place the same sign, 3.5 by
2. Wall Sicin at We I . i
33.5 feet, at the west elevation, which faces Spruce Avenue. In reviewing the sign
request of the previous ten~ant (Home Express) in1995, the Commission had raised
concerns with the west elevation being most visible to the planned residential use
toward the west and north sides and denied the sign request. The Commission action
was then appealed to the C~uncil and was overruled. The Council granted the proposed
sign at the west elevation With the condition that the sign be reduced from 3.5 feet to
2 feet high. Based on Coun¢il's action, staff recommends that the proposed sign at this
elevation be consistent with: the previously approved letter/sign height of 2 feet.
3. Proposed Siqn Loqo: As mentioned earlier in the report, a round logo with the words
"24-hour" is included with the sign copy, which is parl of their registered trademark. The
Sign Ordinance discourages the use of extraneous information such as hours of
operation, lists of prices, services or products, or advertising slogans (Exhibit "B").
Examples of extraneous information are: "liquor, dell, and bakery;" "brakes, oil and
lube:" "your neighborhood ~tore" "first in savings;" "serving the headland;" etc. The
Commission in their past actions has adhered to supporting the Sign Ordinance by not
allowing extraneous text. The issue with the proposed sign logo is whether it is
considered as extraneous iqformation and whether the approva of the logo would set
a precedent for the City, which could lead to an increase of such requests from other
businesses. The Commission approved the red "bulls eye" logo for Target Stores.
According to the City Attorney, the City cannot require alteration of a registered
trademark but the City retains the power to prohibit the display of the registered
trademark. The City can als9 require that the registered trademark be reduced in size.
However, staff believes that t,he following reasoning could just fy approving the proposed
logo: 24-hour Fitness Sport is a major tenant by square footage; the Uniform Sign
Program has criteria that reqgires Planning Commission review on a case-by-case basis
for the specific design of a sign. In addition to the above reasoning, the Commission
could also, through minute action. reaffirm their direction that the approval is not to be
construed as setting a precedent for allowing extraneous information for a business.
4. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concluded the two remaining issues for
Commission's determinationl are: the 24-hour round logo and the 3.5 feet versus 2 feet
sign/letter height for the wall:sign at the west elevation.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SIGN PROG. NO. 123 - LEWIS HOMES
October 28, 1998
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the wall sign at the south
elevation as proposed with the logo and the sign dimensions of 3.5 feet high by 33.5 feet long, and
the wall sign at the west elevation with the logo and a sign height of 2 feet instead of 3.5 feet,
through minute action.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:NF:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit 'B" - Excerpts of Sign Ordinance
Exhibit "C" - South Elevation Proposed Wall Sign
Exhibit "D" - West Elevation Proposed Wall Sign
Exhibit "E' - Previous Approved Wall Signs
Exhibit "F" - City Council Staff Report, dated March 1, 1995
VACANT
ZONEH
VACANT
ZONEH
EXISTING
RESTAURANT
~HnBlT"~"
VACANT
ED
ZONE Mt-
PROPOSED
LA MISSION PARK
IIHtHHL~
ZONEP ;
FOOTI~iILL BOULEVARD
VACANT
VACAN~I
ZONE
VACAN'I
Chapter 14.24 ~: ~-': -_': · · ·
DESIGN STANDARDS ."' ~
14,24.010 Generally. The design standards set forth in this chapter shall be adhered to for
all signing. (Ord. 65 ArL VI (part), 1979). ~~--.~ ...'-.-- .' .. "
14.24.020 Architectural style. That each sign is designed with the intent and purpose to
relate to the architectural style of the main building or buildings upon the site, and to the extent not
inconsistent with such style, that the sign will be compatible with the style or character of existing
improvements upon lots adjacent to the site. Signs located on commercial sites but in a
predominately residential area, shall consider compatibility with such residential area. (Ord. 65
§6.0, 1979).
14.24,030 RelationshiP tO buildinas. Signs located upon a lot with only one main building
housing the enterprise which the sign identifies, shall be designed to incorporate at least one of the
predominantly visual elements of such building, such as type of construction materials, color, or
other design detail. Each sign located upon a lot with more than one main building, such as a
shopping center or other commercial or industrial area developed in accordance with a common
development plan, shall be designed to incorporate at least one of such predominantly visual
design elements common or similar to all such buildings or the buildings occupied by the 'main
tenants' or principal enterprises. The community development director may condition its approval
of a sign to require more than one such visual element to be incorporated into the design of the
sign where such element or elements is necessary to achieve a significant visual relationship
between the sign and building or buildings. (Ord. 65 §6.1, 1979).
14,24,040 Relationship to other sians. Where there is more than one monument sign
located upon a lot, all such signs shall have designs which are well related to each other by the
similar treatment or incorporation of not less than four of the following six design elements:
A. Type of construction materials as used in the several sign components (such as cabinet,
sign copy, supports);
B. Letter style of sign copy;
C. Illumination;
D. Type or method used for supports, updghts or structure on which sign is supported;
E. Sign cabinet or other configuration of sign area;
F. Shape of entire sign and its several components. (Ord. 65 §6.2, 1979).
14.24.050 Sic~n dimensions. The dimensions of the sign cabinet, if any, or other
configuration of the dimensions of the sign area of such sign shall be proportional to and visually
balanced with the size of the building. (Ord. 65 §6.3, 1979).
14.24.060 LandscaDinQ. Each monument sign shall be located in a planted landscaped
area which is of a shape, design and size (equal to at least the sign area) that will provide a
compatible setting and ground definition to the sign. The planted landscaped area shall be
maintained on a reasonable and regular basis. (Ord. 65 §6.4. 1979).
14.24,070 Illumination and motion. Monument signs shall be nonmoving stationary
structures (in all components) and illumination, if any, shall be maintained by artificial light which
is stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times (nonflashing). Intemal illumination is
_preferred; if external illumination is used, concealed or decorative fixtures shall be used. lord. 536
14,24,090 Sian color. Sign colors should be ~:ompatible ';,vith the building architecture.
Within shopping centers, sign color should complement the color scheme for the center. The use
of gadsh or fluorescent colors is considered inappropriate. lord. 358 §10, 1988) ....
-:...-. ;..~..
,
j d) C~
m
FEDERAL SIGN
OIly Planne~ -~aprova|
HOME EXPRES~'~,"
I
I I
" ELEVATION
' "' "-"~"- I '.:'~-~; :~.:.~ ." ".
~,i: "~'~ ""~ .. ~" .-,"' ':'
~.~..,~-, '.: ~. :;~ '.. ,.,,; .. ~ '.. · .. .. ·
_, -. ,~.,,~,..Z,~ :,/ . ~'~.;.~:~~~.~. ~~ ~,~ ~.~, ~?..::
.._ .,, .L,?. ~:.~...,-. ~.~ .~ ~~,~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ... ~/~~. ~. ~- ~.
.._ :.-:.. ..'::~:.'~'.' '..~. ~' .' ..z~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
............ ~ .....,~~.
-,- '~x~6~T;" ~/"
Imm
WEST ELEVATION
CITY OF R. ANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
March 1.1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam. AICP, Ci~ Manager
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
AN APPFAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-49
- VVlSSTERN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Consideratjon of an appeal to
a condition of approval imposed by the Planning Commission in limiting one
wall sign for Building 1, Home Express, within the Town Center Square
commercial center, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between
Spruce and Elm Avenues -APN: 1077-421-58 and 63.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission,
limiting Building I to a single wall sign at the main entry. through adoption of the attached
Resolution of Denial.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conceptually approved the eastem-half of Town Center Square
commercial center and Best Buy building on July 27, 1994. Conditions of approval
required that the westem-haff of the Master Plan be submitted for further review and a
Uniform Sign Program be developed for the center. The Commission conditionally
approved the Uniform Sign Program on October 26, 1994. Following two workshops, the
Commission determined that the revised Master Plan had addressed many of the identified
issues such as access, circulation, pedestrian connections, landscaping and architecture,
and conditionally approved the Modification to the Conditional Use Permit on January 11,
1995. This approval included the revised Master Plan, the elevations of Building 1 (Home
Express), Building 2 (Ben Franklin Crafts), Building 8 ( Pet Metro), and their signs. A
condition of approval imposed by the Commission limited Building I to one wall sign at the
main entry. This decision of the Commission was timely appealed. The applicant desires
a second wall sign on their west elevation, facing Spruce Avenue. Copies of the appeal
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CUP 93-49 APPEAL - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO.
March 1, 1995
Page 2
letter from the applicant, the January 11, 1995 Commission minutes, and staff report are
attached to this report for the Council's reference.
ANALYSIS;
ADproved Sian for Home Express.
According to the approved Uniform Sign Program, a major tenant, such as Home
Express, is allowed to have o:ne wall sign per building elevation, up to a maximum
of three, with a maximum Sign height of 24 inches. The sign height may be
increased if the proposed!sign is included in the building design, subject to
CommisSion review and approval. At the January 11, 1995 meeting, the
Commission approved the building design for Home Express, which included a wall
sign on the south elevation with a dimension of 3.5 feet by 32 feet. However, the
Commission did not approve the second wall sign on the west elevation that faces
Spruce Avenue.
B. AoDellant's ADDeal.
In the appeal letter, the applicant stated that the wall sign on the west elevation is
needed to provide identification to the east bound traffic on Church Street and Town
Center Drive and the south bound traffic on Spruce Avenue. The applicant also
stated that the second sign on the west elevation relates to their pdmary parking lot
and is consistent with the approved Uniform Sign Program and consistent with the
approval of the Ward's Auto' Express sign for a street side elevation across the
street within the Tetra Vista Town Center.
C. Commission's Concerns.
In reviewing the sign request,. the Commission found that the north and west sides
of the site are sun'ounded by existing and future residentjal uses, as shown in
Exhibit "D." The west elevation of Home Express (Building 1) is a street side
elevation which is most visible to the planned residential use toward the west. The
Commission believes that having a lighted sign on this side of the building will not :
be compatible with ~e residential use because it will create a nuisance problem of
glare. The Commission felt that a building this size is already an identffication and
placing a wall sign on the west elevation will not add to it. The Commission also
stated that the Best Buy building, which is in a similar situaffisn as in Home Express,
was not allowed to have a wall sign oq the street side elevation (Elm Avenue)
because of the same concerns. With regard to Ward's Auto Express sign, the
Commission stated that the 'east side of the building, where the sign is located,
faces a commercial center and therefore, does not create the same nuisance
problem. The Commission;believed that the consistency of their action would
establish a level playing field.
CiTY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CUP 9349 APPEAL - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO.
March 1, 1995
Page 3
In conclusion, staff believes that the nuisance and conflict concerns, raised by the
Commission, are valid. Staff recommends that the Council uphold the Commission's
action. If the Council determines otherwise, staff recommends that the sign height at the
west elevation of Building 1 be limited to a maximum of 24 inches, which is consistent with
the sign criteria.
City Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Applicant's appeal letter
Exhibit "B"- Januar'/11, 1995 Commission's minutes and staff report
Exhibit "C" - Commission's Resolution No. 94-69A
Exhibit "D" o Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "E" - Building I elevations (Home Express)
Resolution of Denial
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 28. 1998
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
DI RECTOR'S REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT 91-24 - MASI -A review
of a request to change the location of placing the La Fourcade arch on Building 5 -
APN: 0229-011-39.
ABSTRACT: The applicant requests that the Commission review and approve the relocation of
the La Fourcade arch to be mounted on a pedestal at the landscaped area on the northeast side
of the Building 5 entry within the Vintner's walk.
BACKGROUND: On August 12. 1998. the Commission reviewed the applicanrs request to
relocate the La Fourcade arch to the recessed area at the west elevation of Building 5. The
Commission did not approve it. but indicated that the applicant could come back with other
alternative locations. The applicant has prepared plans to show the proposed new location for
placement of the La Fourcade arch. as shown in Exhibit "E." Copies of the August 12, 1998, Staff
Report and Minutes (Exhibit "A") am attached for reference.
ANALYSIS: In considering this request, it is essential for the Commission to review the history and
the purpose of the Vintner's Walk and the reasons for the applicanrs request, as contained in the
August 12 Staff Report (Exhibit "A"). Again. the Commission must decide whether the proposed
location would compromise or enhance the essence and flow of the Vintner's Walk.
Proposed Location for the La Fourcade Arch: Based upon the Commission's direction of
looking into an alternate location, the applicant proposes to place the La Fourcade arch at the
westerly terminus of the Vintner's Walk. The arch would be mounted on a pedestal at the
northeast side of the building entry, within a landscaped area. The arch would be placed
parallel to Foothill Boulevard with the arch design facing south toward the building entry. The
applicant also proposes to add a backing to the arch on the north side which faces Foothill
Boulevard. The backing is of block material with stucco and provided with a sign identification
of the Vintner's Walk as shown in Exhibit "E." Staff has indicated to the applicant that use of
the City's logo is inappropriate.
Appropriateness of the Proposed Location in Relationship to the Vintners Walk: In placing
the La Fourcade arch on a 6-inch high. slate tile pedestal within the landscaped area at the
northeast side of Building 5. it will relate to the other interpretlye art such as the plaques on
the history of wine making on the other pedestals. The proposed backing to the arch. which
faces Foothill Boulevard, together with the proposed sign, gives the Vintner's Walk proper
Y
ITEM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DIRECTORS REPORT ON CUP 91-24. - MASI
October 28, 1998
· Page 2
identification. Furthering the identification, staff recommends that the plaque describing the
La Fourcade arch be installed next to the arch on a pedestal, instead of inside Building 5.
Staff believes that the proposed !ocation would not compromise the integrity of the Vintner's
Walk.
C. Modification to Compass Creek' Restaurant and Brewery Buildinq Entry: The applicant
proposes to add a round decorative medallion above the portal at the building entry in place
of the La Fourcade arch. The medallion is to be placed against a backdrop of slate tiles. Staff
believes that the size of the medallion is not in proportion to the portal and the area above it.
A larger architectural element should be provided. The area should not be used to place a
sign. The building design has sufficient fascia area for Compass Creek to place their wall
signs. ~
D. Items to be Completed Prior to Release of Occupancy for Buildinq 5: Because of the required
historic mitigation, there are several items that the applicant must complete before releasing
occupancy for Building 5. They are as follows:
1. Install the seven plaques containing the history of wine making along the Vintners Walk.
2. Install the La Fourcade arch and story plaque.
3. Complete a mural at the west elevation.
4. Install the La Fourcade text and graphics on the pedestal at the west side of Denny's.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review the proposed location for
the La Fourcade arch. If the Commission concurs with staffs determination, then direct the
applicant to install the arch on a pedestal at the northeast side of Building 5. complete the required
mural at the west elevation, install the pedestal with story plaque next to the arch, install the La
Fourcade Family plaque on the pedestal west of Denny's, install the larger architectural element
above the building entry, and complete all outstanding items within the Vintner's Walk, prior to
release of occupancy for Building 5.
City Planner
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - PlanningiCommission Staff Report & Minutes dated August 12, 1998
Exhibit "B" - Approved Vintner's Walk
Exhibit "C" - Approved Building 5 Elevations
Exhibit "D" - Proposed Building 5 Entry Design
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Location of the La Fourcade Arch
Exhibit "F" - City Council Resolution No. 91-275
Exhibit "G" - Photos of La Fourcade Arch
Exhibit "H" - Drawings of La Fourcade Arch
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF FLANCHO CUCAN1ONGA --
STAFF REPORT
August 12. 1998
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 ~24 - MASI - A review of a request to place the La
Fourcade arch in a recessed area at the west elevation instead of placing it above
the building entry at the east elevation of Building 5.
ABSTRACT: The applicant requests the Commission to review and approve the relocation of the
La Fourcade arch to the recessed area at the west elevation of Building 5.
BACKGROUND: The arch was preserved as mitigation for the demolition of the historic La
Fourcade store (see Exhibits "G" & "H'). Preservation of the arch was required by the City Council.
The La Fourcade arch was approved for placement above the building entry of Building 5, as shown
in Exhibit 'C." Building 5 is presently being improved and expanded. The applicant stated he
anticipated the shell building to be completed by end of August. In early July, the applicant informed
staff that he believed the arch does not go well with the architecture of the building and. therefore.
would like to place it at the west elevation. Because the restoration and placement of the La
Fourcade arch is a historic preservation mitigation. staff recommended that the applicant submit a
formal request for the proposed change (see Exhibit "A")
ANALYSIS: [n considering this request, it is essential for the Commission to review the history and
purpose of the Vintner's Walk, The Commission needs to determine whether such a change in
location would compromise or enhance the essence and flow of the Vintner's Walk.
Reasons for Appficant's Request and the Proposed Chanqes: The applicant, in his letter
dated July 14, 1998, stated that the La Fourcade arch is not consistent with the architectural
scale and style of Building 5. He believed that the arch and its' history can be better displayed
along the main entry drive to Masi Plaza on the west side of the building in a pop-out area with
a recessed niche. He proposed to install a pedestal to place the plaque with the written
history of the La Fourcade family within the sidewalk next to the recessed niche. Also, he
proposed to add murals to each of the four recessed areas at the west elevation, which wilI
pictorially dinpiny the La Fourcade period and the history of wine making, Furthermore. he
stated that the entry arch is in structural disrepair, has dry rot, and would be difficult to safely
attach above the building's entry door. He stated that the area above the doorway could be
used for placing a s~gn or logo for the micro-brewery restaurant. Exhibits "O" & "E" show the
proposed placement of the arch and the conceptual theme for the four murals.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
August 12, 1998
Page 2
B. Brief History and Purpose of the Vintner's Walk: The Vintner's Walk (Exhibit "B-2") is the
result of a mitigation for the removal of structures deemed Historic Point of Interests by the
City Council in Septem bet of 1991. The mitigation required the applicant to incorporate details
of the site's history through commissioned pubic art and development and placement of
interpretlye public displays. A subcommittee consisting of members from the Planning and
Historic Preservation Commissions was set up in 1992 to review the applicant's proposal for
fulfilling the mitigation. The concept of a Vintner's Walk was then developed. It is
approximately 160 feet long between Denny's and Building 5. The walk is punctuated by
overhead metal pipe trellises; a statue; display of numerous (36) plaques inscribed with
Vintner's names, wineries; and the dates of their establishment on a continuous seat wall; a
display of five plaques inscribed with the text and graphics depicting the history of wine
making and the La Fourcade period; a display of the La Fourcade arch (preserved from the
demolished store at the corner oi Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard) above the
building entry of Building 5; and the display of a story board about the La Fourcade family in
the form of a plaque inside Building 5. The purpose of this Vintner's Walk is to help people
better understand the history of the street corner and the La Fourcade store by reading about
it along and at each end of the walk.
C. Evolution of Buildinq 5 Desiqn: BOilding 5 was originally designed specifically for the Old
Spaghetti Factory. The building Was designed to create a niche at the main entrance
specifically to accommodate the La Fourcade arch (see Exhibit "G-f'). On March 12, 1998,
the City Planner issued an approval:ifor the new building design (Development Review 97-42)
after the application had success(ully completed the design review process. The west
elevation included storefront windows at the time of approval. Because the Compass Creek
restaurant and micro-brewery is taking two-thirds of the building, the storefront windows at the
west elevation have to be removed. The City Planner approved the changes for the west
elevation with the condition that a pqp-out area with a recessed niche be added to the building
plane and that murals be added toithe blank walls within the recessed areas, as shown in
D. Current Status of Vintner's Walk and the La Fourcade Arch:
1. Vintner's Walk: The mitigafion described in Section C was to be installed prior to the
occupancy of Denny's or Building 5, whichever came first. Denny's has been open for
more than a year. To date, th~ applicant has installed the overhead metal pipe trellises:
the harriscape: the bulk of the ilandscaping within the walkway: the statue: the plaques
inscribed with Vintner's names, wineries, and dates along the seat wall; and the
pedestals for the display of theehistory of wine making. The plaques for the wine making
have yet to be installed The La Fourcade arch and the related story plaques are not
installed because Building 5 is. Still under construction
2 The La Fourcade Arch: Presently. the arch is stored inside a structure on the property
owned by the Masi family, which is located north of the Cily's parking lot at the east side
of Rochester Avenue. Exhibit "G" shows the arch and its condition (Colored photos will
be available at the meeting forlthe Commission's review) The mitigation approved by
the Council stated that the arch. or a replica of it. shall be considered for incorporation
into the public art or interpretative exhibil (see Exhibit "F").
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
August 12, 1998
Page 3
E. Options for Commission's Consideration:
La Fourcade Arch above Entry: Having the arch above the building entry at the east
elevation with the story plague on a pedestal next to it. as well as a plaque inside the
building, will create a terminus for the story telling from one end (Denny's) to the other
end (Building 5). It is a comfortable distance (160 feet) for people to walk through and
read the stories from the different plaques. -'
La Fourcade Arch in a Recessed Niche: Moving the arch to a recessed niche in a pop-
out area al the west elevation. together with the murals, would extend the Vintner's
Walk. The recessed niche would shield the arch from weathering more than it being
placed above a building entry. However, the west elevation is the service entrance and
the back side of Building 5. Generally, patrons of the restaurants, Denny's and the
micro-brewery. would not walk around to the back of a building. The issue is how to
encourage patrons to walk around to view the arch. the story plaques, and the murals.
This part of the walk would not be as inviting as the one between the two buildings.
STAFF'S CONCLUSION: Because the mitigation stated that the arch be incorporated into public
art or interpretative displays. moving it to the west elevation in a recessed niche would technically
meel thai intent. Staff believes that the best choice location for the arch is above the building entry.
If the applicant is concerned with the condition of the arch being beyond repair. a replica could be
built and still meet the intent of the mitigation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the arch stays above the building entry as originally
approved. If the Commission determines that the placement of the arch at the west elevation is
acceptable. then the Commission should direct the applicant to complete the four murals, install
the arch in the recessed niche. and install the pedestal with lhe story plaque. prior to the release
of occupancy for the first tenant and install a new decorative arch element above the building entry
prior to release of occupancy for the shell of Building 5. The decision of the Commission can be
rendered by minute action.
Ily submitte
City Planner
BB:NF:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A'
Exhibit '*B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D'*
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibit "H"
Letter from Applicant dated July 14, 1998
Detailed Site Plan and the Vintner's Walk
Approved Elevations of Building 5 (DR 97-42)
Proposed Changes to the East and West ElevahonS
Proposed Murals Concept
City Council Resolution No 91-275
Photos of the La Fourcade Arch
Dra,,,;ings of the La Fourcade Arch
..,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91!-24 - MASI - A review of a request to place the La Fourcade
arch in a recessed area at the west elevation instead of placing it above the building entry at
the east elevation of Building 5.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.
Commissioner Macias asked if this was a mitigation matter.
Ms. Fong responded that it was.
Commissioner Macias asked where the arch was being stored.
Ms. Fong stated that it was being stored in a warehouse.
Commissioner Macias inquired as to when it was removed and was it in the same condition that
it is in now.
Ms. Fong said they did not have adpquate pictures of the arch at the time it was removed to
determine its structural condition at that time.
e ~orataon was lack of care.
Commissioner Macias asked if the d ter due to a
Ms. Fong replied that the arch was stored inside. not exposed to the weather
Commissioner Barker asked if the conditions specified as to where on the property the arch was
to be displayed.
Ms. Fong replied by saying the concept was to display the arch or a replica but that a requirement
was not made as to where. ~
Chairman McNiel invited the public to comment.
Mike Scandiffio, the applicant, stated that they did the original demolition due to traffic problems.
He continued by saying the condition was to incorporate the art work or arch if possible, and that
Jack Masi developed the idea of a "Vintners Walk," celebrating the La Fourcade period but that
the walk actually spans a 160 year history with no reference to La Fourcade and the project was
designed with the arch in mind.
Chairman McNiel asked if the La Fourcade family had been referenced in the plaques along the
walk.
Mike Scandiffio replied that the La Fobmade family plaque was located near Denny's.
Commissioner Barker asked if the building was designed with the arch in mind.
Mike Scandiffio said that they had trie,d to incorporate it.
Commissioner Barker asked if the architect included it.
Mike Scandiffio said that it fit, but he was not enthusiastic about it.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
August 12. 1998
Chairman McNiel commented that the "Vintners Walk" was to have a beginning and an end, the
· arch being the end but that the applicant now wants to move it where there is little foot traffic.
Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that there were no shop entrances in that location.
Chairman McNiel concurred that there was no reason to go there and he did not agree with the
option being presented.
Mr. Buller, explained the challenge of incorporating the arch. He indicated the owner originally
said it fit but now the owner feels there is a better location. He continued by saying that we (the
City) did not design it, the applicant proposed its location with their submittal of the 1992 version
of the "Vintners Walk." Since that time it has always been shown on the East elevation entry.
Chairman McNiel felt it would be a tragedy to put the arch on the west side and that it should be
placed where they originally located it.
Commissioner Barker suggested they follow staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Macias concurred.
Mike Scandiffio said he was not required to place it over Building 5. He noted that there was a
clash with the design. He admitted he had a bad idea and that he did not feel anyone would know
what it was for.
Chairman McNiel stated that no one would go where he was suggesting to place it and that he did
not agree with the option being presented.
Commissioner Macias suggested keeping it in the location where it was originally planned and
adding additional identification or explanation in the form of a plaque explaining its significance.
Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Barker, to deny the request of placing the arch in a
recessed area on the west elevation. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MCNIEL, MACIAS, BARKER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TOLSTOY -carried
..... ,~,~.,~...,,~,.,,,..~ents at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
The Commissioners concurred that this item be continued to September 9, 1998.
Planning Commission Minutes
~17-
August 12, 1998
AUlO
h:
FOOTHILL IJOULEVA~D
rRTrrrrl qfiTR
t /
j.( 7 ' =.'.,= ,...=.-.=.=,- 7 - --
.I
2 2i2--
feet eAeval/,on
COP 'fl°
I []
~ j
KEY MAP
~rr ,~' ~ .._ .
WINE MAKING
HISTORIC VI RD WALK
'~
1
~ brr .~ ~
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-275
A RESOLLTION OF ~ CZiY COUNCIL OF THE ul'lY OF RANC~O
~, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HiSTOR/C POINT OF
INrLkEST 91-02 DESIGNAT/~G THE LAFOURCADE STORE, I/iCkl'tu
AT 11871 FCOTrF~I, BO(3LEVARD, ~S A POINT OF I}rI'hR[IST AND
CEFd'iFICATION OF A ~l~d.'l'l~].',~l.) ~ DECLARATION FOR
DEMIDLiTiON OF I~E SiRCCIURE - APN: 229-011-10
A. Recitals.
(i) -~he City has filed an application for a Point of Interest as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Pasolution,
the subject Point of Interest Is referred to as the "application."
(ii) On SeFtember 5,! 1991, the Historic Preservation C~i~d~ssion of
the City of Rancho Cucamomga c~rducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and concluded said hearing on that data.
(iii) On September 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public bp~rir~ on the application and
concluded said hearing on the data.
(iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, !PLm~DRE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucanunga does
hereby find, dete_rm/ne and resolve as follg~s:
1. ~his C~uncil hereby specifically firds that all of the fac~ sat
forth in the Recitals, Part "A, '! of th/s Resolution are true ard correct.
2. The application !applies to approx/mataly one acre of land,
basically a rectangular configuration, located on the southwest corner of
Focfdlill 5ou/evard and RDchester (Orange) Avenue intersection.
3. Paced U~Dn the slh~cantial evidence presented to this Council
during the akove-referenced public hearir~ on ~ 18, 1991, includir~
written and oral staff reports, together with public tPs-timony, and [xarsuant
to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamo~a Municipal Ccde, and pursuant to
the H/storic Preservation C~l~iHssion policy regarding landmark designation
over an gwner's objection, this Council hereby makes the follc~ir~ fbxiings
and facts:
A. Historical and Oaltural Sign/ficance:
Firdin~: 1. 'i ~he proposed Point of Interest w~s c~nnected
with someone r~, important, or a local
Resolution No. 91-275
Page 2
Fact/s:
john B. [aFeurcade established an advanced
era elabDrate wineTaking and grape-hardling
business in an era marked by failed attempts
at such endeavors in the Rochester/CUcamong~
erea. Semingly well kn<7~n throughout the
County, TaFourcade represents an important
e4xx~h and entrepreneurial spirit of this
valley. ~
Fact/s:
2. The arckitect or builder ~ important.
In chccsing J. N. Johnson to design and
construct his winery cumplex, LaFourcade was
one of few local property owners in the late
teens-early 1920s to employ a cont_r~ctor wto
vas very well known in the County. Johnson
constructed many large and impressive public
and private buildings in San Be/Tardj_no,
Redlands, and Colton.
B. Historic ArchiteCcural and Engineering Significance:
Finding: 1.
The construction materials or engineering
methcds used in the proposed Point of
Interest ere unusual or significant or
uniquely effective.
Fact/s:
Although it has been altered, , the main
entrance of the building which is marked by
a parapet ard flanked with Corinth/an
pile, reins as a testament to a
design palette created by LaFourcade and
C. Neighborhood and Geoq~phic Settire:
The proposed Point of Interest in its
lccation represents an established and
landliar visual feature of the neighborhocd,
c~i~i~nity, or city.
Fact/s:
A~ a gas station, store, and restaurant, the
subject structure stands as a 70-year-old
notable fixture in the c~mi~ulity' s
lardscape.
4. This Csuncil hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and
considered for c~i{~liance with the Californ/a Envirorrental Quality Act of
1970. If properly m/tigat~d, the requested demolition of the L~arcade S~Dre
w~lld DOt require further environmental review and a rmitiqated Negntive
Decla~Taticn will be issued for such demolition.
'l
.~so!ution ~o. 91-275
Page 3
5. Based upon the firclings a~d ~Dnclusiors set forth in par~gra.nhs
1, 2, 3, ar~ 4 above, th/s Council hereby resolves that pursuant to C~aF~_r
2.24 of the Rancho Odcam~ng~ Municipal C~de, the City C~uncil of the City
of Rancho Cucamonqa hereby a~pr~ves, on the lSth day of Se~ 1991, Point
of Interest 91-02 for the LaFourcade Fopre. ~he Council further ado~ the
following Conditions of Apprcr~al m/tiqating the requested de~Dlition:
1)
No demolition permits shall be i%~ued for the existing
strdctures prior to the property owner's written acknc~l-
edgment and ~c~eptance of the Cultural Resource Mitigation
M~q~re~ per. the mitigated Negative Declaration;
2) The devel~u,ent of the site shall incorp(lrate details of
the site's h/story, in particular the LaFcurcade pericd,
through th~i incorporation of the followir~ ~ures:
o~l~d~sioned~ public art and develcim~_nt and placement of
interpretive.public displays. The final specifications of
such measures shall be reviewed by the Historic Preserva-
tion Crymission and for.~rded with a recu~lendation to the
Planning Cui~dssion during development/design review
hearings on any devel.o~rent prc~cosal for th/s site. FLna!
ap~r~al of the apprc~.D. riate public art ard interpretire
digplays shall occur prior to the issuance of blildirg
4)
The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-
Garcia House Barn project, which will be used to develop a
museum/cultural center depicting and exhibiting the
agricultural heritage of the area. The City Council ray,
upon the input of the Historic Preservation C~i~i,{ssion,
allocate these fur~ to another sim/lar type of preserva-
tion project, ir~ludi~g b/c not nec~{~lrily lintit-d to, the
Historic Preserv-~tion Site and Land-Banking Fund, deper~ng
u~Dn the timing of the cui{~liance with this m/tigation.
This contribution shall be provided prior to the issuance
of b3/ldir~ permits of any phase of the Masi C~ierce
Resolu~ion No. 91-275
Fage 4
5)
~he site devel.~ ~ha!l ~sponacr four Oral History inter-
views of ind/viduals kncwledgeable of the taFcurcade/~asi
er~ of significance. These intervievs, vhich shall net
exceed a cost of $5,000.00, shall he conducted by a
copsultant apprcved by City staff.
PASSED, APFMSmaED, and AEOFfh/3 this 18th day of September, 1991.
AYES: Alexander, Buquet, Stout, Williams, Wright
None
None
Dennis L. Stout, ~ayor
Delk= J. Ac~.T~, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. A~, ~t'IY CLF~ of the City of Rancho Cucancnga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed,
approved, and ad~pLed by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of
Se.:uta~jDer, 1991. '
Executed this 19th day of Se.Dtamber, 1991 at Rarf_ho CucamDnga,
Califorrhia.
Cop~tl-2~
HISTORIC PR,ESERVATiON CONLxHSSION LA.XDM.~Pd.( SURVEY
Vi:w Looking --qoea"[1--I . Date of Photo
A
ELEVATION