The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982/04/28 - Agenda PacketI V %.r1TL OF s RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COAIAIISSIO�,d g Z AGENDA 1677 WEDNESCAY APRIL 28, 1982 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK COWUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RAyCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ACTION I. Pledge of Aiiegiance II. Roli Call Commissioner King ___L_ Commissioner Rempel X III. Approval of Minutes APPROVED 4 -0 April 5, 1982 APPROVED 3 -0 -0 -0 April 14, 1982 to Commissioner Sceranka X Commissioner ioistoy X IV. Public Hearings She following item are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their oginior. of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission from the public microphone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shsll be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. APPROVED 2 -0 -0 -2 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TRACT MAP 12176 - DAON - A subdivision of 11.06 acres into 15 lots within the . Rancho Cucamonga Business Park located at the north- east corner of Civic Center Drive and Utica - APN 208 - 351 -22. APPROVED 4 -0 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -01 8 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven . Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim improvements to Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a secondary arterial to collector standards. Tentative Planning Commission Agenda April 28, 1982 Page 2 V. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:QO p.m. adjou:rzment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Co,=*ssion. F t� r� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA s " �o PLAIN NG COi�1�'VIISSI�N WEDNESDAY APRIL 28, 1982 LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RP.NCHO CUCAMONGA, I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call 7:00 P.M. CALIFORNIA commissioner Sceranka Commissioner King Commissioner Toistoy Commissioner Rempel_ r III. Approval of Minutes April 5, 1982 April 14, 1982 I4. 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 frog, the public microphone by giving your name and address. P.11 such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TRACT MAP 12176 - DAJN - A subdivision of 1'1.06 acres into 15 lots within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park located at the north- east corner of Civic Center Drive and Utica - APN 208 - 351 -22. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -01 B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim improvements to Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a secondary arterial to collector standards. �� ii I / J � n � l J� �r � q�'�� l ✓ lJ � � I' . 4!r YD' Tentative Plann,ng Commission Agenda �7,. April 28, 1982 Page u fi V. Adjournment L is it l Planniny Commission • 1 . If items go beyond that time, they sha2l be heard on2y with the consent • .d '1.. ... jG a V;C;`t ir i Will UP CXT"40 IRTCRW WWAL uAftl' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLAN?NING COMMUSION MINUTES Adjourned _ieetlag April 5, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Cha_ -man Jeffrey King called the Adjourned Regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and "nearing the Terra Vista Planned Community to order at 7 p.m. The meeting veld at the Lions Park. Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Ranch. _- amonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: *Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King ABSENT: CO1MSSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Mici:ael Vairin, Senior Planner * Commissioner Dahl left at 8:10 p.m. City Planner, Rick Gomez, presented the residential issues contained in staff report No. 3 of the Terra Vista Planned Community. Mr. Gomez stated that staff recommends the total number of dwelling units within the Terra Vista Planned Community be directly related to the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. That the developer reduce t o base amount of units to 8000. By doing this, Mr. Gomez stated, there would only be a small difference between Terra Vista and the General Plan's projected density. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the density bonus is i5 percent it means that all 8000 units would be affordable. Mr. Gomez replied that it would not mean that, but rather, that if the number of units is 8000, 1200 would be affordable units. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the density bonus criteria is. Mr. Gomez referred Commissioner Sceranka to page 3 of the Terra Vista statement indicating that there was not a minimim: or maxim=- He indicated that there is agreement with the developer that the density oonus would not exceed 1200 units. Mr. Gomez recommended that the Commission discuss the policy issues relative to the number of dwelling units within the proposed planned co-- -- -ity in light_ of consistency to the General Plan goals and objectives and with previous decisions of the Planning Commission as it relates to Victoria Planned Community. He further recommended that the number of dwelling units be established as 8000 and that the affordable housing criteria be amended to include affordable housing definitions for better accountability and to set a minimum amount of affordable units tc, be delivered and the maximum number of bonus units that could be awarder�. Commissioner Sceranka a >ked if the 8000 units built are affordable, how many additional bonus units would the developer be able to get? Mr. Gomez replied that if the maximum is 15 percent, they could obtain 1200 additional units. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the definition of affordable housing is one that the City has already used? Mr. Gomez replied that it is. Nichael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the portion of the staff report dealing with neighborhood center locations and community commercial design. He indicated that the applicant had provided a revised list of permitted uses within the commercial areas to reduce the overlap that existed in the previous presentation. 3r. Vai rin stated that the neighborhood commercial centers have been relocat%td in keeping with previous discussion by the Commission to the southeast corner of Milliken and Base Line with a smaller one at the interior of the project at Cleveland and the loop road. Further, the consul=it will be showing new conceptual plans for the Community Commercial area and the kind of design feeling that will be depicted at the corner of Haven and Foothill. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant has also revised the statement relative to Community Commercial referring to the acreage that would be allotted from 55 -60 acres to 35 acres. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engine',-, reviewed the staff report portion which dealt with circulation. Mr. riugeE.i indicated that the developer has taken a good approach relative r.;.o circulation_ Further, that on some minor traffic and circulation issues, agreement has been reached between the developer and the City. Mr. Rougeau stated that one issue, that of sidewalks on both sides or one side of local streets, remained to be settled. Mr. Rougeau stated that the Commission has expressed some concern relative to pedestrian crossings and indicated that there will be four points within the planned ccmmuni *_y where signalized intersections will not be Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 5, 1982 provided: one, the major greenway, and three others on the secondary greenway. He indicated that at two of these a pedestrian signal would be provided and that two others would work quite well with signs being provided at the crosswalk. He stated that the two that would have signals would be the major greenway at the park and another or. the western side where the secondary greenway is expected to carry quite a bit more pedestrian traffic. Mr. Rougeau stated that one more item of concern was the placement of streets along Milliken Avenue. He indicated that staff wanted to be sure that this would not affect future circulation on Milliken. Mr. Rougeau stated that the applicant has hired the traffic consulting firm of Kunxman and Associates to study signals at those intersections and the progression of traffic at Milliken. Mr. Rougeau stated that the study has indicated that the existing spacing is very good and that good traffic progression_ could be obtained. Further, that even if adjustments are made in the future, good street locations and good signal timing would be available on Milliken. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for comment of the statement on page 8 of the staff report where easement through private property is to be approved on the project -by- project basis. Mr. Rougeau stated that it may be r2cessary to get into a greenway to provide maintenance with a truck, therefore, access through.such an easement might be requirea although thio is not the most desirable situation. He indicated that if the easement is required, staff will take a careful look to avoid problems in the future. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that an easement through a parking lot at a center would be more desirable than through private property. Mr. Rougeau stated that easements through private property are ones that staff is afraid of because of the opportunity to get into some hard feelings. He indicated that these would be looked at very carefully on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that going through a parking lot or service read of a condominium complex is all right but the other alternative is a poor one. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there had been any discussion between staff and the developer on the issue of crossing at a major road as to the possibility of using a textured roadway. Mr. Rougeau replied that the developer is enthusiastic about that, especially where there is some protection by a traffic signal. He indicated that where there will not be signals, it is his feeling that a textured roadway should not be used because it offers a false sense of security to the pedestrian_ and because often a driver is unaware of i_t. Planning Commission Minutes —3- April 5, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the pedestrian crossing could be of a different color. ',•;r. Rougeau replied that if the color is used only occasionally, the pedestrian will not be as careful and the driver will be surprised when he encounters it. Commissioner Rempel suggested that an arbor or some to alert the pedestrian and driver of the crossing visible from the road.. Mr. Vairin stated that_ this has been discussed with great length and that they are working on this. that a bench might also be added like method be used that would also be the applicant at Commissioner Rempel suggested further to the arbor area. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the use of dimples in the street. 'Further, that safety of the pedestrian should be ensured at every crossing. He stated that he would like to see the Planning and Engineering staff research this. Commissioner Sceranka pointed to the map and indicated that the area of most concern to him is the intersection of the loop road and parkway where the parkway is adjacent to the street. Mr. Rougeau stated that the pedestrian will be fully protected by a traffic signal at the crossing because the area of concern to Commissioner Sceranka is a major zrossing. Commissioner Dahl stated that if be understands be at both ends at the park. these areas are where pedestrian actuated signals are this correctly, it will Mr. Rougeau stated recommended. Chairman icing stated that he realized that the Commmissiotyisajust at Ui de beginning of the hearing process this p that there will not be any final decision on this tonight, asked if the developer wished to address any of the issues which have been discussed. stated th Ms. Kay Matlock, representing sat it is their feeling that unnecessary. Further, that their studies have shown that the densities proposed will work and reducing the units will not make that much difference in being in co,plia-c- with the oodrhalance withintthescitysandatheir stated that there is plan goes a long way in providing it. She stated that they would like to see the densities star.A as proposed. On the issue of density bonus, Ms. Matlock stated that any plan is com- _4_ April 5, 1 °82 Planning Commission Minutes plicated and they would like to have more time to work with staff. On the other issues, Ms. Matlock stated that Gruen and Associates would make presentations. Chairman King asked Ms. Matlock if the applicant has any objections to the General Plan definition of affordable housing. Ms. Matlock re !plied no, but that their concern is flexibility and how affordable housirZ would be implemented. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he thought it makes sense to have the number set at 8000 dwelling units, with 15 percent of those units as affordable housing. Commissioner Danl stated that he understands this but there are two issues, one involving overall density and two, the density bonus. He indicated that he has no objection to the City Staff recommendation of an 8000 dwelling units base which is cutting approximately 800 units out of the project. Chairman King stated that his personal preference is that the Commission wait to hear the presentations of some of the other issues before any recommendations are made to staff on appropriate densities. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not have any objections to what Chairman King said, but did not see why the Commission couldn't settle the issue of density at this time. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the figu: used and the density bonus is added in, the the figure would get to. He indicated that staff report which could allow a maximum of stated that it is not realistic to have all felt that a better definition of percentage developed. :e of 8700 dwelling snits is Commission could see what he could go along with the 9200 units. He further 8000 units affordable and of affordable should be Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see 8000 units with a 15 percent cap as a guideline and foundation and if there is an appropriate reason for chrnging, it could be done at that time, and stated that he would make a motion to that •£feet. Commissioner Dahl seconded the motion. Commissioner Rempel asked if what Commissioner Scerankc is saying is there would be a maximum cap of 15 percent affordable and if they have 1000 affordable units they could only have 150 units as a bonus. He indicated ti.at this is not what staff is saying. Further, that J 100 units are built, they would only be allowed an addition? 0. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 5, 1982 Commissioner Sceranka stated that it would be 8000 plus 15 percent, if all 8000 are affordable. Commissioner Rempel stated that this is not realistic. Commissioner Dahl stated that if the Commission is looking at the affordable issue and he only builds 100, he can only build 15 more. He indicated that he had to agree with Commissioner Rempel that it depends on what kind of development_ he makes to give him the maximum amount and that a limit must be set as to the amount of overall density that they want to see in Terra Vista. Mr. Vairin stated for clarification that the numbers suggested are similar to those of Victoria in that they are stating that there is a maximum density bonus allowed and that 1200 units are to be affordable. He indicated that if he builds 25 percent of the 8000 units affordable, this does not mean that he gets a 25 percent density bonus. Commissioner Sceranlca stated for clarification that his motion is 8000 units plus 1200 as a maximum for density bonus no matter what the com- putation is. Commissioner Rempel stated that the report indicates that if he builds IOG units, he would only get 15 more. Mr. Vairin stated that he was trying to use an example that even if he built a project of 100 units and they were all affordable, he would only be allowed the limit of 15 percent. Chairman King asked why he could not get 15 percent period. If he builds 1200 affordable, he gets a 15 percent density bonus, he doesn't get 1200 density bonus. Mr. Gomez stated that 1200 is 15 percent of 8000. Chairman King stated that he understands this, but that he does not think that this is what they are driving at. He thought that if they build 100 affordable houses, 15 would be added as a density bonus. If they build 1000, they get 150. Chairman King stated that what staff is saying is that if they build 1200 out of 8000 affordable, they get 1200 freebies, or a density bonus. Mr. Vairin stated that this is what 15 percent of 8000 is. Chairman King stated that this would be 100 percent. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his motion will be a maximum of 8000 units plus 15 percent and whatever the formula works out to be. commissioner Sceranka stated that what Mr. Vairin is trying to say is that the developer would like to have 1200 units as a bonus for every 1200 units of affordable housing that he provides and this is not what his motion is. He indicated Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 5, 1982 that 1200 is the maximum based on justification of what staff has used for the number. Whether they get to 1200 or a number less than that is yet to be decided and what he is saying is that they must have a holding capacity for Terra Vista. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that there two different issues and he felt t:-it these should be taken up sec He felt that the density bonus should be the second issue and s'••:.• taken up as a separate motion. He indicated that he was not sure [:' r a City would be in the best position if it is defined the way stated. He indicated that there is a provision in State law regarding density bonuses which allows for agreement_ between the City and the developer where by if the developer is wi.iiias to build 25 percent affordable, which means housing for either low - income people or moderate- incame people, the developer receives a bonus of additional units or other incentives. He indicated that he doubts if they would be able to build for low- income people because the cost of housing is just too high. His ides of affordable is to build moderate cost housing for middle income people. He indicated that if he provides 25 percent affordable, the City is to give him a bonus either of additional units or other considerations like a waiver of certain City fees, use of some of the redevelopment money for sewers and sidewalks, etc. Mr. Lewis did not feel that the Commission should just limit this to 15 percent. Because the Commission might find that they would have to use City funds or redevelopment funds, he felt that the City should allow some cushion in this regard. Mr. Gomez stated that the Planning Commission has same options. He indicated that 1200 units is the most the City will allow as a density bonus in addition to a maximum 8000 units. He indicated that Mr. Lewis is correct in that there would be other ways of making up the density bonus in other types of services by using the redevelopment agency or Community Development Block Gran*_ programs. He indicated that the criteria is unknown at this point. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this is what he is saying, that they are setting a holding capacity limit of 8000 plus 1200 units as an affordable housing incentive. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt there should be an addition -o the motion that the criteria for this be establishel at a later date. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would have no problem with this. Commissioner Dahl stated that he would accept this. The motion carried. Chairman King voted no because he felt that the Commission is grossly premature in making the density determinations at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 5, 1982 Chairman King asked if there were any persons in the audience not connected with the developer which wished to make any comments relative to the commercial issues. There were none. Chairman King i:.vited the developer to comment. Ms. Kay Matlock of Lewis Development Company, stated that representatives of Gruen and Associates, Elaine Carberry and Jeff Scornik, would make a presentation relative to commercial uses. Elaine Carberry stated that at the last Terra. Vista meeting, the Commission indicated its displeasure with two neighborhood commercial centers located at Milliken and Base Line. Ms. Carberry stated that because of the Commission's comments they have allocated a small parcel of 4 acres at Ease Line and Milliken for professional offices. Also, a small 4 acre parcel has been reserved for neighborhood commercial at 'terra Vista and Cleveland. The recreation commercial area would contain a small market such as a health food store and a shall market in the PiSC area to serve the higher density housing in that area. By doing this, there would be a market within one -half mile for all residents of Terra Vista. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of market is envisioned in the MSC area. He asked if the developer is talking about a 7 -11 store. Ms. Carberry replied that they do not see a 7 -11 market there; however, it would be on the scale of a 7 -11. Further, it could be a ground floor of o residential structure. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that his concern is that a 7 -11 is a convenience type market and he had nothing against that kind of store. Ms. Carberry stated that what they are providing is the land for a market to go there. She indicated that they did not know whether another large market could be supported and they were looking for flexibility. Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that he did not like a 7 -11 type market in that location. Commissioner Dahl asked if the consultant was earmarking a center in the community commercial area. Ms. Carberry replied that they present what they envision. �...,?.�.a wnC. �:}a r t.^.t -A rivet he did nnr onvicinn a cn_npr market in the community commercial. Further, that when the General Plan was discussed he thought there were to be two anchor stores similar to the Mountaingreer Center in Upland. Ralph Lewis stated that when Ms. Carberry shows the conceptual drawings, Planning --ommission Minutes -8- April 5, 1982 be clarified. Commissioner Rempel stated that in a way he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy and in another way he disagreed. lie further statel that in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach he has seen neighberhoci commercial which contains a sme'.ler market that is very successful. Further, that in such a location where the market may not draw more tbar 400 -500 people on their better days, they will not make it unless It is a 7 -11 or a Circle K. Ms. Carberry showed conceptual drawings of the co=wliLy ommercial area which contained modified parking at Foothill and Haven. "he area would contain financial institutions, restaurants, and would ha•e greenways connecting down to Foothill and Haven. The conceptual pltin also contained clustered areas and showed how as you moved away from C''_. clustered area, it would narrow to a central plaza. She spoke of tie special architectural element that would e.ie this together with trellising or arbors and stated that they have agreed with staff that tail would be a 35 acre center and advised that Mr. Scornik would present a panorama of Foothill Boulevard by way of slides. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they have come a long wavy but there is still much in the presentation that scared him because it appeared that nothing in the presentation was definite. Mr. Lewis stated that the reason for this is because it depends on wno the tenant is and i -•hat their preference will be. Further that if they are able to get a larger department store they will ask for a change because earlier the inference was that they will not ask for more than the 35 acres. Commissioner Dahl stated that he thought this to be an excellent design in separation of service and cc= ercial areas. He felt that it could work and that the fears he had prior to the presentation hive been put to rest. The Planning Commission recessed The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Dahl left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Chairman King recovered the meeting and Jeff Scornik made a presentation with a panc_ama of Foothill Boulevard. Shown were the Corporate Park as a window into the community and beyond; Executive Park with varied set backs that promotes a ser-se of variety and that contains smsll earth berms; Auto Plaza with undulating berms and display paviliois; and the Medical Park with another open space window into the community. Mr. Scornik explained the various tree varieties. Mr. Scorttik stated that the illustration and site plans which had been shown would be indicative of the ultimate development. That individual materials an Planning Commission Minutes building shapes and other factors would be expected to differ in detail. He stated that they can provide desigr. guidelines and regulations that would implement the general intent as ,iepacted in the slides and drawings. Mr. Scornik stated that development a' ng Foothill Boulevard and Haven is expected to begin as soon as the conmlunity plan approval is given. He reiterated that full buildout is not anticipated for 10-20 years. Mr. Scornik stated that the developer wants a high quality development as much as the City does because he wants a good return on his investment. Chairman King stated :hat relative to the design of the commercial area at Foothill and Haven, the Commission is attempting to make a link from the intersection into thF greenway. That the Corporate Park area does a far more effective job of having a window into the community than does the Ccm*:r;unity center. He indicated :sat the Town Center should have the same openness that the Corporate Park has leading into the main greenbelt. He indicated that as presented, the Tcwr: Center does not have a -free open feeling. Mr. Scornik stated that from the standpoint of exposure and access, the Corporate Park was designed for the kind of patronage that is expected. He indicated that there are not the major streets to accommodate the access required the shopping center development at Haven and Foothill viable. He indicated that the exposure at Foothill and Haven is very attractive and the development doesn't require the same kind of exposure that t;le Corporate Park has. Ch irman King stated that he is not saying it is necessary to shift the two uses. He felt that the rc!;t important intersection in the Community has to be the most attractive and :hat the Town Center does not conform with what he would envision for the area. Commissioner Tolstov stated that he agreed with Chairman King and didn't raise the point because he d:d sot want to make a decision until he sees the development plan for that intersection. Further, he hoped that since they are the professionals, it was his hope that they could design a center that would meet the developer's requirements and the Commission's wishes. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Commission must consider as number one, the real use of the center. He further stated that parking must be in proxim'_ty ro the use sine: people don't mind walking a short way but not 300 — =00 feet from the shopping center. Commissioner Rempel stated that this could be worse, out and that the coi.sultant has done a beautiful job or. the plan. He indicated the cost factor that =ust be taken into account and that he did not know of a shopping center that doesn't have parking around it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed witla Commissioner Rempel but there are enough design methods such as digging a hole and keeping cars out of view. He indicated than enough of an issue has been made. That Planning Commission Minutes —10— April 5, 1982 staff, the developer and the consultant knows that the Commission wants to hide the narking. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would speak directly to what the General Plan Advisory Committee summed up for what they saw in the Town Center. He asked that the South Coast Plaza be looked at as a prototype of low profile buildings and landscaping. He further indicated that the South Coast Village would provide the feeling and appearance of the rural community. He stated that what they are doing is all right but it must be understood that cars are not to be tine dominant feature of the center. Mr. Scornik indicated that he understood this and stated that they have modified the look of the parking lots by berms. Commissioner 2empel stated that in every picture which was shown, the sidewalks have been in a straight line. He felt that much could be done to enhance the project by undulating and meandering the sidewalks. Commissioner Sceranka asked where service stations would be provided within this plan_. Ms. Matlock replied that they have some ideas but they are not yet finalized. Commissioner Sceranka asked if they would know as the hearings progress because he has some strong concerns. Mr. Vairin stated that most of the service stations are listed as permitted uses but that he felt this could be handled through the Conditional Use Permit process. Commissioner Sceranka asked the Commission whether they thought the 25% figure of mixed uses within the categories is good where there are specialized uses allowed. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that it is his hope that the uses in these zones will be adhered to. He noted, however, that an auto part store would be allowed in a Home Center and he did not feel this use appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he hoped the Commission would not dilute the Center's theme. He felt that a 25Z deviation is pretty high. Farther, that CUP's or some other system is needed and the developer, staff and the Commission should go through the designated uses and clean them up. Conm,issioner Sceranka stated that he felt D should be eliminated. He felt that the 25% deviation would defeat the whole purpose of the section. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is more than enough retail; he doesn't think it appropriate to water it down before they start. Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 5, 1982 Ms. Matlock replied that this can be modified in any way that the Commission desires. Commissioner Sceranka stated another of his concerns is a grocery store in the R -C zone. He indicated if there is a store there, he would like to know what kind and how it would be integrated. Further, that there must be criteria. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that before uses are established, guidelines must be provided for the neighborhood center. Hz indicated that it must be a theme center. He indicated that he does not want the Commission to say XYZ company is coming in and that they tell the Commission we must have so and so. He felt that the Commission must tell the XYZ company that there are certain restrictions and that he would like some guidell like those for Foothill Boulevard. He wanted these to be really unique centers. Commissioner Sceranka asked staff to look into one more compatibility thing prior to the next meeting. That was recreational commercial and he noticed that when the Commission gets into neighborhood centers there are sometimes conflicts with people who get in and out quickly and those who stay for 2 -3 hours. He felt that mixed use compatibility must be examined to see there are no problems for the neighborhood commercial. Commissioner Rempel stated that if this is looked at, the City's own zoning must also be examined. Chairman King asked if there is consensus that some smaller stores in the neighborhood co=nercial might be placed in the MAC zone. The consensus of the Commission was that they could be. Commnissicner Tolstoy stated that he felt it should be there and that it should not be a 7 -11 type. Commissioner Rempel stated that he thought the consensus is that the Commission must come back with a designation of compatibility of certain things in certain areas. Chairman King asked about the general _feeling of the town center. He asked if the Commission liked it as presented or whether it needed more work. Commissioner Rempel stated that the place to bring it up is Design Review and not at this point in time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Design Review is where the final planning will be done. He indicated that the text of the document must provide some safeguard so that the Commission doesn't receive junk. Chairman King asked the Commission if they feel comfortable with the Planning Comission Minutes -12- April S, 1982 concept_ or if they felt this needed more work. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what Chairman King's objection is. Chairman King stated that as he visualized it, it does not create the openness that he would like to see at that corner. He indicated that there is no reason that parking can't be underground and that this is an e-Ntremely crucial corner and he would like to see a more open feeling. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is a very important issue and he wished to disagree with Chairman King. He indicated that the only way it can be said is that when the developer brings this into Design Review (the people on Design Review) will have to make choices. He indicated that the overall theme 3s great. Further, that what you see is a foot print but it doesn't tell the entire story. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Design Review will have to say it is not open enough or that changes will Have to be made. Chairman King stated that it appears that there is consensus, then. Commissioner Hempel stated that if you take what they have pictured here, it is difficult to see the openness because it is not done to scale. Ms. Carberry stated that the scale that was used is 1 to a 100. Chairman King stated that there is one more point that he wished to make and that is he would like to see a lot of grass because what they have shown is not as pleasant as it could be. Commissioner Hempel stated that the point should not be belabored. He agreed that it could use less hard surface and more grass. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the planned community as this point is at the conceputal level and criter`_a of open space, rural character, low profile, and the minimizing of parking lots. He indicated there was consensus on these. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that staff must be sure that these concerns are addressed in the text. Chairman King stated that they would go on to the commercial issues. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in the neighborhood commercial area, the Commission needs to have some concept of what that will be. *L. Carberry and Mr. Scornik addressed the issue of circulation and stated that from staff's standpoint this is not an issue as there are less trips tha.i what is contained in the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 5, 1982 Ms. Carberry explained the loop system proposed as well as internal and external access. Ns. Carberry stated that a candidate for the primary transit route is the loon parkway and explained the bus pull outs that are designed. Ms. Carberry explained the median size and greenway as another element of importance in the circulation system. Ms. Carberry explained the underpass that was proposed at the intersection of Milliken and Base Line that would allow a walker o: biker to go for a mile crithou' encountering automobile traffic. She i ^dicated that at a previous meeting this had been discussed and the question was raised as to why this couldn't be done elsewhere in Terra Vista. She t ^a-rcated that the flat terrain of Terra Vista makes it necessary to take tht walker or b.'_cyclist up and over rather than under. She indicated ttat bike ramps will be required. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the traffic and environmental study shows 20,000 cars a day on the loop road on the southwest side ,where it intersects with the park at the second crossing at the town center. He stated that he is most concerned with that crossing and what will be done to avoid congestion there. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner. Sceranka and suggested as underpass. Ms. Carberry stated that they will take a lock at this. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wants staff to look at this as well, as his concern is the level of traffic and how it will be handled. Ms. Carberry describer; a pedestrian crossing at Marina del Rey that functions quite well wit:e a volume of traffic comaarable to what is anticipated here. Commissioner Sceranka stated that at this stage in the plan many options must be examined. Ms. Carberry stated that there is a conditiot: that each major intersection. have a crossing, and showed the crossings that are proposed at intersections and mid - block. She stated that there would be a signal at the junior high and a signal opposite tetweeu the park and the elementary school. Ms. Carberry also addressed the safety factor of using texturized material at crossings, stating that their traffic engineer did act feel this is safe, either. Commissio ^er Tolstoy suggested that ':here be r.n addition at this point, that a median be planted appropriately so that it will allow motorists to look over the crossing. Commissioner Remrel asked if there is some way to prevent someone riding a bicycle from going straight_ into traffic and suggested that a post be positioned there to prevent such intrusion by making the cyclist walk Planning Commission W nutes -14- April 5, 1982 his bike across. Chairman King suggested that instead of low shrubs, there be a cleared area to ensure that the motorist sees the pedestrian area. Ccwjissioner Tolstoy suggested that this might be a good place for hardscape. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the resolution is concerning sidewalks and whether they are wanted on one or both sides of tha street. Ca= issioner Sceranka stated that in the Victoria planned community, the option was given of going either way. The consensus of the Commission war; that the Planning Commission and staff b^ given the authority to determine the best option on a case -by- case basis. Mr. Vairin stated that the items duscussed here tonight would be brought back to the Commission at the nest hearing in one comprehensive package with revised text. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Re=pel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the next scheduled hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community, May 3, 1932. 9:25 p.m. The Planning Commission adjoirned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- Anril 5, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 14, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, meeting at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m. He then led I s the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King ABSENT: . Richard Dahl, Jeff Sceranka STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Ilanner, Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paia Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the March 24, 1982 Planw'-ng Commission meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Gomez announced that the Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee would meet at the Etiwanda Intermediate School on April 27, 1982 to consider the draft goals, objectives and conceptual plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since the people of the community have gone through a negative phase in City government he felt it important to speak to the positive aspects. He stated further that the Industrial Specific Plan, which the City had recently adopted, is unique and all in- volved staff members, especially Tim Beedle, were to be congratulated for it as well as the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that this is the largest specific plan for industrial development w5thin the State of California. Mr. Gomez commented that the Industrial Specific Plan has been : >ubmitted to the Inland Empire Section of the American Planning Associatitn as an entry in the Meritorious program award Category. C01SENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Rempel, secon +e3 by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROCAL 81 -01 - TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCEL MAPS Parcel Map 5795 Parcel Map 6395 PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONZIENT-AL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11893 - C/L BUILDER; - A custom lot subdivision of 17.2 acres of land into 36 lots in the R1-20,000 and R- 1- 12,000 zones located on the south side of Banyan, west of Sapphire - APN 1043- 411 -01. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the discussion that took place at the April 6, 1982 meeting between the homeowners and City staff, stating that the seven issues which most concerned the homeowners were listed on the staff report. Mr. Vairin further stated that also included within the staff report were conditions that would best mitigate the concerns expressed by the homeowners and indicated that Mr. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, was available to answer any questions relative to the park issue. Yr. Vairin reminded the Commission of the time limitation for a decision on this subdivision, stating that May 12 is the final date, and any alteration of that date would have to be through voluntary continuation by the applicant. Bill Holley, Community Services Director, apprised the Commission of the memorandum he prepared regarding the meeting he held with the homeowners. He stated that the residents felt that a mini park would be appropriate in t %is location and he indicated in his memo that such a park would be infeasible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the time of discussion on the General Plan, the Commission bad made it quite clear that any designated -sites shown on the map were not fixed but that they were floating. Additionally, since this site is not viable because of money and terrain, he asked that Mr. Holley show the Commission :where other alternate sites might be located. Mi. Holley pointed out two other sites, one around Almond on the south side of Sapphire and the Heritage Park site. He further indicated that the area adjacent to the DeMens channel could be used for trails and Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 14, 1982 hiking. Mr. Vairin indicated that staff met with the Equestrian Committee this afternoon to look at what- they viewed as a potential problem with the master plan of trails in this particular area. He pointed out on the tract map the wsst boundary, how the creeK veers to the left towards the City of Upland. He indicated that the best way to alleviate a problem would be to include within the CC &R's a condition that easements along lots 24 through 36 shall be reserved for equestrian usage of the tract and adjacent tracts because they provide important linkage to the City's master trail system and shall not be obstructed. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Nastase, representing the developer, C /L, stated that the roadway that Mr. Vairin has discussed along the western boundary will be constructed as a permanent access road by the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District and he had no way of knowing whether they would agree to the condition as stated by Mr. Vairin. Mr. Vairin replied tb ^': Mr. Nastase had told him that this would be an access road. Mr. Nastase stated th -it they had agreed to an easement but he was unsure if they would agree to regional -wide use of this. Mr. Vairin indicated that the major concern is that this area remain unblocked. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in this City there is a coammitment to trails and if the right -of -way along this easement is blocked, it would seem to him that this tract would have to provide an easement for trails. Mr. Nastase stated that he did not mean that the easement could not be used, only that this would have to be reviewed by the County. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if the Flood Control District did not agree to use of the easement for trails. Mr. Edward Hopson, Assistant- City Attorney, stated that he did not feel that the Flood Control District would object to this and the CC &R's would say you cau't build fences across them or place obstacles in front of the trails. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to make sure that whatever occurs, the integrity of the trail system be protected. Commissioner Rempel stated that the other answer is that if they consider blocking the trails, the City will have a lot of problems along all the Flood Control Channel. He irdicated that this should not be of that much concern. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 14, 1982 Chairman King asked how the negotiations relative to this portion of the Flood Control Channel differ from any ether area. Mr. Cairin indicated that there is not that much difference and if they had provided use in other places they would have to do this as well. Chairman, King stated that the City is working with the same basic theory and concept on this that is used or. all other easements. Mr. Nastase stated that the ownership will be retained by the individual lots and the people will have easements and not fee title. He indicated further that as long as the Flood Control allows their easement for public utilization, it is all rizht with them. 1u- N I disagreed with the staff reco=- endation and condition thattlots one through seven be redesigned to provide wider lots. This Condition is unjustified, he said. Mr. Don Drachand, 6056 T.ndigo Avenue, speaking for himself and the people in the audience, stated that many had paid a premium for their lots to ensure that they have a view. He indicated that the site under consideration by the Commission tonight had been designated a park on the General Plan and that the developer had also indicated that a park would be located here. The first indication that it would not be, was two weeks ago. Mr. Drachand indicated that the meetings with the Community Development and Community Services Departments had been com- municative and cooperative, that they tried to help the residents as much as possibl,. However, he stated that the park site would have more access en the south side than what had been stated by Mr. Holley and disagreed with the maintenance estimates for upkeep on the mini park. He provided the Commission with a letter indicating the steps he felt could be taken to secure a park. Mr. Harry Crowell, developer, stated ti:at they did everything they could to develop a park site with the City. He indicated that this property had been purchased about 4 -5 years ago and that it had been designated single family. Further, that all production had been stopped ca this Property pending outcome of the General Plan. He felt that this sub- division should be approved by the Commission_ at this meeting and that he would be willing to sell a portion of this property to the City for a park. He asked that this be approved with the conditions that had been Previously outlined. Mr. Tom Jelosky, 6167 Peridot, asked th,-t if this tract is approved, it be done with the addition of conditions as outlined in the staff report. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that he would begin comments with the park issue. He indicated that the park site is still available for a City park and that re had no problems with the conditions of approval as outlined ,:hat had been added by staff along with the condition relative to the eques- Planning Commission Minutes _4_ April 14, 1982 u trian trail easement. Chairman King stated that he saw three things against this area having a park. He indicated that there is a disproportionate area in Alta Loma that have parks as they relate to the rest of the community. He indicated that if people view the General Plan as it is presently designated, most of the property north of Banyan have one -half acre plus lots and there is more private open space which cuts against the placement of add' Tonal park sites in this area. Additionally, he indicated that there wa:. an individual who talked about mini parks who wanted to have one in this area. Chairman King indicated that it had been stated by Yr. Holley that the City does not wish to have a number of mini parks and by granting the opportunity of a mini park in this area, the Commission would be setting a precedent for this policy throughout the City. He indicated that he did not feel this would be appropriate for a park site and felt that the reasoning given by Mr. Holley should be adhered to. Chairman King stated again that he has no problems with the proposal as it exists with the conditions added by staff relative to the trail systei:. Commission: Rempel stated that this area has open space that is access- ible to the re::idents by way of the trail system along Cucamonga Creek and the spreading ground that is adjacent. He indicated that this is area that the peopl.- can use. He felt that the County would not allow it to be used. Commissioner Rempel further stated that the people in this area have a view in both directions and that this subdivision will not detract from this view. Commissioner Tolstoy stated th.t both Commissioners have spoken well on the issues and he agreed with f.ur of the five conditions outlined in the staff report. However, he aid not understand how there could be any mitigation of reptile and rodent displacement. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they would like to see a park in this area but that this is not a: ideal park site. He indicated that he did not see how the Commission could do anything else bw: approve this subdivision. Commissioner Rempel stated that Chairman King had touched briefly on the Inability of the City to purchase more parks and other areas in the City which needed parks more. He indicated that there are other ways to acquire parks, stating that the homeowners can negotiate for this land and purchase it themselves. Mr. Hopson stated that there is a delicate balance in state and federal constitutional law in terms of exactions that municipal bodies can make on a developer. He indicated that you cannot take somebody's property without paying for it. He indicated that you can have exactions for the benefit of the general population and have a developer pay a fee but the law strikes the balance. In this case, he indicated that the developer must pay a fee for the development of this site and since this is done and is a maximum, the City may not take anything more without paying for Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 14, 1982 it. Mr. Hopson indicated that the City Council has set fees and made a decision on what will be purchased by these fee;a. Further, that it has not been decided as a policy matter to take City power to condemn the property for additional park sites. Mr. Hopson stated that the City cannot say dedicate 3.4 acres and we will approve your tract, because if they do this, the City must pav whatever is required. Mr. Vairin stated that Item M-2 should also be checked as a condition to require the City Attorney to review the CC &R's before recordation of the tract. Chairman King reopened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry Palies, 6067 Indigo, expressed ec.,";_n relative to the compaction of lots one through seven. He indicated further that the lots in the area are all of 130 -150 foot frontage and he felt that, as proposed, the lets in this subdivision would be incompatible with the area. Mr. Harry Crowell stated that the deletion of a lot to accommodate wider frontages would add $40,000 to the rest of the project. He stated that he does not see the advantage of this, since the proposed frontages are 97 -98 feet,which he felt are adequate. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carr =ed unanimously, to adopt. Resolution No. 82 -40 approving Tentative Tract No. 11893 and issuing a negative declaration, with the conditions added in the staff report as well as the provision of an equestrian easement and the addition of Item M -2. Elp 7:50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 7:59 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened ►;9 7350 - A division of 10 acres into 2 parcels within an industrial area located at the southwest corner of 6th and Utica Streets - APN 210 - 087 -07. Mr. Paul Rougeai, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 14, 1982 r There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -41 approving parcel Map No. 7350, and issuing a negative declaration. E. 'ENVIRONMEJTAL ASSESSY"f AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-04 - HARDER - The use of an existing 1,620 square foot building for a dance studio in the Gerer&l Industrial category (Subarea 3), located at 9613 Arrow Route, Suite "G ". City lianner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King stated that within the staff report there is talk about noise attenuation on one side. He asked why it was not required on both sides. Mr. Gomez indicated that this was covered. in Condition No. 3. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being ro comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempe -, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -42 approving the enoirorrental assessment and Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -04. Commissioner Tclstoy stated that lie still has problems with some of the uses which are being approved in the industrial park. He stated that the Commission is allowing inappropriate uses. Chairman King stated that lie does not feel comfortable with some of the approv,ils; however, he is not sufficiently uncomfortable not to vote in favor of this project. Commissioner Toirtoy stated that store fronts would be the place for this use but realizes this to be an economic issue. He stated that when the industrial area is built out, he felt there would be additional traffic problems. Commissioner Rempel stated that this has been approved as a conditional use permit and can be revoked at a later time if problems occur. F. RAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN DESIGN City Planner, Rick Gomez, stated that this is being brought before the Commission as a discussion item and that prior to it being brought Planr_ing Commission Minutes -7- April 14, 1982 before the City Council, staff would like to meet with any interested group relative to these median designs. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that the Alta Loma Women's Club and individuals had ,rovided the existing landscaping along Haven Avenue which consists of Cedars and pyrancantha. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for an exvlanaticu of the Bowmanite which is being considered for the median. Mr. Colman explained that a trade name fora stamped concrete process that can be made to look like alluvial rock, quarry tile, etc. Chairman IU.r_g askew about its cost. Coleman replied Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Bowmanite really looks good and asked how long it would stay that way. Commissioner Rempel explained the process of how it is made and indicated that it would probably be longer lasting than the alluvial rock -which is imbeded into concrete. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to see the expansion joints follow the design rather than have a straight Cut. Mr. Coleman stated that the use of Bowmanit would provide a more consistent appearance. Further, that the Lesny Corporation ir, proposing the use of Canary Island Pines and shrubs within the median, in front of their project. He indicated that the General Plan it. its guidelines far medians, recommends the us_ of columnar trees. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that before commenting, he wished to go back to the rock. He asked if staff has formulated specifications for the mix of the concrete and asked for assurances that the mix be checked. Commissioner Tolstov stated that wi *.h all due respects to colinanar trees on Haven, he would like to see a departure. He indicated that Haven Avenue is the only candle the City 'aas to the Chaffev brothers and Euclid Avenue. He felt that every effort should be made to make Haven Avenue as spectular as possible. He recommended the use of Jacarandas or Crepe Myrtles in the median. Commissioner Rempel expressed his agreement and felt that more than one variety in the median would add more color. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted only one variety of tree with the use of groundcover to provide variety and texture. Commissioner Rempel stated that it would take a long time for a Crepe Myrtle to reach its full height. Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they will grow t) a height of 35 -40 feEt. Commissioner Rempel stated that he liked the use of Bowmanite and agreed that Haven Avenue is not the place for coniferous trees. He stated that I e would like to see some color and shading with the trees used. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is concerned about the feelings of the people who planted the present median and indicated that this had been a labor of love. He indicated, however, be muse of the method of planting, there was no way that any of the exist Lng plauts could be saved and stated that the City owes the group wbLch planted the trees their gratitude. Chairman King stated that he is not impressed w-Ith t::e Bowmanite and would prefer the real thing. Commissioner Tolsto, stated that Haven Avenue is a very important street and perhaps a combination of rock could be used. Commissioner Rempel stated that he telt the Cit3 of Upland would have problems o-ith their median in the future with weeds growing in between the rocks. He indicated that the Bowmanite wou?i be better than the allusial rock imbeded into the concrete. Chairman King indicated that the consensus of the Commission is that the design of the median is all right, but that othe• ideas are needed, and this ehould be brought before the community. t Motion: loved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adj ourn. 8:29 p.m. The planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK !A,% Secretary -�a Commission Minutes April 14, 1982 ii 11 11 C-= OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 28, 1982 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SJBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -01 B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haver, Avenue to Interstate 15. Interim improvements tc Highland Avenue would be redesignated from a secondary arterial to collector standards. BACKGROUND. 19^ At the February 22, 1982 Commission meeting General Plan Amendment 82 -01 B was presented proposing amendment of the Circulation Element to revise the designa- tion of Highland Avenue (St:,te Route 30). The item was continued is the April 28 1982 meeting to allow review of the proposal and Negative Declaration by CALTRANS CALTRANS has completed their review and comments are attached in their letter of April 9, 1982. The proposed amendment will revise the designation of Highland Avenue from a 64 foot curb to curb secondary highway to a 44 foot curb to curb collector standard. The proposed change provides that the full street would be constructed by the south fronting property. Final design to be able to accommodate expansion to a major divided highway cr reversion to a south frontage road of a proposed freeway. CALTRAN; concurs with the proposed amendment with the qualification that access control be consistent with a major divid ,2d arterial designation. Attached fcr tt;e Commission's information is the original staff report for this item and applicable documentation. PROPOSED AMENDMENT. It is proposed that the General Plan Circulation Element page 62 dealing with Highland Avenue be amended as follows: Highland Avenue. Tne portion of Highiard Avenue (Route 30) between the realign- ment of Nineteenth Street and Interstate 15 shall be designated as a "B" Section collector standard and shall be fully constructed by the south fronting property owners. It is the intent of this designation that the roadway be designed compatible with future expansion to a major arterial or to serve as the south frontage road for the proposed Foothill Freeway. Consistency with a major arterial development will require strict access control along Highland Avenue with limitation to only approved street connections. ccntinued... ITEM B Staff Report - Planning Commission Re: General Plan Amendment 82 -01 B April 28, 1982 Page 2 M Ll Prior to development at interchange locations, the frontage system should be precisely defined and right -of -way dedication obtained for the future roadway requirements. Mao III -3 shall be amended as shown in Exhibit A attacl +ed. RECOMMENDATION: It is rec:.1,.,,ended that the Commission approve the attached Resolution recommending adoption by the City Council of General Plan Amendment 82 -01 B and issuance of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Respectfully submitted, �r Li d B. Hubbs City Engineer Attachments LBH. be a ►�J 11 E Hill ;de I� 7 Eanyan III -- i a a i I ° F Y GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -01 E REVISION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE DESIGNATION l i REDESIGNATIO4 LIMITS — COLLECTOR l'8" Foothiii Fraew2vv — ^ a a � � 4. 3w�ft0 �1! =>flesiOi I � J LLLj rL !TV i I ° F Y GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -01 E REVISION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE DESIGNATION l i REDESIGNATIO4 LIMITS — COLLECTOR l'8" Foothiii Fraew2vv — ^ a a � � 4. 3w�ft0 �1! =>flesiOi I � J LLLj Figure 161 -3 C29CULA N PLAN PROPOSEC FLOW. LOCAnON COLLECTOR -------- SECONDARY _________ MAJORARTERIAL s,...,_.... MAJOR DIVIDED Imm.._.waN ARTERIAL A =� Figure 161 -3 C29CULA N PLAN PROPOSEC FLOW. LOCAnON COLLECTOR -------- SECONDARY _________ MAJORARTERIAL s,...,_.... MAJOR DIVIDED Imm.._.waN ARTERIAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA- 6USR`ESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G_ EH(NM AL.. CaoNraor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MTRICT S. P.O. BOX 131 SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402 April 9, 1982 Nor. Lloyd B. Hubbs City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Hubbs: 08- SBd -30- 7.79/12.20 GPA 82 -01 -B Rancho Cucamonga rtED`iVED a. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment or the Draft Negative Declaration for the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This amendment would charge the designation of highland Avenue (State Route 30) from Haven Avenue to Interstate 15, from a 64 -foot curb to curb secondary arterial to a 44 -foot curb to curb collector standard. We suggest that access connections be limiter' to Highland Avenue on the basis that it may later be cor4verted to a major arterial. In addition to the interchange locations, the frontage system should be precisely defined and right -of -way dedications obtained for the future 19i;h Street connection east of haven Avenue. If you have any questions, please contact Linda Laurin at (714) 383 -4550. Very truly yours, R. G. POTE Chief, Transportation Planning E C'J 11 11 CITY OF R -10CHO CL'CAMOnGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SPEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring enviro=nental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review COI-MiCLee though the department where the project application is *Wade. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Stud✓. The Development Review Comrittee will meet and taxe action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Enaineering Division - City of Rancho Cucamonga &VLME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROaECT: T_1n�4A n. Rnhfig rji-y F.nginPPr MCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_) Hi i h1 Pn,3 Avenue /Hnv�n Avenue to R 1 5 LIST OTHER PERMITS i-CESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: CalTrans (District 8) San Bernardino _ I- J PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Designation of highland to "B" Sec General Plan Collector 0 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQLTARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTTNr— ptD PROPOSED mr— 1NGS, IF Ariz: Not applicable DESCP,IBE THE ENVIROIN NTAL• SEr- rM-n7G OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORPLITION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PUNTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE 71C ASPECTS, USE OF SLIRROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTISG STRUCTURES PN-D THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): a setting soot residential development with one co=ercial use near Etiwanda. Eucalyptus tBlue Gum)arP the project site runs Day an Deer canyons. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? P7o . I- 2 I WILL THIS FROJFCT: ® YES NO _ X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ 3_ Create a substantial change in demand for mmnicinal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc_)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5= Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6_ Create the need fo= use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flami.ables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: to4. Proiect Purpose is to downgrade designation of Highland Avenue which is thereby the change to the General Flan. IMPORT =NT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page_ CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information rewired for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand t1-at additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can Review Committee. 0 Date February 18, 1982 Sign& T-13 Title l.J I] CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY mIv'CIROniENTAL CHECA IST DATE: February 18, 198 2 APPLICANT: Citv Engineer FILING DATE: February 18, 1982 LOG NU`!,MER: PROJECT: Amendment to General Plan - Highland Avenue _ PROJECT LOCATION: Highland Avenue tRoute 30) Haver. Ave. to Route 15 I. ENGIR=MNTAL IMPACTS (Explanation_ of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant_ results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? X f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition" X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X h. An increase in the rate of extraction andior use of any mineral resource? X 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction i n'Sc . 3. Air Quality. Will cha proposal have significant results in: a. Constan: or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationa.y sources? X b. Deterioratio-- of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? X C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? g b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? r X of iiu.Jing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? --X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the arwunt of surface water in any body of water? X e, Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? X f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? X g. Change In the quantity of groundwaters, either through, direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? __ X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _ X 3. Air Quality. Will cha proposal have significant results in: a. Constan: or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationa.y sources? X b. Deterioratio-- of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? X C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? g b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? r X I rae'e . YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction. of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? }L d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? 2L b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? }� C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ 2L d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or _ildlife habitat? _ __ 2L 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- butlon, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be egsitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, L tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? X — c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? is . Page 4 S. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or de-nand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion sysrem_s? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water — borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X g. Increases in traffic hazards tn motor vehicles, bicyclists or pecestrians? X 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? X 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species cf vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? X e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X g. The creation of ob;ectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or glare? X E I E Page 5 YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? X 12- STr+ 7 iri nc -...A V-104, Cer_ i...o� Wi l l tl.n nrnnn aal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? X b. Natural or packaged gas? _ X c. Communications systems? X d. Eater supply? X e. Wastewater facilities? X f. Flood control structures? X ® g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? X i. Police protection? X j. Schools? X k. Parks or other recreational facilities? X 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? X M. Other governmental services? X 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? X c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? X d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? X Page YES MAYBE IM e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? � 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduces the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sistaining 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 irortant — ?es of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _— Y_ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of fang -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long - term impacts will endure well into the future). _ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, X and probable future projects). - -- d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects or, human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 11. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONlicN:AL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). E E 7b. The General Plan designation presently conforms with CalTrans designation. proposed reducedn designation owill needn ay System, the o CalTrans approval prior to implementation. L :J III. On the basis of this initial evaluation.: _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the emvironment, there will not be a significant effect L_1 in this case becauce the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the ^d L.1 �7T^t 0:T � T Ts V hrr`Jn ✓� /rnPCIPm t� yam_ .,... _..........t, .... .... 1�i�/ '� �: /�.+�/` � %✓F�./�� Date February 3_ 8, 1962 Signature City Enginaer Title E G Page 7 I find the proposed project COMD NOT have a significant effect g on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the emvironment, there will not be a significant effect L_1 in this case becauce the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the ^d L.1 �7T^t 0:T � T Ts V hrr`Jn ✓� /rnPCIPm t� yam_ .,... _..........t, .... .... 1�i�/ '� �: /�.+�/` � %✓F�./�� Date February 3_ 8, 1962 Signature City Enginaer Title E G Page 7 CITY OF RANCHO ( UCAMONGA STAFF RI PORT DME: February 22, 1982 iY3: P-Ia.-z -ing C=missicn FROM: Lloyd B. Hibbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: GOAL PLAN F1JEZM& P 82 -01 B - =L C? RAN(siCl CUCADENGA A request to amend the C3 -cul.atwn Eler 2nt of the General Plan dealing with Highland Avenue and tie r'borhill Freeway Corridor frun haven Avenue to Interstat_ 15. Interim improvenents to Highland Avenue world : a redesignated from a se=xlary arterial to collector standards. M-ough the process of review of the initial phy es of the Victorir. Planned Canminity, staff working with CalTrans has developed an approach to the irteriir, improvement of Highland Avenue bet gees Haven Avenue and the Dewre Freeway which differs faun the design it.ion spelled out in the current Circulation Element of the General P1 n. Attached for Commission review is a copy of the current plan text which discusses an interim designation for High.i.and Avenue as a "C" Section providing for a 64 foot curb to curb section with an 88 foot right-of-way. This designation was assigned to reflect continuity with the westerly portions of Rsate 30 along 19th Street. In revewing the first phase of Victoria, two facts became apparent: first because the freeway cor-idor is adjacent to Highland Avenue at this location the potential of development on tLe north half of the street would not occur as long as the freeway option is viable: :ecvnd, that if a freeway is constructed, Highland would become a fror -age read to the freeway requir- ing a collector standards road 44 fret wide with a 66 foot right -of -way. It has generally been recognized that if the freeway is some major arterial or a prressz y should be proL ids i in these facts, an approach has been developed which cIlls of Highland to the collector standard to be co_nstruj-ted fronting Property- The section will be designed as the major divided arterial. not constructed that the corridor. Given for the redesignation fully by the souiherly southerly half of a This approach could seen to provide the most flexibility for the community and fits well with all of the options currently contemplated within the corri- dor. Staff has taken the opportunity of the current Gener zl Plan amerclment period to begin consideration of the proposed amerhmt. Tie revised General Plan ITEM D mod+ MAN MUMMENT 82 -01 Febr3a.-y 22, 1982 Page 2 E language is attached along with the Msvir =mtal Assess ert /Negative Deci ara- ticn. CalTrans being a respcmible agency for this facility s oUd. be con- tacted with the proposal and eeavi=mental determination and given formal review rights. =LCN: It is recczutrss ed that the Cc miissicn accept public testurony on General Plan Amerxte Yt 82 -01 B are, coat -unie the public hearing to April 28, De--e ^ni-n--t.--.... i Respectfully sui itteed /,, TA 7 -_,aa Attaches is E LI GUMIAL PLAN AMUCE*-N- 82 -01 B Tkie Circulation Elm of t'g Gea2esal Plan, page 62 dealing with Highland Avenue Is aimended as follows: sii5hlaa3 Avz ^.ae Pipe Por'..ior of aigq Sl.and Aveme (Rmite 30) between maven Ave ue and Interstate 15 (Devore Freewey) sue- by desiynata9 as a and small be fully axistn�ctg' by soutd� sly Section collector standard tib i ity with f-ai-ur_ cons`t"IcIc ion aruttirg 1=01 'tY mess al provide camp3 and a1� saii.table to become the of a *_major divined ar, -esial Cr �° =s �y s uth frontage road with the eventual devel t of a Foots i31 r Y Prior to develo 'nt at it -° ors ge locations. e frontageforsthe futL d be z=ecisely defined and cjcj!7 . -0£-ray dedaca` =nS abt� -nom nor the n tie roadway reauirenents- 27ap 3 i shau' be mTga"ded ap-oropri.ately. t� : The following discussion addresses special problem areas that are to be addressed C through further studies and intergcvernmen- tal coordination. Alignment. The Circulation Plan identifies major streets where alignment configuration is variable. Precise location of these street alionments will be dependent upon potential development needs of surrounding lands. Alignment requirements will need to be studied at the time of future development. Routes requiring more precise alignment determination are: - Banyan Street - east of Haven Avenue - Milliken Avenue - north of Fourth Street - Rochester Avenue - south of Eighth Street - Cleveland Avenue - Arrow Route to Base Line Road - Victoria Avenu: west of Etiwanda Avenue - Day Creek Boulevard - Church Street - Haven to Miller Avenue Foothill Freeway Cooridor. The development of a high speed limited access route along the Foothill Freeway Corridor is an important ® component to the circulation system of the City. Recently California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted a resolutior encouraging the City to work with Caltrans in determining appropriate methods for fi- nancing and construction of the Foothill Freeway. CTC will evaluate the status of a financing plan in early 1933. The City policy stresses the need for the development of an access controlled high speed facility along this corridor. Should Caltrans with- - draw from the development of a Foothill Freeway, the City wi`l evaluate other meth- ods for development of the high speed corridor. Any changes in the City's policy should be reflected in revisions to the Gen- eral Plan. Highland Avenue. The designation of High- land Avenue (Route 30) as z "C° section providing for four lanes of traffic is an interim designation until the time if con- struction of the Foothill Freeway. 67 With construction of the freeway or other limited access expressway, Highland Avenu will become the south frontage road to the freeway and be reduced to a collector "B" section street. Special alignments of the frontage system will be required at inter- change locations. Prior to development in the interchange locations the frontage system in the area should be precisely defined and right -of -way dedications obtained for the future roadway requirements. Grade Separation Requirements. It has been identified that raiiroad grade separations will be required at Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue at the Santa Fe Railroad. Grade separations have implications for right -of -way requirements on adjacent pro- perties. They wili, therefore, require fur- ther detailed studies to establish sight -of- way requirement and local circulation ties. Studies along the Santa Fe at Milliken and Haven Avenue are currently being prepared and should be adopted as precise plans through a hearing process. Special Intersections. Through the trans- portation modeling process, specific intersec- tions were identified which may require local- ized widening to accommodate projected traff- ic volumes and turning movemar,ts. These intersections will require detailed traffic analysis in the future but in some cases can be mitigated through category F street widths. Intersections of concern are indi- cated on the Circulation Plan. A Transportation System Management Pro- gram (TSMP) is necessary to alleviate some of the potential traffic problems. The TSMP, if effectively implemented, would reduce ;n- dustrial traffic load up to 17 percent and 21 percent during peak traffic hours. How- ever, even with this program, information from the traffic modeling indicated the poten`ial for significant traffic problems. The TSMF will involve the close monitoring of industrial development to insure that suit- able transportation control measures are enforced on all developments. These control c� v;: _. 63 RESOLUTION NO. A RESULUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RECOMMENDING ADMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council has activated the optional General Plan Amenament cycle; and WHER7t';u, the Pianning Co,itimission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all conments on the proposed General Plan Amendment. N0W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co..nnission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the following amendment to the circulation element of the General Plan, SECTION 1: General Plan Amendment No. 82 -01 -B. Under the implementation section dealing with Highland Avenue (pb. 62) shall be changed to read as follows: Highland Avenue - The portion of Highland Avenue (Route 30) between the realignment of Nineteenth Street and Interstate 15 shall be designated as a "B" section collector standard and shall 5e fully constructed by the south fronting prop- erty owners. It is the ,intent of this designation that the roadway be designed compatible with future expansion to a major arterial or to serve as the south frontage road for the proposed Foothill Freeway. Consistency with a major arterial development will require strict access .ontrol along Highland Avenue with limitation to only approved street connections. Prior to development at interchange locations, the frontage system should be precisely defined and right -of -way dedica- tions obtained for the future roadway requirements. Nap III -3 shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. SECTION 2: It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for this General Plan amendment, based upon the completion and findines of the Initial Study- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman M: Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: 0 Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, 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 Rancno Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of t -he Planning Commission held on the 28th day of April, 1982, by the following vote - tc -wit: AYES: CCRUSSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1]; r� .,... Hillside e e °anyan t aT.�n� l •i i t 9 l� �f U :.f, i REDESIGNATIOF4x LIMITS - COLLECTOR a B" �i a c GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-01 B REVISION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE DESIGNATION :J_.. �yy iTl. i7 �Jaaav�y�6 =; __�i Y! l UP jI [ .d /:. Rtg. ure 1111-3 is C1 ,9CULAMON PLAN COLLECTOR SECONDARY MAJOR ARTERIAL �® MAJOR DIVIDED ARTERIAL � PROPOSED R.O :V. LOCATION E. E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 28, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Pubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Tract Flo. 12176 - Daon Corporation - an industrial subdivision of 15 lots on 11.06 acr -3s, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive between Red Oak Street and Utica Avenue This project, located within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Center, is being subdivided for future use as an office complex as shown on the attached conceptual site plan., Lots range in size from 1/2 to 3/4 acres and at this time no development is proposed. The site is within sub -area 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan with a General Plan designation for industrial parks. To the south of the site is a condominium industrial tract with existing buildings; to the north, east and west is vacant land. All streets surrounding the site have been constructed. Analysis: The subdivision is proposed as custom lots with the concept of planned develop- ment. The interior lot °A" is reserved for recreation and open space purposes only for the benefit of all the future lot owners. A notice to this effect shall be placed on the map to keep this lot for its intended use. The design of the recreational facilities, as well as development of individual lets will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee at the time of development. The present owner of the subdivision will be taking the responsibility of constructing the recreational facilities and is proposing to start the con- struction at the close of escrow for 60% of the lots within the subdivision. If the Commissioners feel that some other type of timing mechanism will be more suitable to ensure completion of the construction, necessary conditions may be incorporated in the approval to achieve the same. The proposed subdivision is conditioned to form a Property Owners Association and to require C.C_ S R-'s with the City as an interested party, to ensure construction and maintenance of the recreational facilities and joint use drive:.ys and parking lots. continued... ITEM A Planning Commission Staff Report Re: Tract No. 12176 April 28, 1982 Page 2 Environmental Analysis: Also attached for your review and consideration, is Part I of the Initial Study zs completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation,. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. Facts of Finding: The proposed subdivision is in accordance with the Industrial Specific Plan and applicable laws and Ordinances. Correspondence: A Notice ul Public Hearing was placed in The Daily Report newpaper. Also, public hearing notices were ;nailed to surrounding property owners. Recommendation: It is recommended that Planning Cortaission consider all input and elements of this project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the facts of findings and recommend conditions of approval, Vie adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully submjtted, LBH:BK;bc 1 J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FFILED BY: Daon Corporation TENTATIVE MAP NO 12176 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Civic Center Drive DATE FILED: February 25, 1982 and Utica NUMBER OF LOTS: 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 6725 as RECEIPT NUMBER: recorded 4n Book 67, Pages 4 -7 FEE: $1,227.00 ZONE: M -2 TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: L. D. King, Inc ADDRESS: 517 N. Euclid Avenue Ontario, California 91762 GRGSS ACREA%E: 11.06 MINIMUM LOT AREA: MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is RECORD 0,•INER(S) ADDRESS PHONE f Daon Corporation 3200 Park Center Drive (714) 641 -6666 Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92026 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications _ 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet or, additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other 3. Rights of vehicular access small be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Vaster Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 12176 Page 2 Improvements (Bondine is required prior to ❑ Recording for ® Building permit for all lots ) 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *i•icludinq landscaping and irrigation on meter iCURB STREET NA'-+E & 1 !GUTTER A. C. JPVMT . T SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS I MEDIAN I ISLAND* OTHER Red flak X Y Y Y Civic Center X X X X Utica X X i X X X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. X. 11. Devz1oner shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 12. Install appropriate street riauR signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. 13. Developer it to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems sFa'.l be designed to Cucamonga County Mater District standards. A letter of z.cceptance is required. X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underqround service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by now services will require an A.C. overlay: _ 17. The following specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The followin g existing streets are substandard: They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino County Flood Control Di --trict. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 12176 Page 3 x 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: _ A. Caltrars, for:. B. City: x C. County Dust Abasement District: D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: E. Cucamonga County Water District: Water and Sewer F. Other: Map Control _ 22. If only a portion of this Map in recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: _ 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right -of -way line in- accord-ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as follows: 27. :-he border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. 0 Parcel Map Waiver 11 _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / _ is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control ;Bonding is required prior to G Recording for ) 0 Building permit -for--) 24. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- - ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection perty line may be required to divert sheet Such flow may be required to go under 31. If crater surface is above top of curb, 30" back of the sidewalk at all downstream cur 32. Culverts required to be constructed across wall along the entire north pro - runoff to streets. sidewalks through culverts. walls shall be required at the returns. streets at following locations:_ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will a required to assess impact or increased runoff. RCE 20 TE14TATIVE MAP NO. 12176 Page 4 M4scellaneeus X_ 35. Dust abatement will this project. be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. _ 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: X 39. Yroper grading and erosion control, inc uding the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the building Division X 41. The ofilingrof�the» tentative map hor approval nofn same ndoes vnot on sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time buildinuarantee that requested. When buildin r g permits are g permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and cmnplere exercise of any public entity or public utility right- of -w.ay or easement and the sign ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the fina. map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final I -lap submittal, ; following shall be submitted• Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded .maps and deeds used as reference and; or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. ' 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Res'.rictions (C.C. & R.'s), subject to the approval of the City Atto-ney, shall be recorded with this map. X 46. Reciprocal access and parking easements anc, maintenance agreement shall be executed for the benefit of all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas across all lots, shall be recorded concurent with the recordation of the Tract Map. X 47. Reservation of Lot A for open space a:id recreational purposes shall be nouiced on the final map. continued... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 D Page 5 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 1 2175 X 48. Constructi he recreational facilities in uding landscaping on Lot A shall be �d at the cl se of escrow forclots or prior to issuance of occupancy perms for the th building withi$ the subdivision, whichever comes first. This condition shall be incorporated within the C.C.. &R.'s for this subdivision. X 49. A finalized rough grading plan shall be approved prior to recordation of the map. X 50. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted an an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering, all 'nsrcels, to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to recordation of the map. b. Appropriate easements, for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted unto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. c. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon arty parcel that may be subject to, or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) • 0 CCOfMN- i -'- ' "- OWGEUnNO - ow �s.. pv� 27 � � M • � ta. +K j 11 i •. K A w° J .. Taar. gS" t•µ 67/� .Y / yql�' -5 =-xnm- c,.-�;•ro.� PRO _CT -,(r -- ijl r I 1 ww iIt1 T • '. `� .i u Mol. w J - —7 J:- - - - - =_ 3GSR M �+` _ % sourr- Tf OF RANCHO CUCA,YI.7NGA title; TR 12176 _ ENGINEERING DIVISION T VICINITY MAP 1��!! -- — page TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NQ. 12176 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL NO.- OF PARCEL CAP NO. 6725.AS PER NAP RECORDED IN 6002 97.OF PARCEL UP-S PAGES 4 THROUGH 7.INCLUSIV E. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECCRDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. L.D. KING.:NC- FF9RUARY.i992 OOJGLAS H. NAYS.R.C.E. 2106'. 4RW fOr's 1. LM Irw: (o!r[LI 2. 4n.p: IF.•n Lc .f �- l :r[eC ,q.Awe[ I. aw•[,w a• I'.ql nw. ZSjS t.r�r h. t Y•.w L... Ly EU PR•w ..t,� _ IM-M' ptl1 �' melT 1. iw IT ewr�n[ •�sr �. I� NHC ✓tl,y v.ILITIn 2a7• S Wes: _ E+L+V. >'sr�i! Y�'w Ol1t.'1c[ • R- IL LA ,1� 4 9111p iLf - Sa![yrw 411.(..1 O.L LLAwF 1% LAS I.fr. SbViL TtiLpw•� _ 4•�.LI Tel.pYy CY � .N Swb tint tw.L� lgLn.L. G T` Faw - Serp�.. 4l,I.rw,. EMYr EL.gLq wm•n sw In[�r•t b. tI.Y'.TY. O.L. ` �\ \ \\l]Sl {rK'I[ S[7t 1 CrL.'fe. G llKl S. L,::l'.:]' •ru b' uwnl. L.e w,un � p:L � ZVLOi -,y1L1 . - - --7 IT M . i' i.0. xlrti' Zl! Rs0 L.<IN t.w� per. 4 .L)ti 7N/SLyLN OINL . S.. . !L Lov -� •fir_ �1wM. Ri YJNiry l4 l -` a ---••_ W 3 ■■p p-m 3L/LL�:I'.gip' i E 0 E - 1 i'L '.K72 T T) 3 3L/LL�:I'.gip' i E 0 E E CITY OF ?ANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT IINFORMATION SFEEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Con,=-4:.tee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Envirormertal Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Co.- .--nittee will meet and take action_ no 'Later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Co:naittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a ?Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An addicional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project. PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Tract 12176 APPLICAiNT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Daon Corporation 3200 Parkcenter Drive, Suite, 1430, Costa Me_s,o _phone: 714/641 -6666 PLUME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: L. D. King, inc., 517 N. Euciid Ave.. Ontario, CA 97762 phone: 714/988 -5492 Attn: D. H. Mays LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESZOR PARCEL NO.) Parcel 4, Parcel Map 6725 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE Alm FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUNG SUCH PERMITS: Grading oerm.it - City of Rancho Cucamonaa - I -E PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Subdivision of Parcel 4, Parcel Map 6725, into 15 ;acs and 1 common 70 ±. All for the ur ose of future sales. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOMC -2 OF �__ PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY; Acreage = i1.06 EXISTING AND Plo buildings proposed for the purGOSe of this tract mao - no existing buildings. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRpti?�FTFAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING IN= 'ORATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLA:;TS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CL2TURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE �F SL'RROL^QDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY MICISTING STRUCTURES A M\ THEIR USE (ATTACF- ?v'ECESSPRY SHEETS) This project is in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. The area is Dresentiv under develo ment and construction of utilities, storm drains, streets, etc., are underNay, including grading of the adjacent sites '- are already developea. This existin removed. =] Mi l l Diena in with the overall iness Park. Tne s-te is an es at the northwest corner. 1 existing vegetation and Is t'he project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environ^untal iaroact? This project is a par* of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park project. CI I- 2 GILL THIS ?RO ECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fi- -e, water, sewage, etc.)'. X 4. Create charges in the exi- sting zoning or general plan designations? X 6= Remove any existing trees': How many? 3 X 6. Create the need for use or disaosal of potentia_ly hazL7dous materials such as toxic substances, flarzzables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: Creates parcels less ® than 1 arrp 11 IMPORTANT: Ii the project i_- evolves t ?,.e canstruct�on of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional infor.- ticn may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be mace by the Development Review Committee. Date_ 2 -�Z< z Sirmature Title zt w c . r7j �'I"mK�pl Z3 . RESIDE1171A., CMISTRIM.TION 0. The follo:aing infor,ation should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planninc Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the _proposed residential developr.ent. 2iane of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE I Pl-' SE 2 1. 2d• mb—_. of single fa ^i1. Units: fam--IV ts: 3. Data proposed to becin ccast_uction: 4. Earliest date of Modnl and = of Tentative 5, Hedroc =s Price Rance PHASE 3 PEAS= q TCT. _L EI RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CW1ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12176 (INDUSTRIAL) WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12176, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Daon Corporation, applicant, for the purpose of subdlviding the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as Parcel No. 4 of Parcel Map 5725 as recorded in Book 67, pages 4 -7, Records of Sen Bernardino County, California into 15 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on April 28, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the City Engineer's report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the City Engineer's report and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative ',ract No. 12176 and the eap thereof: (a) 'he tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific p'ans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specifi- plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidatle injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health prcblems; (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. E Resolution No- Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a NegLLtive Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12176, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby apr'aved subject to the attached City Engineer's report. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28Th DAY OF APRIL, 1932. PLANNING CONLMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JAC LAir, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certif that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduc °d, pzssza, and adopted by the Planning Cormission of regular meeting of the Planning the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a r i Commission held on the 28th day of April, 19fi2, by the following vote - to -wit: ��TCCTl1,.IL'OC- AYES: wiu• s �o,v.. .. NOES: comiSSIONERS: ABSENT: CONMIISSIONERS: E