The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985/04/24 - Agenda Packet/0701-02 o 4 -24 -85 PC Agenda o leaf 4 y. �C CITY-OF S p EAN-QO r-x tl X% ,) R \ llll F `,, y^� V Z 197T '+ WEDNE %DAY {�PRZ 24,4985 .00 p.m. MMS ]E ,&RK +COMM�WA" CENTEA 9161 BASE IM R&KC]a "- UCABdO q&, MWOfi� � L Pledge of AUeglmnee Commissioner Darker Commissiono Rgmpel„�, 1� Commissioner Ch tiii Commissioner Mont ` ,{ )� •' , Commissioner l4ScNi� � -1 y M. Announcemmts W. Apprev t of Mtttutes �. ri�Farc)n 27, 1985 - } cda¢ Callender r ;I The following .Consent Calendar items an? expected to be routine 0 and aeon - controversial. They will by acted on by the Commission at " ane time without 4tscue'eon, if anyone has concern over any, item, it shoWd tit removed for discusstort. , .. . A "TYME EXTEN Tf» POR PARCEL MAP 7902 Located on the c� Ronal Fide of in on Avet,� e, mt s M&ybemy AVetwe " . APN 201-181 -66'. B. ,I-RE 1ON € F ANNUAL GENERAL PLAW A DA u. x C. �iRitiT��e41. AWENMEI3�T FOR. RTs1 lT 95-95 - AJA - The canleirue't , two stoq garctl ,a Ct tZVildsaa�s are 8.5 Free Sanl6e�st moiler aSBti etit'&rtti Laaret JiT tiYe t, r, � 7ndtils�i� Psrl� i3igtriet {Subets � - A�'ti �E�B -i-�4� ., r- C C a f VL p,pl' $ , The following items are public hearings in, ��tch conc med indivOwls may voce their opinion of thz related LL � ease 'wait io be recognized by the, ChalrM04 and address ;#h mission by slat ±ag j'rtw'- marne arcC address, I A.0 such shall be ' limrl�ed is 5 mimAt per (�ividual for each project. % ENVMM -N 4 E-k-T 4L ASSESS't NT AND DEVELOPMENT —XS -I2 - DAVIS - The deYeloc*,mmi ent of 328 apartments 1 on ,T9 acres ogres` f land'In the Lovr(Medium (4-8 du/se) and Meth r (8+34 du /ac) Residential <<Districts located-, on the. no Oast ;rner of Arrow Highway and Etlwands Avenue - APN 229- 041-2i ( Continoed from March 13, 3985 meeting). " E. E21VIli 19JLR `fAL , ASSI:SSM14T AND CONDITIONAL USE PER'Mrr 8, � i} ERSTPAB PiipPE 'iUS - The deY�p Rfvet,) of.-,.an 7rit2E,rat aw'tRteTo O C approiimately 31;8,8 a$ut�e feeL� wI3%eh Deludes a �iix1� 1 service station, as I and a ceptual master Plant for future pleases: All on app'corirraateip 15 acres of land in the N'eigborhoos Commereral (xC) D, at, generally =- located on the northeast cornsp. of Highland 'Avenue and Haver' Avenue - AP`X 201- 271 -53.� (Continued from March 27, 1985 meotin„�) � P. L'NWRO)iMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAIx PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -03 -A - H&H -,A request to amend the General Plan: Land Use Map from Lour Density Residential (2- 4 du /ac) to "Medium-,-Hlpth Reetdett d (f4 -24 du/ad) on 13.55 acres of land' ` "ted � n thetsouth side of Peron Avenue,, between a=r k and iiama is - AYK 289 - 085 -02, 03, -14 - y (Continued from heel 19, 3985 meeirig.) G. ENVIIt )'MENTAL ' ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT fib t TTUI NT 85-04 - OW,F S - A recp�est to l amend the DevelopM t �.striets i�ifap , "L'( (Low Density l Residextial) to "15Pt' (Whistrial. Saecifio Plan) - 7,lndf�str at Park for 2.5 acres of land located_ an the souther °,YOMer of Archibald and Main} - APN,209 -062= =111, 02. � 13. ENVnELO T� fiAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MW9]::113 - DA :I+! RF .RATION - A division of &3 �acstes mto. 8 Wei in the Industrial Paint, t' wignatit8r eye ' l ed ' on the West sedvf of Reds _F}ak Stxest; at 45*Perr aim Sireats- AIX 20$W, 1 V. ,., . QUQ AMC JG A Dbvdlopment I)istrtot one 4W Rdmdagw iD4 dulae to:1 ?wee /Prc>�eas� �' S acres erf f`ocated ayt sruthret Miter M lStreot �o14 20� w . a /f Zr {r Yi% Direa4e',s Reports J. li"I Vfi�,f}.T3M -E TAL APSESSMSI�'i A D RE 84- KS?kE Gtl �- Tice relotss t ot Aft fight bbl u��us ial Palo Compm tote approxirnateiy i4i4 #�1Q(i ue eet on TA aeres of iandin U IndustLiat Park District, 12) logatec bn the east sib off : biilt{Meri, sdut4 of Oxtb Street - AVIN 204n-60. STATUS IPtTFIi` 8s �.�.`� SX'f'MC�NS } ., s couselIF ?ET AL Or Cw—zw ADO —Is ��§� 3ti [JSL` Olw !. VIII. Rublk Comidents d7 . e or the era@ lfa to address the :'his ��e time €ued �� .�. � � 'Commission." Rems to be dbowsu d Caere are those whfch do not alreMy appoar cn this agenda. M Adjoomobt The Plamiarg t;Orrtrniasion opted A&WnWrattve l iut%n ' t%Kit 5 .T.T j?.m, -ad yr ott #' a `.t ,mss gd that time, they shah be heard only wfth the crtse»,t of the 0104Wssfon. s. ,'J Vt f A �• t r s , t r s a . a s hvrlrt. v � _ teucra. �j �ytrA*e�txtaetw,tt. a w ` i{ [ arm. �sr s =s r�� • .—e`_s r— =. r � a r � a ° � E MMryrtew..wrwtwr�«ww� • � i' t r r • FMWr �'�M�.'.�weN..s+v.iw eaew j,�raarrtraa any 1r - t Y f l � r t MAP Vff I I I T Y' ri 4.� r. rUCA"0m6t- C0A$r9 CB Atx aEG# At R4a[ `~'t r # d ugro trcr#aeNZ �(� •xNO�r r i e e { CnrY OF RA3l3F3Ehf Y >' .Y t� 4 t �1 5 • x 1 � X � � � t�+s��"�Yt �R� . � E � t ,7 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 27, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho !� Cucamonga Planning Commission to 'order at 7 :00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, (, California. Chairman Stout then'led in the pledge to the flag~ f ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT; David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, ' Herman Rempel,'Dennis Stout (j COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: bone STAFF PRESENT: Gan ColemW,, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant, Planner; Rick Gomez,,, City .Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Curt Johnston' Associate Planr, � °�7ames Markman, City Attorney, John Meyer, AssisIt Planner, Janice Reynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, announced that Environmental Assessment and Development Review 84 -12, which had been continued from the Planning Commission's meeting of 'March 13, 1985, had -inadvertently been omitted from the agenda; therefore recommended that it be added to tonight's agenda. C01SENT CALENDAR . A. .ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -55 - MESSENGER - Construction 57 a 42,820 square oat concrete tilt-up ui ing for industrial use on 2.49 acres located on the northeast corner of Elm and Eucalyptus Avenue in the Industrial SO�bcific Plan area (Subarea 7, Industrial Park) - APH 208 - 351 -37. b B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -02 -. PEP BO'S - The development of a retai I automotive sales/service department of 21,828 square feet located on the northwest corner,1of'Hellman Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, on approximately 1.97 acres `of land within the General f Commercial Distriet - APN 208 - 632 -046 Motion: Moved by McNio.l, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent. Calendar, PUBLICC HEARINGS C -1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMLNT REVIiW 84 -12 - DAVIS - The dveio meet of apartments on _acres q¢ tan m the Lary -Me zum (4-8 du{ac� and Medium (8 -14 dulac) Res dritiet Districts, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Highway and Etiwanda Avenue - APN 229 - 041 -11. (Continued from march 13, 1985 meeting), Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, advised that the applicant had requested a continuance of this item to the April 10, 1985 meeting. Chairman Stout opened -the public hearing. I, There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Development Review 8412 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, =1,985, C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN0 8 HDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -31.- DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES - e eve ap{S1tt of an integrated shopping center of approximately 118,988 square feet which incl),des- a gasoline service station, as proposed Phan` I and a conceptual :raster plan for Iutdr;�, phases. All on approxir �tely 15-��cres of land in the Neigborhood Commercial ,(NC) District, gener?'fy' ?located on the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Haste Agnoe )�'APH 2O1- 271 -53, (Continued from February 27, 1985 meet .) Dan Coleman, Senior Fanner, advised that the applicant for this item -ad" -- requested a continuance to the April 10, 1985 meeting. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempei, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for EnvirrimentaT Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 84 -31 to the April 10, I9115 meeting. Planningtoamission Minutes -2- March 27, 1985 h Chairman Stout advised that the following items were related an wgvld be heard by the Coronission at one time. D. ENVIRONW- T& ASSESSMENT AN6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT $5- 6I -$1' - TAC -BEY—EL-OP-KENT - A Genera Plan Amendment from *d—im Residential T4:Y4 -, du{ac 57, 4 ",midentiai {24 -30. dulacl. for a senior citizen apartment on 4.7S avr'es of land located on the west side of Amethyst, north project of Igth Street fdPR 201- 232 -24.. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 85 -01 - TAC DEVELOFF M - A Development District amendment from Medium Resi dintial (4- 34 d5 ac to High Residential (24 -30 du /ac) and senior Housing Overlay ` District for a senior Citizen apartment project on 4.75 acres of iand' located on the !west side of Amethyst, north of 19th Street. - APR 201 -232- 24. F. ENVIRONFME34TA1. ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-05 - TAC DEVELOPMENT - The devel apurent of a senior citizen houst ng project totaling apart ent units on 4.75 acres of land in the Media Residential District (privased High Residential /Senior Housing Overlay District) to be located ai the west side of Amethyst. north of 19th Street - APR 201 - 23244. G. ENVIRONMENT?iL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMM NT - TAZ DEVELOPMENT - A � Deve�treetvnt betweea He City Of anc o ,) :�nga and TAG Development Corporation regarding a senior citizen htausing project to be located on the west, ride of Amethyst, north of IM Street - APR 201 -232- 24., r, ' Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. g. James Markman, City Attorney, recommended the following amendments to the Development Agreement: l.f. Target Tend r definition revised to be defined" as an individual wha is 55 years or _gilder, or a married couple one of v;hom is 55 ye,ar5 or older, and al 1 of 44ntxa qualify as low or moderate income persons pursuant to federal HUD'nt:andards. 9. Terse of Agreement revised to contain the provision that the,agreement would expire unless building peragts had not been obtained within three years of the e€fietive. date. a' 10. Restrictions,i on, Mental Units revist ?;d to contain provision that a person(s) not a target tenant may mccupy an apartment unit if he /she occupied said unit with a resident crcaapant who is a target tenant and provides primary physical or economic support to the target tenant. Additionally, the reference . to blood relatives was removed from the subparagraph referring to temporary tenants. 35. Rent Control amended to delete last sentence. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 27, M Commissioner Rempel suggested that the,-expiration timeframe in.subpard;raph`9---• be keyed to occupancy rather thif oirriding permits. i :ar. Markman agreed. and recommended that subparagraph 9 be revised to reflect an expiration date of thdee years from the effective unless a Certificate of Occupancy had been obtained for the entire project Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would like tcrhave a provision for the keeping and maintenance of small pets included in t!ie agreement. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Ir Terry Christensen„ TAC Development, stated agreement with the amendments proposed by Counsel and advised that he, would include ,provisions for the maintenance and keeping of small pets. Commissioner Rempel stated that the size of the proposed multi- purpose room_ was inadequate in providing enough space for residents Dan 'CoT:eman, Senior Planner, advised that this issue was discussed with the Senior Citizens VIP Club and it was their determination that since the applicant was providing occup ats with shuttle bus transportation to the Neighborhood Center, the size of the „recreation building was adequate. Frank Gonzales, 1360 Chapwan, Orange, project architect, stated that the applicant was concerned with adding. a second story to this building because of problems associated ;{ritb stairs or ramps. Wilma Brenner, representative of the VIP Cluj, stated that the Club felt the size of the building is adequate since not all residents would need to meet at one time. She stated, that she ft-1 lt it, was more important t6 give grl:ater' consideration to the living area and to keep the rental cost afford&e to senior citizens. Jeff Hill, 9607 Cameron, Rancho Cucamonga, asked for discussioo regarding the percentage of the units designated for the handicapped and if the units would be wired for connection to the future hospital, �+ Y 4 Buel Anderson, 6526 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga, stated�_rcoTaevns with parking,, drainage, and - affects on surrounding property values Frank Gonzales, project architettt, responded to Mr. Hill's questions by advising that both building codes and the State stipulate the amount of ' handicapped units to be provided in a project and that this project intends to provide more than the,numhex-,of units required. Further, that the developer would make every proOLsipn;p+oss3ble to accommodate the needs,of' the tenants and would research all ala';, *ossibilities. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 27, 1985 kt 444444 ll . r ' � Cal Qua^al, Anacal Engineering, addressed Mr. Anderson's c oncern by advising that- this project would not create any more runoff than what presently o771s. There were no further comments,.therefore the public hearing Iwas closed. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated her request that the maint ance and - keeping of small pets be included in the Development Agreement. Mr. Markman advised that a paragraph 42 could be added which x;kl!jld'state that F, all tenants shall be allowed to keep small pets. He further advised that this provis, °,on could tie lo with the lease agreement to be approved by the City Planner. Motion: Moved by Chitiea 'seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried„ to recommend approval of the TAC Development Agreement to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously °carried, to adapt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment: and General Phan Amendment 85 -01 -8 to the City Council, Motion: Moved by McNiel,, seconded by Chitioa, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending "approval of Development District Amendment 65 -0I ' to the City Council. Commissioner Barker stated that the Development Review 1Rtisolution,: should f1 contain provisions for the installation of panic buttons in the bath♦'' s of the units. _ r� E Commissioner Rempel stated that the recreation building multi- purpose room should contain a minimum of 10 square feel far eac5 unit within the project. He additionally stated that parking spaces:,should be located within proximity to each unit and be assigned. { Mr. Gonzales stated that the developer would be agreeable to these amendments to the Resolution and advised that the parking space assignmeftts' could be keyed to the lease agreements. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea unanimously °carried, to adopt the Resolution recommendfslg approval of Environmental Assessmerki;,. , #.nd__ k Development Review '$5-.01 to the City Council, with amendments to r`gaire installation of panic buttons in unit bathrooms, parking spaces to be assigned and placed in proximity to units, and the multi-purpose room to contain °a srinimum of 10),square feet for each unit. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 852-01 - KANTER - The development of a 45, square foot reta,,l shopping center on .a*.res of land in the General Compercial District located at the :iortheast corner of l Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue - APN 1077- 621 -29, 30, 33. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 27, "i98ti y t .. 1 '..: t Nancy Fong, As; ptani Planner, reviewed the staff report. \ Chairman Stout ope`.ied the public Ka'ring. Gary Kanner, 689 Rosewood, San Dimas- Itated concurrence= with 't,Sp stiff report . _ and resolution. ,r T!. +ire were no- further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner 'Rempel stated that th s was one of the nicest projects to come before the 1'sign Review Committee. Chairman Stout agreed and further st,��ted that very little was needed at the Design Review level to bring the project into conformance with the goals and policies of the City. Motion: Moved by 8arCar, seconded by Rempel, undnimourly carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt;{ the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use PeHiit 85 -31. 8:15 - P °inning Commission Recessed 8 :30 - Punning Commission Reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10349 - ANACAL total`' residential development of 53 singe family ots on net acres \ \of land in the Very Low Residential District (1 -2 du/ac), located west of Sapphire Street, south of Jennet,S , 06- 161 -1, and 1562 -011« 3, Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout referrea`to the rondition requiring the provision of a two level decorative wall such as stucco and slumpstone and advised he could not recall discussion of slumpstone at 'the Design Review Committee meeting. He suggested that the requirement for slumpstone -be stricken from the conditions - - -- Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Tim€ Marquard, 3167 Airway, Costa Mesa, stated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval. Commissioner Barker asked what the square footage and proposed price range would be for the project. ;r i"arquard. *pnl ind that the square, footage would range from 2O F4 to 2500 square feet and would estimate the price a h the nez�,l rhoad_of $175,OOG. - - Planning Ctamlission Minutes -6. March 27, 1985 r Commissioner Chitiea expressed �on�ern With the side and rea, elevations and stated that that they looked very blank in the drawings, li Mr. Marquard replied that the elevations would look dif=ferent when buPt. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that corner elevations or 2 -story elevations with public exposure would be conditioned in the Standard Conditions attached to the Resolution. , The fallowing individuals spoke in opposition to the projec based on concerns with decreasing property values as a result of the p� ject, traffic on Thoroughbred if a through street ArA therefore recommended that Thoroughbred be designed as a cul -de -sac, incr'osed crime, lack of °p visions for front yard landscaping, and compatibilitytith surrounding n2ghb rhood. Jim Anderson 8093 Thoroughbred -- rancho Cucamonga II Al Moracek 0020 Thoroughbred - Rancho Cucamonga Cindy Busey = a048 `thoroughbred - Rancho Cucamonga Cindy Davis - 8037 Thoroughbred Rancho Cucamonga John Bose - 7954 Thoroughbred Rancho Cucamonga John Ball - 7966 Thoroughbred - Rancho Cucamonga Harry Overlock - 7994 Thoroughbred - Rancho Cucamonga Skip Davis - 8037 ihoroughbrei - Rancho Cucamonga John Hazelrigg -- 8079 Thoroq/j hrad - Rancho Cucakonga: Kathleen Sager - 8025 Thorq�ghbred - Rancho Cucamonga Bayne Sager - 8025 Thoroughbred - Rancho Cucamonga Larry Bliss, 6634 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed'Ithe Commission ink r support of the project, Mr. Bliss advised that Thorn 1�hbred is meter carrying street and was intended to eventually ga. thrcu(11. He als.�_ --meted that the residents of Jennet and Rosebud would 'prdhably 71ke to see some of the traffic removed from therm, Streets and not have more) traffic p.laced�on them as a result of making ThorosgE;:, -a cul -de- sac. Cal- Quaral, Anacal Engineering, advised that the street pattern of this project is the same one which was originally approved by the City for the previous applicati,6n. He, pointed out that if the tract had recorded** °" December, it would;be going in with this same street pattern. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Chitiea , atated. that the people on Gardenia and Rosebud probably have the same concerns: as those expressed during the public hearing. She further stated that It was not fair to the residents who live on Rosebud and Gardenia to have all of the traffic routed through their streets to , Turquoise. She stated that she could appreciate t!- concerns expressed, but would'h.Tve to consider the other residents who would also be affected.. Planning Commission Minutes -7- Mar&-_z7,. 1986 t Commissioner Barker stated that the street patterns are the same as when the existing houses, were first built acid are part of an overall design program. He further stated that the existing neighborhood has a S ecific design - °° personality, and it was his opinion that the proposed project is incompatible. Additionally, he was not comfortable with a shift in design styles mid -block and was concerned with the house square footages as Croposed. Commissioner Rempel agreed that Thoroughbred Street has to be a through street and advised that the street would be over the 600 -foot minimsxm limit of for a cul -de -sac, ;additionally, drainage would be a problem if Thoroughbred didn't go through.. He further stated that staff and the Design Review Committee ; could work nth the applicant to comne�up with designs compatible with the surrounding area and address the transition issue and suggested that the first five or six lots on the north and south sides, would make a reasonable transition. Mr. Marquard replied that the color palette could be changed to be m&e compatible with the area, but he would have, a problem with i� redesign. H4 advised the project had been before the various review committees and had met, all of the standards set. Commissioner Rempel stated that,'Ef did not intend that a major fascade change needed' to be accomplished., oniLl that the Design Reviq Co=ittee and staff could work with him on ways Co make the homes on those lots more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Marquard stated that to the west of this project is ono which has gape Code architectural styling, which he considered a major chap J . Further, that he would not be opposed to blending the color palette �� achieve a more Country =4-ad?tional look, but did not feel that new developers should be penalized'-for a small group of homes which already exist in one specific area and be required to redesign their projects. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would prefer to see 10 lots on the north and so -ith sides transition with the existing homes. Rick Gomez, City Plannm2dvised that the Commission might want to include j the rots on Jennet in f-,ti -sr, msitional issue. Chairman Stout advised that he had lived in that area for ten years and that before the Miller and Mayfair tracts were built Gardenia didn't have as much t€ traffic on it either. He advised that the extra traffic on Gardenia is a prebleAm because this area was designed to circulate so that-each one of the east /west streets drains to Sapphire. Further, that he understood and was „ sympathetic to the situation; however, it would be unfair to place all of the traffic on Gardenia and Rosebud and was time that the other streets carry their fair share of traffic to Sapphire. On the compatibility issue, Chairman Stout stated that an attempt could be made to transition this project compatibly with the existing homes so that it has the least impact. HI further stated that he would be in favor of sending the color palette back td the Design Review CmIttee and if and approval could not be made at that level, it should come back to the Planning Commission. ((' Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 27, 1985 3 r i Motion: Muved ^b"empel, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Ne4ative Declaration and adopt the Re olution approving Environmental Assessment ;jand Tentative Tract 10349 with ,€ vis4ans to Planning Division condition",, one to odit slumpstone from th(- aterial to I ;h used on the wall,, and an added, condition .., requiring the first` lots north used south on Thoroughbred and teat lots on t Jennet to provide= architectural,, transition. These designs are 11 .0 be approved by the Design Reviel Committee prior to issuance of building Pedamits.; Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA,e STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE cartied Commissioner Barker stated that he voted No because of the intransigent attitude of the developer %_Oake architectural changes necessary to awake the tract compatible with "e eXiisting homes. OLD BUSINESS J. POLICY DETERMINATION FOLLOW -UP - DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA�FOR OF77SITE- LOADING LI _ John Meyer,. Assistant Planner, rp�'4wed the staff report. Kevin Flynn, 1320 San Bernardino Road, Upland, addressed the Comission on behalf of Royal Creations. Mr, Flynn advised that the facility as it currently exists is not useful for off -site loading facilities as required by Ronal Creations. 3 The Commission directed staff to work with the railroad companiOs to see what options could be developed into a policy direction for use throtighout special locations in the City. NEW BUSINESS K MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -03 - 6ABRIC - Development of 160 parking spaces with full improvements on Parcel .1 of Parcel Map 6194, located south of 7th Street, between Haven and Utica avenues within Subarea 6 of the Industrial Arei:Specific Plan - APR 209 -411 -002. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. J C -9 Nathan Leanse, 4presenting the applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the Haven Avenue Overlay and how it affects this project. Tonislav Gabric gave an rvie"f the project; .,' aim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns,with problems which would be created for ether parcels in the area, if this proposal was approved. He cautioned that once the costly imororements are mie to the 4 building, it would more than likely not revert back to a d 3tribution use., Notion:- Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, that staff be directed to deny Minor Development Review 85 -03, b,ised on concerns regarding safe pedestrian access, affect of the _proposal on adjacent parcels, and concerns that the use may be permanent rawher =than temporary. L. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA - SRW9t VILLAGE - A conceptual development plan for Victoria Sroves Village, a VZ.5 acre portion of the Victoria Planned Community, located op, the te=st side of Milliken -- Avenue, _ south of Highland Avenue and north of the Pacific Electra railroad tracks - APN 202- 211 -13 38, 40, 41 and 202221 -27. Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, Jim Bailey, 8540 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, urgsd7 a pproval so that the project could proceed. The Commission expressed appreciation to the appUctnt for their cooperation in the development of the area plan. Motion:. Moved .by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously citried, to adopt the Resolution approving the -Area Development Plan far Victoria Groves Village. 1, i M. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE MENDkENT 85 -01 - An amendment to the Rancho cucamonga Development Cooe, TM E-17-7 7 the Municipal Code, regarding Master Plans. �+ Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the- staff report and advised that additional language had been ,74ded to the proposed Ordinance which would clarify the variable product types which could be used in a master plan. The Planning Commission directed staff to place this .item o the, next available agenda for public hearing. The general coasensus of the Commission was that the language added to the Oedinance was unnecessary. Planniag Commission Minutes -10- March t&' Lgas ADJ�: 1 " Motion, %ved by Re pel, seconded by Barker, iananimo carried, to adjotrn. 11 :0 Plan,tina.,C ani r*!,Adaqurne+f, n �p.m. Respti'u11 "y s6bsaitted,� Rick Gomez, Dey�ty Secretary Planning Commission Minutes`: March , IW, r= ,: ;, 0 — C1 :'Y OF RANCHO GUC MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, ' 1985!! ` �> L977 TO: Panning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara iCrall, Assistant: Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7902 located ori-the south side of iii l son. Avenue, easy: Side of Maynerry Avenue Background The tentativ2 Parcel Map\tis initialler apprgved by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1983 for the standar`'d 2 -year period until May 11, 1985— The applfv ant has not, as yet, completed the requirements for recording i-ne Final Map and is, therefore, requesting a one yeair extension of the approval period until May 11, 1986. The initial approval was in conformance ' with the existing zoning at that time (R-1- 20,000), and is a mirror, image of tht- recorded Parcel Map 5793 located immediately adjacent on the west side of 'Hayberhy Avenue. The'--parcel configuration does not conform to the current Development Designation (Low - Medium 4 -8 du /ac) which was adopted in December 1982. However'., the Planning Commission, or March 13, 198;1, did direct staff to prepare General Plan Amendment to fddes,Agnate this area to Very Low 1 -2 dLr /ac. The requirements for the Very Low designation are similar to those fer 'the previ ,)us R -,' .1000, but not precisely the same. The parcels as "shown on this tentative & not conform ta_the nr000sed Very Low designation as follows: 1. net average area is 21,257 square feet versus 22,500 re,41red. A shortage of 1,243 square feet and 2. Parce's 1, 2 and 3 have a depth of 135 feet versus 150 feet required. Therefore, if the area is rpdes#gnated to Very Low and the applicant fails to record the Final'Mop wit ;n the approval period, a variance would be required for a new submittal containing the same parcel configuration. RE: )MENDATIOH 17% project conformed to the zoning` at the time of the initial approval and =_ c generally conforms to the proposed Very tiow designation, therefore, staff recommends approval of the time extension. i Res ectf 1 subm #i }� , I r. ��3 I(t_A Ljj JP r TT 10827 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMf3WjA P M. 10:2 ENGINEERING DIVISION � 4. 19n \ > Vl NIT'' MAP page __ MSwietlY b /let,wiwar OUe.MabGiy G4+M7Y W tCC�ECRN�ptbp', EYiTCaf? 4.41FQ \µ{ti+;+iZ6T ft 1}1yt{ C C �� TENTATIVE MAP PARC L MAP 7902 aiala�la ®�11,� � ®�10Y �I�a iP�fPTtAft inP Cwt. 1141�A�a1 i \MtR7vtti.EM. .,/, y-�J7ntcnw•!a . 6ES 19$" . r.ert�wsa rae: L+�nI la+.a anew cNq+c r e�5'w�"irR f � �pw�. cys _ e � t 1m3ib RLVtp: �R +4T. - Y /Nwb�ey.l!.wN1e. mtlnw .. ZNIwP.- ..elMaww 1tf 111 'Y tYlat mam•a1aE i, � P'Y�- 6f7=s�i+937hYyo -� PLA }t% h 1x 9440 1 � � fir. ��✓^�✓. * `• '� � , �� F . i (. CteLY,wa 4%: v42aNT. f � � � �YalmYna¢abMC: YMa4bre �.• Pct. r. „��. !tart arrwwak: Y sa[: xgo.e v Y_ aVn Yw�x�a�l��ds�.eq+auc . Y i. °• � iUTtuTY�C6M N ts� , D 1 R11Y +.WGi �ibtwtt6 YYti{ /a.9 �d6 1b. JY Yams t!:.ea:.• 7 - -. i r,aon.ma maa.. RSkDhRai. YRiOG . 4 i If � c r q� 7z c t 1 s , N4 ' V \((nom� CITY OF RANCHO CUCA7v1ONGA. STAFF` REPORT` DATE May 11, 1983 •n c3 > .. c ;9. TO Planning 66in ksion FROM; : i.loyd B:' Hubbso ity Engineer „ BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Tecfirtl`'cian SUBJECT: EN9IRa into ENT SSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7902 � LING - A division of parcels wit m the K-I one todated on the south side of Wilson y ue at Mayberry Avenue APM 202 -181 -60 I. PROJECT AND SITE DrSCRIPTIdN: A. ;fiction Requested: To divide 2.37 acres into 4 parcels.` ' " ( '8. Location: South side of Wilson Avenue east side of Mayberry avenue. t '� ,\C. Parcel Size: Tarc6l I -- 20,220 s.f. i" Parcel 2 - 20,OW s.f. 3 Parcel' 3-- 20,000 s.f. Parcel -4 - 25,0 s.f. j D. �PxistinI MhW R -I- 20,000. E. Existing `Land Use: Vacant. F. Surrou nding Land Use and Zoning: I ;forth - R-1, , )7 South - R- 2. /P.D East - R -1, 20 000 West,, R -I, 20,000 , G.:'0eneral Flan Designation: North -Very ow - FTUT i South Low medium: 4 -8 a du / '\ J 1� East - Low medium 4-8 du %ac West - Low medium 4-8 dB /ac !I H. Site Characteristics: ,.The project site is presently vacant and slopes approximately < rom nryrth to south. `k if h j! b� P '1 PLANNING COWISSION ST REPORT { Environmental Assessme and Parcel Map 7902 - Ling _ Flay 11, 1983 Page-2 II. ANALYSIS This map-,.is the easterly continuation of a previously approved parcel map of simil¢ ;:.design. The side yard „slopes; as shown.on tine attached „conceptual grading plan will be contoured to provide a more natural appearance Drainage from Mayberry Avenue will be directed to the :14 inch drainage pipe, being constructed by the property owner to the west. Mr.,Sranger, the property owner to the west will provide the street improvements for the west half of Mayberry Avenue and the 24 inch storm drain ,pipe in connection with his Parcel Map No. 5795. ' A community trail is required for Wilson Avenue, along with a ten foot feeder trail an this east property line. '3 e` III.' ENVIROMMENTAL RZVIEW _ ' r , Also attached Ora �yout iew and considerate dkis Part I of the Initial Study a, comple .by ' 'tot applicant. Staff has °completed Part II of the Initial Study,. h environmental checklist, and has conducted a yield' investgation. upon completion t.nd review of the Initial Study and field o' investigation, Staff found n adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. E AAL IV. CORRESPONDENCE - Notices of Public Nearing. have been sent to, surrounding properly owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECiENOATION j It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider al `input and<< elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the C- )Ty- -- Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued r Respectful. 5t; m 1ttA1, m { Attachments: Map Resolution i U City Engineer's Report _ Initial 'Study _ eESOtfitION to. 83 -64 , A RESOLUTION' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF D RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAPNPMBER 7902 (TENTAIME PARCEL MAP' NO. 7902,) LaP TED,�O THE' SOUTHSIDE OA` WILSON AVENUIu`AT MAYBERRY AvcNGE u ` WHEREAS,,Teotative Parcel Map .Number 7902, submitted by John Ling and consisting of 4 parc {gs, located on the southside of Wilson Avenue at Mayberry { 6� Avenue -i being a division of a portion of the northeast 1/4, Section 26, T. 1 W., R. 7 W., S.B.M.; and l WHEREAS, on March 13, 1983, a formal application was submitted l requesting review of the above- described Untati_ve Map; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 1983, "the Planning Commission held a duty ad vertised public hearing for the above - described map. . NOW, THI:REFOnE, THE RANC140 CUCAMONGA PLANNIi1J COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is, consisteq,- th �,be General Man. 2. That the improvement of the proposed sub' ivision is „ consistent with the General Plan. 3. ._ �';lt the site is physically suitable for the fr Oopose'.d development. 4!r 'Chat tale proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage,, public health problems ov have adverse affects on abutting i` Property. 1 SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant' adverse env ionmen' al impact and a Negative Declaration is isstied on MAY 11: 1983. SECTION 3 That Tent at -ve Parcel Map No. 7902 is approved subject to . the recom+nen ed gndizions of Ap,roval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED IS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1983. _ PLANNING COMMISSION/9' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o ;� \t rman Rempe , Chaxrm .. i Resolution No. 8364 ` Page Z - 4 ATTEST• �-- cretary o the anal Cor+anI5stor! I, JACK LAM, ,,Secretary of . 'the PP110ning Commission of 'the City of RancW Cucamonga, do hereby certify at tI- fertgoing Resolution was duly sand regularly introduced, Rassed, a adoRted- by the' Planning Comniss'ton of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a r qu eting of the Planning Commf`ssift held on the filth day of May, 1:983,, by t o\ I g vote -to -w zs AYES: COMMISSIONERS! MCNI'EL, ER,'STOUT, REMPEL' NOES: COMMISSIONERS. - �\�WONE l SENT. COMMISSIONERS: 4UAREZ I s L 4 pp F } y � A t �s J' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOlWNDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: Southside ' of Wilson between TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7902 Haven and Hermosa DATE FILED.* March 132 1983 LEGA1. DE:aCRIPTIO4;A portion of the northeast NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 .114, Section 25, T.1 W R.7 "W.., SOM GROSS ACREAGE: 2.37 s , A5SE5SdR PARCEL NO. 201- 181 -60 DEVELOPER OWNER " EXINEWSURVEYOR John & Rina L ng _ J' _s` �/ `�� J. M. ' Wilson 13235 Reservoir /f`''� 387 H. Second Street Chino, CA 91710 0_ /'� Upland, CA 91786 " Im,rsrovnt and dedication rere��nts in accordance with Title S of the�� Municipal Code of the City of c+xo Cuc ga include, but mW aot be limited to, the following: Dedications ' and Vehicular Access Q- 1. Dedications shall be made. of all, interior street rights -of -way and ' ail necessary_ea tints as shown oo the tentative map. �! i X Z. Dedication �s6ail be made of the,- zcllowing rights -of -way on:. the following streets,, 30 feet on_Wla�r' errs additions ep1 f e on— Wilson tnc udes 11 right ofrary-' > and 91 easement for cor.umty trai 1. X 3, Corner property fine radius will be required per City Standards 24 moot radius. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access eauements and' maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all commcus roads, drives or parking areas shall be, provided by C.C.'&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with V* map. A. 3 " n X 6. All existing easements lying within futurit right =of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map! per City4_ ngineer *s requirements. I -- 7. Easemants for sidewalk for public use sh� 11 be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through priva{e proper. 1 Surer ! X 1. Surety shall ba posted and an agrepe nt executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Citi Attorney., guaranteeing completion of the public , improvements prio� to reco;d'% 2. A lien agreement mus executed prior �o recording's the map for `\ the following: X 3. Surety= shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of aK on -site drainage f ilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfacti n of the Building and Safety 'Divison prior to recording. O - Street Improvements ursuant to the City of Ranh 'Cucamonga Municipal 'G de , Title 16,' Section 16.36.120, the subidiver may h�� r int,-:. an agreement an pcist security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to cbrdation of the map and /or building permit issuance, r 1. Construct full street improvements includi g, but not limited to, curb and gutter, R.C. pavement, sidew k, drive approaches! parkway trees and street lights on all ini�M icr streets. i X 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all h!k1 €- section streets; ry X 3. Cg(iltruct the following missing improvementi4 Prqs_ to recordation. z Street Name r Gutter . . Pvmt. e- Wank Drive IRE. StrEet Trees Street Li hts 10veriky W tan Island* Other Wilson Mayberry X_ X X X X X X X X j X —1 Q r *Includes landscaping and irrigation or meter ! a k/0 n L t � hi iii X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the Ooblic right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from i the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits-- required. ` X 5. Sheet improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil. F Engineer and approved. by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit, X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where. necessar.,y, pay for the reloca".`lon of any power poles or other (misting pubtic utilities r as necssary; ! X 7. Existing 'lines of 12XV or�i� >s frontirig ti?e property s1 be undergrounded. X 8. Install apdv- opriate street n signs, traffic control signs, striping- ono markings with loc ions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as req iced, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Light?t shall be on decorative poles with underground service, 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross side�ialks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. ry Drainage and Flood Control X 1. Private Drainage easements to connect drainage pipe 'across private property adjacent to parcel 4 shall be required. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made"for acceptance and disposaY of surface draina � entering the 'property from adjacent areais. - - -� X 3. the fallowing Zrainage pipe shall be instal"ked to the satisfaction of the Building Official;, provide on -site ti .'linage inlet and pipe to�ionnect to storm drain from adjacent property to parcel 4, 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the proje ^.t, shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review, 5. A drainage detention_ basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased': runoff h i y ff/ 4 \ Grading X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance witt the / uniform Building Code, City Grading Standard% and accepted grading practices. the final grading plan shall be in' substantial qW conformance with the approved conceptu %l grading plan; X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work„ 3. A geological report shall' be prepared by a qualifiet'engineer cr geologist and submitted at the time of application or'grading plan check. 4« The final grading plan shall be subject to review and Approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior tq fecordation Of' th(q final subdivision neap or issuance of building permit whichever comes first.. X 5, final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division forapproval prior to issuance of building permit. X 6. All slope banks in excess of fivi (5) feet in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope., shall be seel?h with native grasses upon completion of grading '0 some other . a,Cternative, method or erosion control si)ail be completed to the sa �fpttion of the Building Official And City Planner, irrigation -shall be provided to germinate the seed and w.aintain growth for a period of.0 months afer gerirination. X 7. On -site improvements, neca falry "dewatering or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that my be subject to, or con*—,-ibutes to drainage flows entering,;1eaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested'. General;Tequirements and ARprovais X 1,. permits from Other agencies will be required asifoliows; CalTrans for -- San Bernardinb County .00 ontro District :'FX C;.icamorIO County Plater District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust .Abatement (required prior to_ issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions - approved by the City Attorney is required, prior to recordation of the map: ` X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sefferage, water, electric porter, gas and telephone y,,�ior to street constructon. '� fl X 4. Say itary sewer and water systems shalt be designed to Cucamongs County Water. District standards. A letter of acceptance is y required, 8. is subdiviston shall bi suh %r; L w-- Onditions,,o: apptioval frCm___ � ��alTransfSarvl rnardino County flood Control District. k 6. 'Approvals have not been secured front all .uti,L4 �^L and other . t interested agencies involved. Approval of the s.:rrrar ^'map will be 0 srbjectto any requirements that may be rneived from them. X 7. The filing of the tentative reap or" approval of same does rat guarantee that sew4r "treatment capaxity will be available at the time builds permits are requested,. mien buiidfng permits are; the requested,. Cucamonrla County- Wa r District will be asked to � certify the availabii f4 of cap l;iy. Farmits will not be :issued unless said certification is recPd in ^,writing. X S. Local and Master Planned Trails shat! be provided in `4ccoK4 nce with the "Trail Plan. A detailed trail.- plaa'indicatirig � dths, maximum slopes, physi>ral conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and , approved by the City filinner prior ta` building permit issuance for individual lots. f7 9. Prior to record3'g; a deposit shall be posted with the. City covering the 6i-imated cast of apportioning the assessatents under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly.�created parcels. X 10. At the, time of final map - submftta,l, the, fallowing,: shall be �. submitted; Traverse calculations {sheets),, copies of recorded 4 ps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land r: division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X li. Cont side yards slopes to provide more natural appeeranne. X 12.. Approval of Grading Committee s�- �*ct to conditions ds 1v3lows: a. compliance with Rancho Cucamonga. Standard Drawing too. 808 for Lot 1; No. 805 for Lot 2 and=3; and ft. 81(l, for Lots 2, 3 4. b. obtain drainage easement froo adjacent property owner to the south for discharge from streiat Arid parcel 4. X 13, A ten foot easement for trail purposes shall bt� provided along the ' — east property line of the parcel rasp. CrTY ]OF R `` klG !l691 " i i JYO SF A;sil�Ja by.* Q fir. (J yJ qqq .w RESOLUT -16 FCC . ' A RESOLUTION OF TKE RANCHO CUCAMONGk PLANt.1"y.,,4,'"iSSION. APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP1.1902, WHEREAS, a request 'has been ,�tiled� fo b a time `j extensian foie the - above- described project; pursuant to Section iwaOl,ti.2 of Ordinance 28 -8, the Subdivision Ordinance, and i WHEREAS, the Plana Ong Commission condf;ionally ;'approved the -y above - described tentative parcel map an May 11, 190. SECTION 1: ` The Rancho. ucamonga Flan0ing Commission has made the following?ngs: A. The previously approve�,� T-ntatt,:* t4ap was ; in substantial compliance with t#e CitYcs General Plan, . Specific Plan, Ordinancest Mans, Codes and.Palicies, anti, i 8, The extension of the Tentative 7180 _.will 'nao��4 5 it significant inconsistencies,wit the `prono�-ed General!_ „ Plan Amendment; and \ C. The extension' of the Tentative " ap is not likely tn, , i cause public health and safety problems,,and, D. The extension is within theiZ me limits p�escribe�--,V state law aad local .ordinance. -" cr SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga; Planning'`Commission hdreW grants a time extension or: �> Parcel Map _'jpR-licant " Expiration 7902 ` «-- John Ling Ma; 11, 1986 APPROVED AND AbOPTEO THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 1955. -. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - BY: Dennis L. Stout,, Chairman -.. r .ATTEST: , Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary. -Y OF RANCHO CUCAMOINGA -T $TAFF REPOR 19 5 1977 DATE.: Aorli 1 4 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plannin�t, Commis�iovi'�� FROM- Rick Gomez, J,.City Planner BY: Lisa A. Wininger, Assistant Planner, SUBJECT: REVISION OF ANNIfAL GENEWL PLAN AMENDMENT HEARING DAITS 1. BACKGROUND: 1—� 1979, the Qty Council� approved a Resolution based on thF recow.,eMation of, tN6 Planning Commission to establish tWC� hearing dates (January and September) per calendar year for'General Plan amendment hearings, At that time�,.,State law alllo�ed a-'maximuW of three hearings per year on any el6oent, of, the, General. Plan� State law has since been"amended-to.,allow for a maximm of fouv. hearings per year� Voncurrently$ tbe'lrequency oF applications for f- TL General Plar� amendments� in the City has increased sign,jica.tly since 1979. Therefopew staff has prepared 4 revised sch`�6"'o which alla#s for three sche4v-led heartng, dates -and one floating date which may be utilized ad 6�tessary.. jbe proposed hearing dates and subaiittal,,,deadlines are as follows.- First Hearing Date- Second Planning Commission Toesting in January. Submittal, deadline November 15. Se.cond Hearing Date: Second Planning Commissiorr in aj.- Submittal deadline -,March"15. Tkiird Hearing Date,. Second Plar�ning Commission meeting in September. SubmittaJ deadline July Is. Pourth Hearing Date: Scheduled'on an as-needed b�_is by�the Planning Commission If a proposed General Plan amendment requires an M, the c� application czd EIR would be reviewed at,tbe next scheduled hearing, date after completio�'of the EIR. ITEM 8 4 RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANKNG COWISSION OF THE CITY OF* ` RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING REVISION TO ' ,CUCAMONGA, THE ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT HEARIN r RTES' WHEREAS „;date 1a a allows citities eta amend any element, of Plan 4aximum four Mmes -amid � � the General of per,year; F� mai WHEREAS, the Planning Cassion has considered the need �t for a revised General Plan. Amendment hearing schedule for land use � element amendments; sand WHEREAS, the Pl'anni'ng Commmissiotiti wishes to prbvide the public an opportuni >ty to regaest 'a Genera l Plan Amendmeli Oblic ”, hearing on a timely basis. ` NOW, THEREFORE,' BED' IT RESOLVED that ;the City Of - Rahrhol Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend to tha City of Rancho `Cucamonga City Council the establishment'off revis62L Gei#ro Plan Amendment 'heariiig Elates and deadlines for submittal for land, use amendments as follnws'a °� SECTION 1. 'Beginning 10. the .calendar yeyr 79852 A. The 2nd meeting of the .Planning C05W- tssion,'in the month e January shall, be established as, a General : Plan (hndment hearing date.. 'the dedli`ne' for submittal shall be no later iegi 5:00+ p,m.. on November 1:5.. B. The 2nd meeting "of 'thg Pianning'Commission 1,11 May shall be established as, a General Plan Amendment hearing date. The deadline for ,submittal shall be no later tha,7 5:00 p.m. on March 15. ` C. The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission `in F September shall be established °as a General Plan Amendment hearing date. The deadline for submittal shall be no later than July 15. ' additional meeting of CoR�iss ton D. ra Plan per calendar year Tray be scheduled as A General Amendment hearing date when deemed necessary "on a date acceptable to the Planning Commission.' . SECtIOk 2: In the event an Environmer,W Impact Report is required prior to Planning Coommissiom review of a General Plan Amendment application, said hearing s"hall be held` at the next scheduled General Plan Amendment date after 'completion of the Draft" EIR. �7 r a1 APPROVED AND AJOPTEd THIS 24th DA Y OFl /��Rli , 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH &� "4 MGA Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ? `� �M c 4 ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy S6, etarY. -> I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of ',the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho .Cucamonga, do hereby certify tttat the foregoing,Recuiution "iaP duly and regularly introduced, passed:, ,nd adopted by the Planning Coonission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga] at ; ^eqular meetsng of the Planning ':Commission helm or the 24th_,day of A OY, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES, COyMISSIONERS. .� .;NOES °.. COMMISSIONERS: RSENic COMMISSIDaERS> \ F `..Rk CITY OF RANCHO = CUCAMONGA � p STAFF REPORT .A � - � • �fi. DATE: IjApril 24, 19•Q5 TO: ) /Members. of the P1 fining Co�s�,on FROM t Rick Game z, City )�ner BY: Howard L. ,fields Pr SUBJECT: EUVIRONMENTAL MSESSME0% FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -08 AAA - The construction of 6 one and two =s'o� ry garden office buldirxJs an 8.5 acres located on the southeast corner of Aspen Avenue and Laurel'Street in the Industrial Park Distri.ict (Subarea 1) - APN 208 -351 =024. ra I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A., Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Deciaratian.. B. Se7elopme6t of 6 one and two -story garden o €fife build'ings.t C. Location: SouVieast corner of Aspen Avenue and Laurel Street. i D. Parcel Size: 8.5 acres < E. Existing Zoning: " Industrial Park (Subarea 7). F. Existing Land Use: Industrial G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant, Industrial Park South Vacant, Industrial Park ° East - Vacant, Industrial Park '. West County Latin and Justice Center (under construction), - I,ndustrial Park ,y - l H. General Plan Designations: x Project Site Industrial -Park North - Industrial Park South - Industrial. Park'` East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park AUk 4 ITEM y.. 1 Planning Commission Staff Report Development RdView 85 -0$ 1r April 24, 1985 - Page #2 /r I. ;Site Characteristics: The project site is an irregular shaped parcel that gently slopes to t�e " south at r approximately 2% grade= and<. Is existing T,: -�, eels and utilit j's extending to the site. ;} U.; ANAI.'YSIS; A. Generl , The project proposal is..Iotated in the Rancho--, 'Cucamohgaof�aBusiness Park and envisions 6 one and two -story officelpressi on, l 'buildings having a traditional style of Major` features of the s -ita plan include z_ urchitecture. rge central open space area, expanded plaza entry in front of all buildings, pedestrian orientation, linkages to the parking lot, and the remainder of the site being devoted to a circu'iar barking lot having the proposed buildings situated dung' the perimeter. Three building designs, Exhibit "E" are proposed with each elevation to be repeated twice. This review is for environmental assessment - only, and the City Planner will approve the project "with conditions should a Negative Declaration be issued. - B. Environmental Assessment. »Part I of the Initial Study has tteen completed by the applicant. Staff ,completed the Environmental Checklist and determined tit po,significant O,nvironmentat impact will occur as a result of this "project, therefore issuance of a Negative [Declaration would b appropriate. III. RECOt'IMENDATION: If the Planning Commission concurs with the Environmental 4ssessment. then issuance of a Negative Declaration would,be appropriate. Resrectful'ly.,S$mitted, ick ity Planner: �i RG aiF: cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "Bu - Site Utflization Exhibit "+C" - Site Plan _ Exhibit "D" - Landscaping Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan Initial` Study, Part II rte' a t i s /1 �� z r y i s /1 �� z I o rf �� oz 0 ilk.! _ LLJ r 11 r1n, 11 N3 •,i ii life �� .�" � �, s '' IN l►iI��F�k�Uit —� ,/' ill 111M, U o p y 6 Z CL `` )� L x i j ' z: 1 2b.dF "M Ah � s yam, r� MI-PW t� r � 1 F F ' J � • L�iw,. f' a,� •fir► «,; r... �ia.. T I 8_1 ?lssnf c� +d !•-Q- zd:ia itF4 Sf.. . :f -w� bd�db�4; Z G3 -r i AN Y ; jlj s tr yy s °' VIC- � � "K � ! ., is .� :• � ` *_- -•_. JKV tl /sue A4 P6 ,. _... ^ (: fir-",.. —•• _-t :��i�f �� )) CITY OF RA`iC�b CUCAgdNGA - VART Ii - I23ITIAL STrIDX F"iRCNMMNTAL CHECKLIST j DATE: 7• :L- k APPLIC•iA`I:_iORrU FILI:iG DATEt NUMBER: PROZECT Lor Cs`::SoC � C. E:3vI1111' ENTAL IHFACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybes; answers are sheets). re��f3zred,,,ozi attached DES RkYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology, bill t"he proposal have ` signiiicant-resul sin: :. a. Unsttbie ground conditions or in changes in gealogic relationships?' . b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? LZ c. .Change in toporraghp or ground surface Cs contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any 'unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase is #rtd or water � li erosion of sails, affecting either on or off site Canditons ?,! (, r, f• Changes in erosion siltation, pr deposition? t S• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud - 1 - n ` slides, ground failaTe, pr'similar hazards? � h. An i ncreacn in the rate•of extractitio and /or �- use,pf any mineral resource? 2. FiydroloQy: {Fill the proposal have significant r, o ry Page 3 i YE5 -kYB£ : \0 a.. Changes in currents -,'or the course -of' direction.- Of flowing streams, rivers,'or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, the rate or a d runoff':' amount of surface water" f c. Alterations to,the course or flow, of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteratlon,of ''ty? surface water cue f. Alteration of groundwater char<;ateristics? g. Change in the qua ; -Atity of groundwaters, either throiigh �ti_ect additions or with - drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality ?` Quantity? _ h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available fur public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water„ related hazards such asflooding f or seiFhes? 3. Air Qual ,;v,_, Will the proposal have significant results in: �� a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. 'Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable *% ait quality standards? \ c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? - -" --- -4e- 4. Sieta > Plor„a. Will the proposal have significant results r, c. a. Change in the charactesistics ` of speciess,. !. including diversfty, distribution, or number .`; Of !ny species of,plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare ar endangered species of ;plants, •� �� age 1) =1 YES MAYat \Q r c. Introdnction of new or-disruptive species of plants into an area ?,% d. Reduction in the potential for t a rice g Ural production? Fauna. ;Till the proposal'have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, ` inclining diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction[ of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ y/ U c. `Introduction of new or disruptive species of-_, ' animals into an area, or result in a barrier, to th�Oigratioa or movement of animals? / a d. Deterioration or removal of existing lisi or wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will the�'roposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alte� {the location, distri bu"tion, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? - b. Will the z 0 p p oral affect existing housing, $, nr create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio -E aii zactors. 1i Will the proposal have significant results in;' -- a. Chant-- ,in local 6r regional socio- economic characteristics, includ1mg economic or cormercial diversity, tax rate, and property "''values? " ~ .� b. 'Will - project costs be equitably distributed amoig beneficiaries, project i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and P13nninz Considerations. Will the proposal have significant reW —is in? a. A rubc,tantial 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 entitles? µy'' c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing non -c_ tsumpes e %'' recreational opportuhi-ties? �,�•l. ) , i _ i P. g ge L YES 11AY3E VQ i $. Transcartation -, Will the proposal have significant results in: _ a. G _ movement? j j " b b+ E Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? C* E Effects'on existing paring facilities, or demand, for new parking? d. S Substantial impact upon existing transporta�- tion systems? e. A Alteaations to present patterns of circula- ticn a'r movement of people and /or goods? f. A Alterations to or effects on present and potential water - borne,. rail, mass transit or air traffic? a a g. I Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, / bicyclists or pedestrians? Y / Y 9_ cultural Resources. VITA the proposal have significant results in: a. A A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, f f Paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results;in:; a. c creation of any health hazard or pa;tential health hazard? i i. b. E Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances isz the event of f'� accident? % % d. A An increase in the number of individuals or species:,of;vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. I Increase in existing noise levels? 4 4 f. E Exposure of people to potent ally dangerous noise levels ? , , Ci g g. T T#e creation of objectionable odors? h. A An increase in light or g�j ara? r r i // ;7,F1 ` ,t o Fagg S • YES YMBE :IQ 11. Aesthetics, Will the proposal have signif #cant AdIk results i- a• 'The eb,":ruction or degradation o£ any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive J site? r c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic.corridors? 12. Utilities and "Public Services.- Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? / c. Communications sysxems? d. Water Pp Y u 1 $ / e. Wastewati\r facilities? l f. Flood control structures? g. ,Solid waste facilities? d% 'h. F3.Fe "protection? k i. Police protection? % E" J. schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1• Hainz�znance of public facilities, including / roads a� flood control facilities? 4ther4o.ernmental services? ' 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will tht proposal M i have sigrificant results in: ai"' use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? f/P 1 Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in "the demand for development of new sources of energy? b _ d. An increase or perpetustion of the consumption ' of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible ,r renble sources of energy are available ?j+` Page 6 e. Sutx�tantial deiletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural "resource? 14. Mandatory Pindinns of Sia�3ficance, a. bees the project:1ave the potential to degrade the quality of the eivironzent, substantially redcce the habitat of fish or'wTlEliie species, se a fish or wildlife population to drop cause below self sustaining levels, threaten to eli-linate a plant fir animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elitcit1 t important examples of the major periods of Cal;Cfornia histary or prehistoLy? IX b. Does the pro;;ret have the potential 60 achieve shr\rt -term, tit the disadvantage of lbnaa term, environmental goals? (A short - term"impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively y brief, definitive period of time while long, tern impacts will ene;ure veil into the future), c. bob:$ the project have-'Impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the Incremental effects of an indiviuual project are considaratxie when vie.re' ° in connection, with the Past effcts of and probable future project' � projects s }. > ✓ d. D4; es the project have environmental. effects which will cause substantial adverse effects On bamaa beinsrs either dYrectly:or;indirettly? II. DISCUSSIoM "0P M, T?t0%.tW'M rAi. ESTAI VA" Z-4 Questio ("e" of affirmative answers to tfie above ns plus .a discussion of proposed uitiga`an measures). f �� -•;.mac -- �„�'.�'a' `�.��.�� <; , i t ra ti Faze 7 ITT, DtTLR4n Ndt11r1S . On hye basis ot'this initial evaluation: ;l Mind the proposed project CpULA nT i�tre a stgnificati: Pffect �- the envtronmrnt. and a N£CATIV£ will l l l _ be p�epared.. I find that although, tha proposed project could have a significant r effect or,,the emriranmzttt, there will not be a significant effect in this case because t.n mitigation m6asures describe, on an attached sheet have bee_ added to the project. A (tkTIVE' DECLARATION WILL BE PIMP,,M- D. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effQct on the envirnmentx ,And an E%VZRO`3 T DHPACT REPORT is required. �V�) Date i�: l ' F Sr Ssgu ure \� .Title tr- ..�..�... � l i t a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIAONGA � STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 19851 TO: Chairman and Members o� '- Plannirg Commissioh FitJM: Rick Gomers City Planner ? BY: Dan Cols-Aan, Senior PTA�nner �((' ^` \ SUBJECT: ENVIR6h NTAL ASSESSRMT AND 'DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -12 UAVIS - The development of apartmonts on 27.79acres oT-7and in the Low,Mudium (4 -8 du /ac) and Medium (8 -14 dulac) Residential Districts located on the northeast corner of Arrbw' Hi^hway and Etivianda Avenue— APN 229•:041• ; 11 (Continued from March 13, 1985). o 1. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 13, 1485, continued this em for the applicant to phepare ;t liaise study analyzing sounljj attenuation inside and outside �,of the apartments. The applicant retained the services of Gordon'Bricke►t & Associates, consulting acoustical engineers, to 'prepf.� the attached acoustical analysis. Based upon the mitigation 1,kasures proposed by the acoustical engineer, the applicant has reposed the: site plan as shown in the attached Exhibit "B -1". II. ANALYSIS: A summary of the findings of the acoustical report;'4s conta ni in the beginning of ''the report, including a list e, recommendations and requirements: The sport concludes that the site is exposed to current and projected high noise levels brtause of the high percentage of trucks generated F h indastrial users in the area. The report also concludes that the Am;�ronl,pliant to the >southwest requires no ,peci;tl mitigation ;bdcausej strut noise levels Would mask Ameron's site noise on tle avP;t`age,,even at night. However, Robert. Riley, Ameron, testified a " - -6e laR"i public hearing that the Ameron plant has not been oper4Jng w,,thir -•:the last fifteen months in the northeast corner of th'ir;, site, T therefore -noise iryels indicated ,n the report would be!less than y, coul&—Ptcur. ,tJ EXTERIOR NOISE: Basically there are three options aciilable to aohiey'o the needed noise reduction in exterior open space areas: 1. Redesign the site so that the garages are pui q' the perimeter and buildings are rearranged such that c ea space areas have bdildings interposed- between the stree, and the open apace, or D t� I . o a - CITY' ur R 1UNki h �VGAMONGA STAFF R&,:'t IZT f) DATE• April 24 I9B5 f T ^. Cfrman and HembE;rs of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner _1 BV: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -1 DAVIS - one dtivelopmenE of 328 apartments on z .l�f dMDs f" ind in the Low Medium (4 -8 du/ac) and Medium "(8-14 I dulac) Residential Distr?,cts locate4 on the northeast corner of Arrow Highway and"Etiwanda Avenue - AW229 -043- 11 (Continued front March 131 1986). C`.1 I. BACKGROUND: De Planning Commission.-, at its meeting of March _�3y, Ikea this item for the applicant to 'prepare a noise study analyzing sound attenuation inside-and outside of the apartments. The applicant retai6ed the services of 3ordon Bric!en & Associates, consulting acoustical engineers, to prepare "the attached acoustical analysis. Based upon "the m: `gation measures proposed by the acoustical, engineer, the applicant has revised the site plan as sh6wn in the attached Exhibit "B -111. { II. ANALYSIS: A summary of the findings of the acoustical report is container in the beginning o€ the report, including a list of recommendations and requirement ^s. The report concludes that the site is P.,A)osed to current and projected high noise levels because of the high tie centage of trucks generated. by the industrial users in the area. the report. also concludes that the Ameron plant to the southwest:` ie. i,_,ires no special mitigation ber-�use :street noisy levels would.,fiask Ameron's - sit1�.ngise on the Verige, even, ati� night. ,However, Robert Riley, AA rore, testifie&-, the last p�tblit hearing that the Ameron �ilane has not been operating within the last fifteen months in the northeast corner of theirG;ite, therefore_no•Ise levels indicated 'in the report would he less thou could occur. i EXTERIOR NOISE: Basislly there are three options available to achi�� "the needed noise "' - uction ire exteriGr open space areas: T? 1. [ esign the site to that the garages are Put oti the perimeter 1 vi buildings are rearranged such that cotarm,n apef space areas ,.ate buildings interposed ;between the ,tr?�ets `'and the open .space, or ` ITEM Ot PLANNING CMjSSlij!N-.STAFF REPORT Enuironm:ental Assessment and ON 84-12 DAVIS April 24, 1985 Page 2 ; 2 Build;ngs may be set back iW feet from the street: with & foot high sound watts along the street frontage, hr 3. Twelve (12) foot high sound walls along the street frontage if the existing building layout is retained, and In addition,, the exterior balconies on the upper Story units fac�ng Arrow or ltiwanda may be enclosed (e.g., texan panels). The revised site plan indicates a 'combination, of optic". 1 and 2 in that the buildings have been rearranged farther from;! the Street, - ^ -:;•. Further, carports, G foot high landscaped beans and nulls have been Provided along the entire length of the site on both Arrow and Etiwanda to buffer noise. Regarding ir.cerior noise control, the tack Of detail 4.,connstruction drawings prevents any detailed analysis of the ;arior noise environment. Therefore, the report only court , prelimiAij recommendations act this time, however, the applicant has agreed'to th : preparatia.,Iof further acoustical analysis in condunction with ` thi building permit lx,,l,.on check and construction drawings using the methodology descri �M_.SQef'nL,Sx2 of the report, the r ort does conclude nozseG is -are such that all buildings Wffi i feet of the raa-C&aYs will r uire further anal sus and to re wire ' some Pically this nc udes such eatitres, ` ��- ou a wm ows, forced air ventilation, aced minimum but)ding construction characteristics as identified in Table 5 of the, report. Staff_recomrmends Conditions of Approval to; j I. Require that the , recommmndations it the acoustical report be followed in the final construction Plans, and 2. That a supplemental acoustical analysis be prepared and su,±nitted together with construction drawings to achieve the i needed noise reduction in interior spaces. f If the Planning Commission feels that the acoustical anal Y ,$ 1s i adequate and that the site Dian revisions address -the Commis on "s - i` and public soh �s a Resolution of Approval hoes been provided for your const- leration- The original ;staff report of, March y13, 1985 is also attached for your.conven#encer. , V-Tl'' rf AUL _%... - PLANNING COMISSIOICSUFF REPORT ,,.,'Environm tal AssisstAnt OR a4-12 - DAVIS I ". April 94n,"1985 tF Page 3 III. RECOMMENDATION- If the Planning Comis fo� Findings descr-ubgsd in the origin the noise study and site�,�lan changes, t and,,, issuance of a NegatiA b6claration w tdoptiq,"he attached Resolution. kbi eav)� support �;e Facts taf(f report based tqm ,pprovaZ of the proect be appropriate i_nrougb k R ck �:�z c F t Unn fAttachmmeen�ts:-"" G DC-0s :DC-os t K r Narch 13i, Plannin4 Comiss-iot Staff Report Exhibit #A* - Location K* -"R* - Original Site Man e�4ibit OB-lu - Revised Site, Plan E)j�jbit "Cm - Oriqinal Landscape Plan '�*t ODO - OriginAl Wading Plan Eih AEO - ProJect Data *Fm ex, Mons Ex B-FT tlevi %x I it F MGO "T.,12-plex Ele ations, ex ib t ItH- m- n-rport Elgations AcousQcal Anal�sit� Resolution. of, Approval, with--�ftkditiom A EM — CPI'g OF -RAy,NC1^�ti GI? AXIONGA smi`�` DAif : Ma-, -o 13, 1985 _ 17' T0r`' "h&irman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: �t Rk %i Gomel, City Planner is Dan- Zolemang S,znior Planner ` SUBJECT: t��IVIPDNMENT�,l. ASSESSMENT' AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -12 DAVIS dente oVmit of apartments on 7:F acres 67711and, in the'' Lou medium (4- &'dufaa) and Medium (8 -14 du/4c) Residential District,: located at the 1.46 r et corner of ArroW Highway and itiwand� Avenue - APN 214?9 -041- 1. - ;.PRL-JE � ANb SIrf D Ti.RiPr ONc A. Action - 9e4uestei: Apprcc��y�al of site n7a�aY elevations.,. and -' issuance or` a Negative iieclaration. R. Parnose: > ©evelopn rtt of 34�I apar,' S. ` _ . � C. Locbbion.- northeast corner of Arrow ffi,6hw and Etiwanda venue x!:ibit "A��, d.''` Psrcel Size. 27.79 �aOes. E. '5xist na' ZonTioc Low Medium- -and 14edium: Pesidsntial. F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. G. Pro3ect Density: 11.8 du/ac. °' r i H. Surroundina Land Use and Zoninat North Single family resident,al; Low Residential ;South- ,- Vacant; General Indust''rial (Subarea BY East - _ Etiwanda Creek; Low Medium R6idential:- Wes' - Vacant; General Indditri,.i (Subarea 8) ,.. I. General Plan Desi nations: ;rEj t itm taw r apd Medium FesidentjkI Nort'i - Loi )le-t dential South. - General;Industrial - East tort Medivaz He q' �r coal �, General Ind4strIal = rest y jaw -'!„L :-� _ PLANNING COMMISSION(' ° €SPORT �' •� K.T 84 -12 - Wis Il March i 198 Page 2 r J. Sitr� haracteristiae,: 7ha, si; a slopes moderately to the south at approximately 2__ grade and is vacant with no sib, fica t vegetation. :> VI. ANALYSIS:' A. lknerall 7:ae proposed project consists of 8 =plea and 1Z plex 5 rtw:it building; arranged around a large;,meand4ring central open space system ; A tot ,a', of 124 one-bedroom-and 204 ttw- bedrwn apartment ,units are proposed. The 8 -plex buildings` " will be ►ocated in the northerl portion of the site designated as Law Medfum -Residential to provide transi }ion`of dk,.,�ity from the adjacent single t'amily #tct. 'the main erltrana§ to the project w!Tl be from Et1wanda`}A,enue with a secondary accsss provided from Arra, ;�Sute . The three locc:l residential streets *o the vortb wf 1'be t�mple+ed as mddified cul-de-sacs as <;hawlt A i i Exhibit •8". _ on the ri�ta�ierF site plan,. s. Dessi n Revi -'Committee: The "Committee hos ste:ked� =�.r the Opp- 1'Fant ta`re✓- iv�e concerns_ relative to providing Marge open space areas and linkages »;augaiout thera�2ct, ccreenina of parking,, acid neighborhood atAkilfty and transition of density from the adjacent. sing ; ml y residence!". The , pr -4ary issue focused upon by the {gn Review Committee was the architectural concept as it °+ i to the rural character ' \, ' the'Etiwanda comaMnity and tt rrfiitectural styles iequired by the Etiwanda Specific Plan.'- --the Comittee• was concerned j that the originally _proposed contemporary Victorian style -• lacked sufficiQi4 architectural detailing and propar 601ding fgrmq to reffec` character aas,.-�-_ihted with 'the- Viatorian EVle of Ar6ittair:e requireddk by the'EMwanda Specific Fran. Baled u, cxn, the recomhm-ndaLions of the Design Review Committee, the anp';tciA revisrA the `atey�tions to provide steep gad "t�_�_ N ' �:te� and arce�itectu�•al detailing that is consistent w1 i the gci;oexsne; =1 .e bushed bythe itiwanda Specific Pla". Toe: imact of the parking tac-t t itL e,. Grad 'ng k t nnitteez This project w &5, suhmitted: ?dapti of .a residential meal withih SpeCifia. PIM7,Area regard pg` cTraina�A problewss i la �a a :- �r3jrse6t to the unimprov,,ed , Etiw -c 1 taudh ., g T g is canrAiq i t t�i acentrdetention as kft-- site j`,O tiles pred erxloprMeht fir WdTIOMi MU `` prabe cWgrt and it 6 the visual 1r.,I& to the ' 4 EtiwanJa This site is reek and is pra;ect has y it peatz ; iia W ratfi�_L1 �- PLANNING COMISSION( AFF REPORT ` DR 8442—Davis ' March 1,3, 19,95 - Page, 3 Exhibit ')t". The lake basins will drain through an outlet into Etiwanda 'Creek,, The San Bernardino County Flood district has - J reviewed this ooncept and, approved it suhject to construction of a concrete dock wall and I concrete cGannel wail along the, entire easterly project boundary to mitigatefiiotential floodi,,"q of the site from Etiwanda Creek 100 year overflow. Therefore, the Grading Committee has,graated cocditional approv4 of the conceptual grl,:ding� plan subject to review and approval of the final aradinq , -dart. ,:The } qr iq nFerinq Division recomends constructtir, of a r�s, of the Etiwanda Artla Master Plan Storm Orain to reitace the basin csee S eciai CoRd'ition Na. b r-j D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the TY)'tial Study has�been completed by the applicant. Staff has iom`leted Part II of the L Envirt imental r; Checklist and has d,-ter�1!(� ied that the pyject could have siIkInificant impacts in terms :A posura of persons or property o flood heard. The t hazard has been � ' effectfi jely % tigated through the design of the eonceptu�T;, grading;lplan aid conditions if" approval w,e [uii�in�t i provements ;7 to Etiv;,anda,�tG ek. Tiarefore,�,Staff re ends f: yance of a Nega�iv Declaration L?.ased upcn,}these mitigation measures. I'll. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: - This project fs CURatSi t with the Etiwanda peci is an ano.. General Plan The 'projecttriill not he detrimental to a'Dacent propertear rr cause signNficant edverse environmental impacts. -.In additio,. "j t,6 proposed use, building and site plans,, together with the recu)Ainded Conditions of Approval are in corpl ance with' the ,app icabl4 "provisioris of. the Etiwanda Specific Plan. r IV. CORRESPONDENCE, This item h} been advertised. as a public hearin in The Daily Report new_spap! r, the pro;.er'ty posted, and mailed to property owners w,x' z;Sn 300 Feel: of the property ,site. Ameron Seel, ",,`:he property _,-tier on the west side: of Eta, %anda Aversuc has ex,, ressed concern 'that a residential use is incompatible witl ue use to the w�,st. _ V. RECOMMENDATION: "'Ji", Es �eari ndedi that the PlaflIning Commission. approve Deveiopmeni' er 84-12 thj; ugh adoption of the attached r Reso 'i with Cono,`jyas and issu of a Negative declaration. �e lvbmi,,,ted, Sly ! r Tr C ! ; RG:DCMs J cll r' S PLANNr4V& CgMk 1.0t OFF REPORT �,,DR 84-x1 ,Da- . March �It 1985 AM r' AttacbisAts Exhibit "A" Location dap Exhibit "8" - Sitp,,Plan> Exhibit "C" - „Landscape Plan ExhihD” - Grading Plan (1 - Exhibit ME" - Project Data " Exhibit: "F" = S -Plea Elevatioas� Exhibit VI - IE -P x Elevations Exhibit "H" - Carport Elevations •; initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval IJ I ,v r aaAS IL a 3 a -. �ly1 it ce -tet t pup =t n+s tFe tL i� �Itt t� iii it S � rrs}rr tj a rr rF! rr r re i# t i{ af!t�d,{ 4► ^.ni r+ � �3 ! M1 tt�x Y t °•7Y' �E _ 4511 � c'� 1 �Ig l r Rte- Ln. , f� Y±tev f•� n•.n V1 aaAS IL a 3 a -. �ly1 '' � `�� .�,� � �r:;� tin �. 3• �+ S.; �, u Q � I e �ri�,� x• NO J l _9 i� a fn z r P n uj ' w a trig Sir L Z N x ((J L N g" 0 9 ° _9 i� a fn z r P n uj ' w a trig Sir L - z— a h 2 v is CD Lij Z . i hlil, +1l � Lo X, _ \! 1 a l�llu d t.—I). .— +r�ae R�� tty,, � }.�QFJ�/2 VLr7V1r� /.�jiih a C!.•� ,�.. � s - �: J ri, f • is `S � � �� t. `1 if AK or [ . °+ il: •. ! .rte,+.. �' ri � �. ,.Yw� ± !f .. - vawA PROJECT DATA � 1 ilTe" ,ut£AS-z[20St0QO OR 27.7 ACRES ASEO ItEt+SITYS 11.)35 (NITS PER ACRE / } EXISTIM- Lm,m PROPOSEOs 9 -3 BU110,000 SC4 FT #4 L` 6LaS ti TYPEL _ SOD0 so FT T 7 ° A 154,000 SO FT IOTA =NIT A9LM i,GE ROOMS 5,00 SO FT CARP'174 so,BdO So FT \\ 214;-1360 Sd: F, TOTAL BLOLA`AREA 1 BLDB TYPE *A` 36,QO2 SQ FT BQ,lQ TYPE 1`B' 13,200 SO F1 49=2400 SO FTC TOTAL fNtT OCCK WeACE z SHDROQI 124 2 BEDROOH .. 32a TOT+ L UNITSC16d 1d S AT FIRST FLOQR2 MUM EORO9L; X 3.3 r 1 2a 97 «2 204 2 BEAR= X Isa 244 122,4 TOTAL A£QUIKM ' 32� 155. � TOTAL PROVIDED 174 0�\ ;t. TQTAj, CG•Rm SP6t`r ,U "rqE, TOTAL_ BLOS 215 FT TOTAL FS �REAr r�y# o �Sa ,200 Sa FT `W25,4R, _5C3 FT - lr:LISSiC�ifftnn►:'�0 FT C WAL�ySy t'TEm ° `I µ FT OM OR SM- aF SITE AREA PRCVIDW _ 30% OF SITE AREA REWIRED `IL TQT,iL{ BI 1)fi WiErez . 219,LIOa so FT TOTAL PaM[ED AREAt w=6,40u SQ PT 476,200 SII FT 14movOb0 SII JeT tTOTAL. SITE AREA)• > I 1200 SQ FT TOTAL QAEN °P9CE > iqC €l- OF SITE AREA PROViC: 4fl�.40F' SITE AREW R QUIREii � ��i;•D PARKINL# - 30,500 SO FT / SIR S & DRIVES _ 225,$00 Sa FT _ _. j' 235,+400 so FT-WAL PAVF,D AREA *T FIR! T mom,. 300 SC` Fr' PER 8P tk�LO !tOlkt WIT t. r +,i _ 9 f L lid j, \y 11 Y!S1'7161F• TYPICAL 8 K$,Og ;1R ti mpm AL a uwr k.y c 1 f 7�..[ %-j . ` may TLE;x �- } , ;'LAN R id � ire E}C% W-. 0701 -02 0 4- X24 -85 PC Agenda o 2-of 4 TYPICAL 12'UNIT BUM: REAR ' s.+r_r�1r `•r �tsi / ��'a�9v�;/H,Lwiw+! vr:.w.a ... t � / °'°"''°rr �.-- �"`v.`«."r i'"e�.,s+Y• ��.�r �!_�; � �r/1. .ftfeti�SSC'i�e• ' n.�'i�lTerti � '�;. + � rr 7 9, aK�y ��r t � R..•1 i ti i dGYK/_'•�+?� . �, emt _�'xrti ��t'�V T.. e 4R1 w �r i TYPIC & _` - lXJT BLD{a : FRONT ,�; ✓ V TYPICAL 12 t11+11T BLDG i SIDE CITY O I TFM A1`? CMNO;. TITLE= P .A.IVr; "`W, MWON, SCALE: f , 4z � ■��■ll 1�1�'iil iii ■ 1/,'r ■ ��iii��i►siri��li 11i= iili��i ►liiiii0/ :vim WAWVM wwariir� � 1ir�iw�et.l�iai►Mii�i� YID ri�iiii�YM�t�► ,� N�iiii��• 11111, 7� ZA w 1111111 ■�.�� 4 H Rey _ t - CITY' OF RANCHO CUCAZ ONGA r, PART 17� - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT: , FILING BATE: f Z T' LOG tnJ:wg"' PROJECT° PROJECT LOCATION G L. ENVIRONMENTAL T,MPACTS:; (Explanation of alb "yes" attd "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). r( 1 YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geoic�q. Will the proposal ba"JI] signif ::,as= results in: ��, a. Unstable ar in in , ground conditions change's geologic relationships?�" b, disruptions, displacements,: compaction,,or' burial of the soil?' e. Change, -n topography or, ground surface contour intervals? , d. The destl;.xction, covening or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? , e. Any potenrial increase iu wind or water erosion of s6ks, affecting either ort or off -site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? y g. Exposu „ ,Pf people or property to geologic '-such hazards as earthquakes -j landslides, mud- slides, groand failure, or(-tmilar hazards ?'" ti. An 1=,- !Ise in the rate of extraction andlor use of any mineral resource? r yL 2. Hydroloa,t Vill the proposal have bignificant t � > � - results iu: � , Page 2 f` YES MAYBE _� NO r a, Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream chanrels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount.of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the "dunt of surface water in.any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or amity alteration of surface water o:ialitp� f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?: g. Change in the quantity of ground-waters, either - through direct additions or with- drawal.-.''.,or through ir�terference with an aquifer? f Q;lality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water's:, er- available for wise public water supplies? I. Exposure of g people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seicbes ? Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions -from mobile' or indireez sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards7 i� c. Altaiation of local or regional climatic a conditions, affecting-;air movement, moisture �^ or temperature? 4. Biota Flora.. Will the proposal have significant results in: E a. Change in the characteristics of species, 'including diversity, distribution, or number �•'° of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any, unique, rare 5 or endangered species of plants? Page 3 YES MAYBE NO c. introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential.for agricultural y production? / Fauna. Will the proposal have signi¢, a :o sasults �J a. Change in the characterist#s of species, " :r Including diversity, distt.ibution, or, numbers l of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of nee+ or disruptive specIas of animals into'an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ �a d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the propos v alter the location, distri- bution density/ ` diversity, rate of or growth the human population of an area; b. Will the pro�,osal affect existing housing, or create a demand for Q'tional housing? ,.� s <1 G�, 6. Socio- Economic acta a. —MA1 the proposal have significan,t;`resuults 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 equitably distributed among projecit beneficiaries, i.e.. buyers,, 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, h confliet with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of " existing consumptive or non..onsumptive Liz recreational opportunities? w Page 4 YES MAYS£ No 8. TransF6iiation. Will the proposal have significant results in., - Gpueration of aubstantial additional vehicular *4ement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for ne O parking? d. Substantial impact" upon existing transports- tion systems? 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 sir traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,,J' bicyclists or pedestrians? 5. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: ; a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? ✓ 10. Hw ;,th, Safety, and.Nuisance Factors. Will the pr4-,-.rw.ttal have significant results in:. a. Or+eation of any health hazard or potential health i hazard? / 1 b. Exposure of people%o potential 'health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure o£ people to potentially dangerous / noise levels? Z. The creation of objectionable odors? R h. An increase in light or glare? A 40 'a 7 �y Page 5 Y YE MAYBR No 11.- Aesthetics. ,Will . the proposal have significant - results in: - ` a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista = or view? ✓ b. The creation of an aesthetiLall};,,,,effensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. VC1.1 the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gasl f c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. WastewatiV facilities? f. 'E`Lood control structures? g, Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? I. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational. £aciliti -,j? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, indlueing f Toads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: j a. Use of r>�tantial or excessive fuel, or energy? b. Substantial Increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy ?: (� d.` Aar increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non=renewable for of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available ?, ' Page 6 : YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewat or = scarce natural resourc�7 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially seduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of >a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California`.istory or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of Tong -term, environmental goals? (4 short -term impact on the environment ie one which occurs in a re?atively br$.ef, definitive period of time while iorg -, term impacts will endure well into the future). � F F c. Does the project have Impacts which are individually,2imitedy but'cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of Individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects at' past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on iluman beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL WTALUATION (i.e., of affirmat:,>e anawe7;§,_t9 . the�jabove questions plus a�3s%c�ussibn of �proposed mitigation measures).. Vo"'I A X - eel',td A f Page w III. DETERMINATION On th,� basis of thjs inertial svalaat3cpn: I find the proposed �oject COULD NOT have a sign Zlcant effect -' on the environmeat,`�.�ad a NEGATIVE DECLARATION kil be prepared{ Z find that although the proposed project could-, have s significant f " effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect In t As case because the mitigation measures described on an attached �sbeet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 47ILL BE ?WAKED. Z find the proposed project MA ave signifi ant effect on the envirnaent, and an ENVIRO IMPA REPORT a wired. , Date t „ Si ttu r isle _ 0 a See- i. iO - OL_. rJ .U1 � 7 CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and:ENERG`! ENGINEERS 1 rItECEIVE6- March 25, 1985 �I Ft Mims DIVISiOt� APR S 1985 A "mod US PICAL All A F,YSI5 I LAXEYIEW APART;IE; TS PR JSCT i . CITY 0 J ij `CUCAIMONCA, CALIFORNIA _n. Prepared by Prepared for- j Gordon Sricken Mr. Greg Ara 'Ean President 2201 b4artiO. Irvine, 'CA 9ih4 c, =a 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite:K : Santa Ana, Catifomia92701 a,, Phone {714'1,8304 9 ry ' r GORDON BRICKEN-& ASSOCIATES7 CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL-aad ENERGY ENGINEERS "SUAMARY OF REPORT The analysis has'been completed to detetitnine the exterior and interior noise fil tion measures for the proposed Lakevicw Apartment exposure and the r.ossible mi P project. A detailed list of recommendations and requirements is listed in the following summary. Details are discussed in the body of the report. A. NOISI CONTROL BY BARRIER DESIGN The 411te is exposed to high noise levels because of the high percentage of truc1cs genorate�� by the industrial uses in the area. City exterior noise guidelines will only be met witli sound walls on the perimeter of the project 8-12 ft. highil The exact height, can only be\c�jraqlited once precise grading maps� art available. The site could be designed to space or,,�n-tV ,�Lces on side away from buildipgs so buildings act as the barrier. The building may also be set back 100 ft. and then 6 ft. walls may be used. 'V-Oie buildings are in a stacked configuration then baleonles will only meet the required -outside noise level by beiria, enclosed for the fell height of the eavr� line. The barriers may be formed by a free standing barrier, a building or a combination. The Amiron plant requires no special mitigation because street noise levels w ill mask Ameron site noise on average even at night. 1621 East Seventeenkti Street, Suit K gi(114�Ana�:PalifainiaS2701 a PhoJ'ie(7'14)-4" 0— s QDRDON BRICKED & ASSOCIATES MMLTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS B. NOSE CONTROL 8ARR)ER?CONSTRUCTION MATERIA ;.� The required noise control barrier may be construcx�d ;using one of the followingalternatire materials: 1. Manor ;�y block 2. Stucco on wood frarrie 3, 1 J4,", glass or lexarr 4. Ar,"combination of these con,truction materials. a C. ►hJTERIOR NOISE CO /Ni/k0l- Specific plans were r{//a6t reviewed. However, the noiseAevels are such that all buildings within lft. of the ro !ways will require review, lll((( D. VENTILATION When operable windows or doors are open In the buildings it is expected that the 45 CNEL inturs, Un limit will be exceeded. A means of mechanical ventilation is required for all units to insure satisfactory sound control and ventilat.,,on. Ventilation options are listed in Appendix 3. ?. c; 0 . r 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Su €teK s SantaAna,Calltorn €a327m-1 ® PhoneV14)036.OZ49 i -. —Bo GORDON B, I EN[ & ASSOCJATE&` CONSULT�,nS ACOUSTICAL ai ry ENERGY i~NGiNEER5 1.0 INTROwgrION This report presents The results of a noise impact and design study for she proposed ,proposed TAkeview Apartments in the' City of Rareho, Cucamonga. Included in this report is a discussion, of the cx"pected exterior community noise envirors meat and recommendations for control of noise in exterior and interior living areas. i A vicinity map showing the general.Lioeaillon of the constriction, site is j presented in Exhibit I. The site is in the goneral vicinity of industrial districts and both j Etiwanda and Arrow l oute are currently heavily used by diesel, trucks. Attention was ti brought to the site by a letter from Ameron, a pipe snanufteturer across the road. The company expressed concern about the site location both in terms of Ameron's on -site operations as even as impacts from trucks operated negr the site on the adjacent streets. In this study the conditions will be examined in detail. 2.0 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITEIRM The City of Rancho Cucamonga has two types of noise design criteria. One'Ts performance. standards intended primarily to apply to existing noise sources which are possible to abate as a nusiance. This automicacail3 exclude motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. It would govern vehicles on private land and any other sources of noise emissions from private property. In the context of new deveiop�ient these standards may be used to prevent a condition from occurring where the land use ereates emissfonsin violation of the standards ox a condition cohere an existing land use would be placed in violation because of the development. This latter situation could occur for Ameron if their current emissions which are acceptable for nearby industriaj4p.nd uses would exceed the allowed levels on the development site. The second type of noise criteria relates to acceptable noise levels for residential projects in the vicinity of iransportation uses. The city policies ,;n this regard as written in the noise element are somewhat vague. The implication is that there is an Incompatibility when noise levels exceed S0 CNE .. The element recommends that no tE2'I East$eventeetctil5treet,SuiteK +* Ssnig,�rta:Gat:Eornia9270t a Phone(7'id}835.0249 � �}u i development occur in areas exceeding 75 CNEL. What is not clear0as whether these conditions are intended to affeint how buildin s „are designs' o w ” �` g... a S� r hethcr tllcre �s nlsn an: outside design noise Iimit. As a matter of practice for a number of years the city has used a guideline, 1,aat,outside levels should not exceed 65 CNEL and inside levels should not exceed 45 CNEL. ` Because this is an apartment projagt slate cone remit cs that inside levels not exceed 45 CNEL� anyway. Projects such as _�ietoria, and'''Terra Vista were approved on the basis of such standards. In this study the.65 CNEL.145 CNEL values will be used for the:,Eransportation` .*Ces. 7 The appli ^_able criteria are summarized in Table 1. 1 TA BLE i APPLICABLE zAQ1_SE CRITZ'RIA T.-A NSP ORTATION SOURCES Exterior 65 CIXIiL Interior 45 CNF,L FIXED SOURCES(1 Ext6i-,�g0 dBA 7.00 A.)_V ,10:((O P.M 5 dBA 10:00 P Nfi',' 7:00 A.M. Interior 45 dBA 7:00 A,?/l�- 1a:l'0,P.M. 40 dBA 10 :00 :n";�j`' -00 A.M. (i} .$0 minute values; For 15 minutes add 5 minutes 44d"1:4 -dBA, 'For l minute add 15 dBA; Maximum ilQwed add 20 dBA: Adjust dura- tions to conform to ambient if aTnNent is,'higher. 3.0 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS E Measurements were performed on the site. ''The recvl)rd -bf these measurements are attached as ExInibit 2. Mc�surements are con- f .j ducted using a Brm 7 :b I der. � bc'K) Model 2209 Type 1tSottnd i.e�e11Te3,er, 6t If AlOdei 2306 Strip =:,hart 'Re- cordery and B Jae It it4adel, 4486 Statistical Noise Analyzer. 'The average noise levels reported from these measurements is listed in 'Table 2 on the following pane. to �� TABLE 2 �VERAIEI :MEASURED NOISE LE1�rELS Location �( l,eq 1. 35' C/L A �ot4 Route east property l ems`\ 60 2. E4' froin; C,I.T, arrow, 121 from CAL Etiwand4 67 -: Add`.Uon 'tv, tt;e Amerop. plant was found to emit a. s`seady noise level of 50 dBA. .A ten minute traffic count was taken during the i,vasurement period. The results otthat -count is listed in Table S. 'TABLE 3 TRAFFIC COUNT HOURLY COUNT 1'ERCEnT 1 #2 #1 #2 —9w Arrow EtI ands Arrow Arrow Et1wanda Autos 84 = =as= ` 58:0 66.7 58.0 J7edium"Trucks j 6 24 17.2 4j_, 16.7 r o Heavy Trucks 64 36 36 25.a - U 28.6 25.3 TOTAL 216 -126 144 100.0 100.r* 10(1.0 The primary fur,!tion Qf: °the measurements is totalibrate the •Noise 'AlodeI ( }" (FHWA RD -77 -108) used to com,`.Lte CNEL data.-The, model foe'CNEL relres en the acoLStic�q•i metric of the average .raise level (LQq ). By taking the traffic Count during the (} measurer,' ent, calcuiatinp the Leg value for that sample, and comparing it to �\ "1 Fneasurecl samples.it is possible to calibrate the CNTIL model for any factors whieh are. present and not adequately i�.entified in the predict! c� i equatiocu. ��t m ji S4 1 � - I l `n• r -may-• 4 Tke com(luter printout, is attach >Ku in Appendix 1. Vic calculated level and measured lever for each mea�uremcntls compareJ ln'rabl!�4. TABLE 4 " COMPARISON OF CALCUL. °FFD j,'10 MEASUREI? AVEaAl1E NOISE T EVUS1 4 C \'FY Calculated 71 69 Measured 69 67 r The calr_ulstied values are abom 2 dBA higher most ,likely due to speed esti- FJ 'mation errors. When using the prediction equatinn this is taken into account by using the same spaed values and adjusting. ati, rnzulting C&8L calculations downward 2 dBA. 4.0 DESIGN NOISE LEVEL f 4.1 ROADWAY The expected future roadway noise impact was pro; ccted using the Federal Highway Administratlon (FRAVA) Nois'4 Pi rediction TO ' :,' RD -77 -108 to ,&ether with several roadway and site parameters of t5is projeo,fi) The key input parameters which determine the pegjected m03-at of vehicular traffic n(1i,;e include the roadway crossection nut;ser`6t lanes)` the- roadway,, active vz;dth, the averaq'e daily traff i4'-:(ADT), the J vehicle travel speed, the Pereenta.cres of auto and truck traffic, the - oadway grade, the ,angle of view, the site conditions (" "tgrd" or "soft ")Y and fhe percent of t tai average daily traffic (ADO wtdch ?lows each hour throughout a 24- hour,period. The forecast tea e volume was obtained from the tits for; the year 2010. The values are 10000 ADT for, Arrow RoQjte anti 16009 for , i1 ,Etiwanda, The percentage of trucks at the i1ndustrial uses are the only uses in the area and tend Yo`be heavy truck users — In tsm , other land use develop- ' ments including more labor intensive commercial uses aSvill cause the traffic to increase; �witil autos increasingAt a faster rate than trucks. Thus, Zfll O the hog izon year of the volume fo t +xe percent ,truck usage will have'settlyd at about 25 %. This is the typical �rcentage usage in the, n�3 trial areas of Los Angeles' for example. For this s2 d�Ahen the mix of trucksi;and autos was taken to be 15th. `heavy truLk� �.0% medium trucks and 76% autos ,' `- 'i7re`assun �,�peed value 'was 36 MPH. The dayjnight,distribialon was that ifor typ� u?- industrial areas« The input data are listed in Table 41. ABLE 4 TRAFFIC INPUT DATA 6. 2% DaV EVENING 96 NIGHT 9G VOLUME I _°% Auto 72.0 :� 8.6 `18.4 75.0 ,fr , Medium Trucks s.$.0 10.6 M49 10.0 Heavy 'trucks 69,,14 li: � 24.2 Volumet 1h000 Arrow Route , Its "000 E war_da`+ The calculations are listed in 2. a The city also has a noise eontbur map shown in Exhibit 3. 'This map shows the site to lie in the range or noise levels where the maximum; level is 70 -75 CNEL. The calculations show the site to lie in a range where the ,maximum levels ar'e 7075 CNEL � also. 911, k �� 1 1k i 4.2 STATIONARY SOUR NOISES , The only source of stationary x,oise now is Ameton. Sbould this project be built before x 4r land uses &dross the stree rare. built, then those develapstaertts will Mve to b "i'a.... � '" -.4, dozrectiag What ever e ,�� ham* problems may exist with noise em0ssions. rhos, fi ©� tht3 � +'use dnIy A meco ant, Ameron's expansion will be treated as a c orrectable obIigatior�• of this• pr jec:t. Ameron owns. the, -site at the souihtivest c-Orner of the interseetien. 'It is = conceivable that they could stove their r�istina sources of noise 200 £t, closer` to -the project. "'This world oitecrease Ameron's emissions abo J 5 dBA on the project site or up: io 63 dBA continously. AMNLYSIS X11 5.1 EXFSRIO - ---- -- ----ter . _ The noise ' gvels on the site /a'�-`going to Be at s: nominal 92 -25 CNEL at t!i neare t'patior, c- pe Way the buildings are currently laid l out on the site. This \cans that tl,,ere will have to be 8 -10 dBA of noise ! reduction to insure that v, los and b4l4onies do net exceed 65 CNEL. As a practical matter such nois ' reductiotns�e p --possible on -the balconies short of enclosing them altog gthet�;. This solution does not create interior space as { 1 Iong as the spaces are not heted. The patios and common areas will require a r _ :call 8 -12 ft. high to achieve E n required noise reduction. This is #cased oti the assumption &,,at the site and street are at the same grade- Other grade conditions will alter this situation,, - Am option' tc achieve the needed noise reduction in theUprivateopen space is to redesign the site so that garages are put on the perimeter and the buildings arm rearranged such that all private open space l?as buRdings interposed Oetwee1 the streets and the open space. Il li=the 1'2`ft. barrier is ehosen as the option and the building layout �3 . , retained then the 'barrier should extend along the• entire length of �a ate ott both Arrow and Eti ujanda. 40 . :t �. The barrier mad The constructed several ways. Some material options are as follows: f 1. " Masonry, block E 2. Earth (berg 31 Stucco on �od frame �i �{ ta. 1 /4" glass or Texan J: Anycombinaiion of these construction materials. ' each completed noise control'bsrrler must present a solid faro from top to bottom. Cutouts and openings are not permitted except for draln holes. T�Ie Ameron site level of 63 dBA (assuming development of the_ gee) is essentiatiy a dbntinuous' noise level. It may' e treated theref'Orey as an average noise level. This is helpful in comparing the effect of`tbejambient -street noise to this .6mission. The Ameron noirrie Wevel of 63 dBA would exceed the allowed, level at night a.P 5„ dBA. However, at the nearest building (neglecting the proposed wall) .the average nlghtsme level { from street holee will be ail 4BA. Thus the average street noise will be higher than the average Ameron noise. 'Technically t�!' there could be no violation qx the performance standard, certainly not one that was ,r trytasur�bie. The daytime relationships produce a similar / conclusion. The sound �f C d alter the absolute sound levels blot tOt the 11 / � 2 r relative �elatiofnfship .ery much. Thus Jj}v en with the wall the street noise wil xceed the } Amerti ,� ptse It vets. j J' It must Ire concluded that the Aron site wouo�_ut produce and "ztions that (r �, " are n'/ trendy more severay produced by thy{ adjacent atree�^nelse. tt must also be paint Out that the adjacent street noise Yevels are such that corrective measures, are a requl'd t6 meet city noise guidelines as noted above. s 5.2 INTERIOR The City's exposure eriteria £or,;new residential' construction -re- quires that the interior noise environment attributable to outside sources be limited to 45 CNEL. analysis and reco min cn'dgMons for control of outdoor -to- indoor intursion are presented in this section.,, The exterior -to- interior noise -reduction expected for the planned construction should be based upon a detaile7J, analysis of sample roof and units plannedcfor the development. Calculatio6, 9f the expected typical noise reduction perr�7rmanee are performed; for sa�npl�p'rooms. The ,galyses is barad on the ':typical spectra expected for the priki ary sources of col murn y noise impact, the typical octave -bai}d transmis- sion loss for each element in the planned l}uildina ~hell, the relative square footage of each element in the planned build! r 1, the expected typical interior surface treatment, and the acoustical absorption c66f£icient for each �'Aft interior surface treatment. Also included are corrections for the`',Af1 weighted room absorption factors. Each component of the buil6ingr shell (e.g., exterior wall, windows, doors, etc.) provides a different amount of transmission less for each 1"A11 Weighted octave band of community noise. Qithithe ltno�vledge of the buildinc�� shell components and their individual octave band transmission loss velues' for motor vehicle noise, calculations of the composite build'ino shell transmission \, loss ca /vgia.i�ae for each room. 11,�,_,,,__T_Ilme situations the room has exterior components subjected to different levOls. from the same noise source. in eases where this is true the t1 ransmission i!,oa values are adjusted, to include the source noise differences and the entirE" calculation is referenced to ,csne exposure: Usually! this is the, face with thE: highest noise level, � 49h ee more than one source type is involved. .% t The interior levels from each source are computed separately; and then combined to determine the composite interior noise level, Detailed architectur,41 plans were not reviewed so only preliminary L recommendations can be given at this time. , The building ,shell c !mr- iC' -tics will never be any less than described in 'rabie 5. 'rABLE s MINTINIU y1 Bt1ILDING SHELL CIIARAC`i'EiIISTDCS PANEL CONSTRUCTIOIN, Exterior [Pali 7)�Tt stucco, 211 x 4" stcds, 1 R -11 Fiberglassfnsuiation 1f2" Drywall - Windows 3/32" single pane aluminum l� horizontal sliders It 1 6_ Sliding Glast Boor Sin41e pans, aluminum frame, Il horizontal sliders Roof Shingle over 1/2" plywood, (� R -19 Fiberglass Insulat-ftn - 1?2'1 Drywall; unvented, Floor Carpeted, except kitchens and 1 /l , bath _ 4� While actualtlooise reduction levels depend on all the properties � described above a certain basic condition generally applies in any instance, The noise re duction property of a room usually is never less fihan y of the tIa component with the least transmission loss.'• The component with the lowest transmission loss is the glass. '- A. r In the ease ar�i pis site the buildings in t�e parameter will experience levels as high as �` #5� CNEL where, the wall is not present. The means that a noise seduction of -30 4BA is needed to achieve 45 CNEL. Considering that the stand wr Mort produzes only 20 d6A tm�m.;mission loss and the standard glass door (98 i. n swi 4011 loss, there ;•,ust )0 7;i Cf.:rent products used in their place. Typic((r��} y this situation ;viii retltiire double tvin46%vs with 2 1/2'31 v ce and((-3!`,�6�",17134 and floors of laink)nted 11411 t glass. Because; of the lack df building, unit numbers, it is not ncr;sible to tailor the recommendations exactly at This time_ ilowpver, it is 'offiaient,to indentify that all buildings within 4011 ft. of the roadways xntly r't.quire soine 1 f irm of modifications All buiidina will eventually meet. the city requirements with windows closed. Where this is the case it is Wicessary.,, to provide adequate fresh air ventilation without resorting to the opening of the windows should the tenant not desire to do so. Special ventilation is required. I i ,I c h EXHIBIT 1 , SITE LOCAT -ION MAP ar - AV E w h y t ,ate � �r1;•.: � .. �. , B � _, cr; . tj } CA f hill . •!it � �4M Ito.- r. �f � Crt c� ,•,I _� Gt .iA O O �i Co ao � � � ;A: ' ca o tr m c 3 . �► -a ko cn s, .c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a EXHIBIT. 3 CITY NOISE CONTOUR MAP :s ijsa i. 6 �� - .. \ \ \;,♦ -- ,. _ell,, 7t)+ t 1. • ,/' Bpi. RNSVLTING ACOL S'i tCA! and ENERGY C GRNFERS ,1 1 V PREDICTED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS a 1$23 Past Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, Cat.`.orr" "9270 4 4, Y ..:a �� t 7faUf2i Y IVOLBE LEVEL - - I.,,,,— 'F;O ECT NAME LGVEVIE14 >I CE LQCATION ETIyu)NDA j 3I1E TYPE fi j AUTO PIETr ". liVTk =' - ,,L ►_ +t IE 144 IVY TRK GRADIENT = 0 DZkA .BOISE r r-v� �l � HV -Y. TRK. wb. " TOTAL 67:50 --------------- ^-------- c--- .- .------- -- -__ 11 - - ------- ----- ,-IMSE LEVEL AT 42 11FT jw ------------------ (( r AUTO MEDIUM TRK. 1IF_A-V)(, TRV. Tt1ML 5$.. 98 €0 25 67.7 _ ,2. -44 0 LEU AT SPECIFIED DISTANCES' C' c r+I87ANCE LEA , 3100 67.9 .. +.: 125 61.53 175 59.. Z•4 ° 200 58.47 ' 250 57.02, 55 8._ 350 54-2z, 400 53.96 450 51w35" 00 52y.a5y1y, 3 50.7 � r 4q. 86 0 49. , .) i i ;ZP,7EC T NAME s LM, ,EVIEW � T f €_C►3TIi?ff :. tiR{it74 42 MPbf DATA MLftiE: 66.7 4.7 Sr J r .fRK Grl!'�DIEMT = €t',"taBA � POISE _Ufit_ MED. TRK— _ f4VY. i RK. 6 s T 66.t ta: _ -- -_- .- ._. -.-- .___.___.._-. -.-- _.-_.__ -_- _ ------------------ OIS5 LEVEL AT U4 #=T .xTQ MErDDYK TRK. "E�.4 Tr. TOTAL 0.49 49.65 7 6 :, 58 Eo aT smciFlEa ISISTANc— s r T STS NCE , LEG a 1« 66.96 775 64- 32_.,. _ i0o 62.44 ~. 125 60.99 12-0 59-SD H 175 58-80 " 200 57.9z :so 56.47 .� ?*0 55,t[�.29 .j:,rt 54.2;3 i. 400: 55.41 52.64 5�£ 1 51.96 51,34 OttID 50.77 ' 650 501125 _ R 700 X97 / . Qd,, Y NOISE LEVEL -r ROJECT: -NAME LAI'EVIEW i,rE LOCATION s ARROW 131 s 1 TE Tv.!,E SOFT ,.:: Ih.PUT DATA AUTO hhT►' HVTk. ,�nLUMS 1 117 .i OLUME 216 VY TRK GRADIENT = 0 DDA NOISE iIiV!zL AUTO MED. TRK. .I,ig.95 HVk . Tfk<:.q. �1 TOTAL a ~E--------------3--- LEVEL AT5 F i t s O MEl. TUM TRK.s r Ht=riMY TiiY' Tt�TAL = -EGL AT SPECIFIE13 DI -STANCE5 ' ------ ------------- ,_ y xttJCE LEf 69.2._ 6 &.19 100, 644.72 125 &Z.26 150 62.08 175 61. t ?7 200 60.20 250 58. 15 �1 300 57.56 3150 56.56 400 5ti. 69 4s, :) 54.92 5,00 54.23 _ 55r� '-5.3.61 -' 6W '5 +. 04 r f b sr 52.52 52. 04P c 51.5 C-.T3 yGif io M `CD`1 3'JA fl )-77-1708 rAMHWAY NOISE 1 ODEL � � ��`ya "Eag��e+► ...ti.,CT i•tAME _ _ .I_t,I:CVINW! ^ _ - - • - ,..,...�-••��u��li� 3 LOCATION e1=:ANC1iQ Gt!Ct,i1O11GA --a., .y ;:'�;eF1PTION : ARFMW VZOUTE 1 rE TYPE , z SOFT n �riFrrltt[1 r,t!TU Tura 11f:_At,tY MO CI-, .t �1 UAY 7 I V9_NlNO E. _rr00QI t -.�j5o oI SIGHT 1�J,4 IS.4 ;a. { 1 Ii }lt_UME 15 lft 15 ,31M-ME t-- u - - -- _ V = - -- - - -- AVEFAG;E= HOURLY 111( 0 -.E 4LE4'f - - - - -- -- - - i -S Ar 51_1 i EL'f • - _ _ _- DAY 1 'I idlldC rA_ Idr1 taT 3 i)(,�^Ii '' t;td[:1_ i UTO 41.21 °,7.* C 56. KS - - sit ',{ 4,1. fig, :,EDIUM TRK. ! .:',,15 -P 4. 0 E 58. 41 r. j . $C.) •6b. 02 ' FAV.Y TRK. 70. Z,5 66 ._'-: b7. n4 ., `} 74.14 �?TAL 71.5 _ 6y.�, c -S77.92 � t A,717 75. 12 018E LEVEtr AT QPECIFIED DISTA1JCES .,I S''ANCE CNi t, 72.42 1 1 {r�t 715.61. 1 15Cs &7.9 1775 66.9 i 2C 66.09 5 65.32 hCr` 64.64 "(5 64.02 ,Girt 63.45 �s <a 62.44 S75 400 61 . "Tt 450 60. . E31 500 60.12 600 58— 97, 650 5$.41 7 5CI 57.48 ,.¢ 'S tet 57.06 LLL = y. NMAT m t it'tt im ►TO --------------- 6:.3.26 -59, 9 ti .w ?� ��I 61 'DIUM TR . . 65� 19 61,..92 5 A , 54' t�£�a 4 ?& :;VY •: T RK, 72= 7%1� 6'$.-27 61, 08 7t} , ti!Lf 76.18 3TAL, i =w. 5% 69.67 1$9.96,, 72.I3 Zt '' LEVEL AT SPECIF=IED DISTANCES, ~ lS'fi"ANm CNEL _ 77k1 74.52 - 100 72 6,5 _ 175 69. b t 6S. IZK zxlo 65. 49 325 64.97 5CF 64.417- 175 4-4.64 460 6zl 62 450 62. 8�' 500 -2. 16 550 61.54 60. 97 00 9, 1Cr j; 3Wj,m✓L1 r7--If3•3- 141133 i4AY t t4MGF* PA 1.,lC}"ION OFF DFL I" 3 TF, 1rtCFiT1tJihNCNC f atlC?}r 'A - q� - bATA A t t u T T I I t� F 1 i iJCf` F F3Er:'JY T to irf, f: n s s 5 5 : : s / t"Ate 3 3 , 7 7:4� � � . 1 / t Fa�rau~ : :, �»:3 icFF., i i:fir >r,1 • •i.7 4 Q3Hi 1 18.4 1 13.4 t3 m m F _f - -- AVERAGE�tdQURLY M Mpfjs�E t z z-vi -F.S f, F CONSI), LTING ACOUS11 TICAL and >ENERW! ENGINEERS a MECIrW-NICAL V&f `PEI,ATioP3 OPTZDtaS ventilatic -n may be provided usi ng one of the following alternative methods: (2) A "summer switch" on the forc6d air 'rooting or heatin [cooling :snit 3or each dwelling. The "summer switch" permits fan operation for ventilation independent of the heating and /or cooling funct;,�i,ons. The Uniform Building Code're-quires that the ' system provide two air changes per hour in all llabi:table' rooms. Twenty percent (20%) of tce total- as r,: Supply Ash " must be taken from the outside. The fresh aa�3 tri ale• . duct - should be of flexible fiberglass sound attenuated construction_ The duct may be at least ten (10) feet long or at least :six (6) feet long�,with one (1), shatif 900 bend. mho intake duct ;should have an in -line . mechanicalilquad damper before the fan. (2) A through-wall air conditioner, or heat pump unit trust -upply two air changes per hour with at least -20% fresh air taken directly from ^the outside to satisfy the UBC requirements. The unit should have, approximate overall dimensions of 18" b 241, or less with a_vent opening no greater than s5x (6) inches in diameter. Or, the unit i77y be an approvad alternative j ` with acceptable acoustical transmission loss performance. k Seventeenth Street, SOte K • -Santa Ana, Cailtomia32 "1 s ` hoai (7,14JB3 ",QM M. r -5 3 _ •, 7 R60LUTION N0. A.RvCSOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING: COMMISSIDN r r APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NC. 184 -12 LOCATED ON THE L.. NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND ARROW. IN THE LOW- MEDIUM AND MEDIUK RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS n WHEREAS, on the 24th day of September, complote application was filed by William G. Davis for review of the above 1984; described project; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of `April, 1985,` the Rancho Cucamonga'`; Planning Commission held a meeting to cons eY� the above - described project. WHEREAS,, the Planning Comnission`lwaas requi}'eotia -noise study, and the project has been revised to mitigate noise impacts NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Pianhing'Cormtission resolved �s follows:. SECTION 1. That the following tan be met. 1. That the proposed project;, is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use =is in accord with the objective of the--Etiwanda Specific Plan and the put -poses of the district in which tDe site is t located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the F.tiwanda Specific Plan; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions-, applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the.._,. public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties r improvements yin the vicinitya SECTION 2: That although this project ,All create adverse impacts on the environment, mitigation measures are included in the project design or required as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to a non- significant level, and that a Negative Declaration is issued vn March 13, 1985. i SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 84 -12 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION: 1. Final landscape palette shall identify sub- neighborhoods. within the project using individ J't .tree` varieties. �t k Res ol uti on,,__nc-� D984 -12 - Davis Page`.2 j Ash 2. A cvilt;nuous on -site green�q shall be• provided to connect' sidewalk EtiwandZ Avenue_.with E.tiwanda I public on the Creek regional trail and shall be dedicated &7 an easement and designed per the requirements of the�Itiwanda Specific Plan. 'I 3. Any fencing provided at the terminus of Morton Avenue, Emmett Avenue and Cornwall Avenue shall' be view fencing `" such as'wrought -iron to prevent a "wailed" effect. _ / 4,. Provide;- extensive landscaping treatment at projectf entrances and between carport parking: areas and drivel aisles. DDacorat.we walls and planters shall be °provided., � at projers` entrances consistent with approved Diann. 5. Trash enclosures shall be provi'de'd with lattice -type over;iead shade structures and mailboxes shall be provided with solid overhead structures compatible with the Victorian architectural theme. 6. A continuous sidewalk system shall be provided, wherever possible, that provides an interconnecting linkage throughout the project. In particular, a sidewalk shall :• be provided around the .age of the large .central open space, ENGINEERING DIVISION: Z. Modified cul -de -sacs shall be provided within the project at the southe'm termini of Morton, Emmett and Cornwall. Avenues. Right -of -way for same shall be dedicated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ;> 2. The main drive aisles 'shall be= constructed as w4vate streets to include curd and gutter (28' minimum curb ' separation), AC .pavement, and T,,reet lights. Sidewalks shall ,-fie provided on one side or an alternate approved sidewalk plan approved., 3. lne proposed �41 system to lerve the - northerly C, cul-de-sac shall Ut designed for a 100 year torm plus emergency overflow. Easements shall be proved to the ultimate outici facility. 4 i..`; Ail drainage facilities outleting into Etiwanda Creek shall be subject to - approval and a permit from the San Bernardino County Flood CoWbl District. 5. A structural block wall°!Z,,nd slope paving shall be provided along the easterly boundary of the site subject to the recommendations-of the San D:arnaedino County Flood Control District and tha approval of the City Engineer. x L F. Resolution No., DR84 -12 - Davis _rage 6. Cons'iruct portion of the Etiwanda'Arja Master Plan Storm Drain tine within Arrow Route from '`Etiwanda Avenue to Etiwanda Creek. Also outlet 4elocity rotectio *asures will be required within the channell This condition replaces the previous requirement for; onsite retention basin. All k4ElY BUILDING & S DIY ®N, 1. Conceptual grading.plao approved subjedt to the following: a. Acceptable method of draining fr�1a streets to basin. ai b, Permission to dram north cul- de -14cs to Flood s 1 ConVol District Channel, and posidive 100 year overflow backup system. C, ,:Northerly and southerly property ��ipe wall be flood wall to required lim,:�Zs jr year overflow from Etiwanda Creek, ,,,19D d. Entire .eisterly property line wall to be flood wall. ., . a I e. Conformance with the revised sit, plan which indicates.a G foot high landscape blrm.. 2. The b foot. landscape berm along thii P;rro* and Etiwanda frontages shall be contoured �`o - , :ovide an undulating appearance. 3. Supplemental acoustical analysis shall,be prepared for all buildings within 400 feet of {grow or Etiwanda to indicate mitigation measures to achieve 45 CNEL maximum. Construction' plans shall cfl :fa to the recommendations of said report. Additza al noise level measurements shall be lateen if the Amercn plaht operation has commenced operations at the southwest corner of Arrow and Etiwanda. a A Q l� 0-5-6 a 3' `•' Resolution. No. - DR84-12 - Davis o Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF APRIL., 1985 ; PLANNINr fOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAWINGA ° o k" BY; Oe� L.:iti�ut, Chai an jJl r tTEST: _ _:: Rick putySecra.lary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the .Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamong do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and j regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by tb%Planning Commission of. the City of Rancho Cu- tamong�a, at a regular meeting o"� a PIanning Commission -held on the 24th day of�il, 1985, by the, following vote -to -wit.: , AYES_ COMMISSIONERS; NGES: COWISSIONERS: ,. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. C-� v J J PNI �5 � ' Y44�4V GL 4a >. CG�:.q qn Ay A. ^Y O�O .p�OYy L'�- t�tlyyy_y 1w�IR�tlO LY.�. ^s Nrt. °`ut Lj yG IiC�n R fN • Lu 4Q��Ky3 tl4y» Cip, �GLi N.Vy OiL 09. p'QUF uy. �' rgp. Lwt • gtltl� wCy w'�q�,.. 4Y� Gyipf1°XYOgw� Y6°aC dC� wtlYY r C l El -?p LLYGY t1M��C{I y Z �E WaG NV Of°c �RZ y4p ��.qq.L V IL Q. G L L 2 3■E L • tt r � g c�. ' .= .°F`i O. M; `DyC w Lire ,4.NN .tl Y.W. yU 4�� «•'' .t - °'�" ie aa..•W -�° Y IL—OL � N a °� ~ O ^s, W aa.0 tl ° `g Ug i31• w rOy c PVC L yO QG p. °Oyu Y yLON 'u^ NL IV NWr d OrY4 .SY ^Y 6ppC wall ww Y �iNi! y� Yi�Y!1Ym �.0 YO�.WYA '�Yp y. w. va OG =Ltla4@ W Ya 4M6.. W�ii O'Vi 04�V^ 4�a o Ja+9pa`Za—LC Y`Y�y�.0 yCqC.yG �w}�T: tt yp. pr 4'^'V GN 042MLr �1(X'^ GOLW 4°'Y« KW� 1 033 l+1 °Ci UZ _ GW.iY W W Q N Gy°yy JCti L�4 4 pp 8 p tA 6 � OM' u yY��YY01 y.OL 69 aLw p (F µy O IS G tL V Y cYGC "� ya ad V� Sy O W YMp tl �L ~emu: IM sr rz Iz a. CIL Y 1 z U d 'rf °s c. Cl i. I ia. �'..°. CY 67.6^ '.Y Y' 4� „irL #swY ME _ r Y rig n '+tom °vu Its vi•O F —1 zzzi ,a-'a3C R 4ZT C �2G Ya6�.O �N a`qs Yp: 1C"¢Q` m4 dp #$py. O9 a� V�=C CRCq� aA �Y '®iw..t'iR"c Y N n it-- may' ^ etr-+N� gag Y'a�r #P.. �airi u.CVV i'V# r^ # tt �CYA Y. Hiz Y U V.M Y a, $K' M �!� Y C q I JyQ,NNV QL+I` �� Y ♦ �iwt91� a� yy�ypyp y p? � P wn�u by ^N �y4YfA N9i:i NR4 ZUYr cc Y' MtN iC =. �- #nC r� uNUY yl'i p�pp¢y� R ^ya i LTC YN Mxty�O Y4Y ^p�Z C`�L y� 9+�ap 4�iSl� .+.�� M siS�'L' i y V � �� <Ci14 � T�"w �tA+ti LLL 60' I g .1a 'F4r35a R- € s%w8�'" vu�iag u SYtf�L�, hh 6� i §M aJp °.AG dCY yu C w1LV�+ `aC�. M '' CC RS #D �O Y 4 YMTE,4 II- C .,�fM1"'S. 1C� V y }UY yhX C^ + Ya4 tlw w lam CLa ^�a�=R` VCg�pp.b ICCJ �6Yp Ar w�Yr CE� � =+t t6 �r Vbw Oi$.AyY OL�o_ VVQYb reo r. m.. �Yai' mi.w ba'S ppffP �iY L°ef >f �Y epza �L`C"i� N §YQ� d 6+r -+a0 ;nc+r,. �` °rr,�g gyp. ca ��ye¢aa °v J Vb L E .S C Q .- '< A N«l -1 Z p>qL' . QQty r-�Y <t� Y 55 1 �Y� qL V2J�M >ppQ° O NU .0 YpO tA.y +VlNVC O #N�\ i �a Y�Y' YC q•3rb A w ON ROL �C~V ° rvn °cam viau. t>t. -> ° vz�lma'^ iil-am ^p. E �v4L •-b o 4��yAG (.� L 4VYau .0 CE. �-r N13A !'-N,° Nq1 Kit vQM4 q�iRU �..... t l J � � • v dWUl aOR6 aL y - CO a. CC OC ar V �Lmc s.oy'�- OT °o IT VL ^r esm LvJ u�� -Eamm °Ir >.O 4IA O. �D�j I N aif .ysmd !wN u ��(`�_• d m -1 cq q4 r rnO a'tr{O:�ymC � !�-�; g uiR. c C r+ �.CY L44'. � �C:40 oY 4✓" qi'o. -uY 1�O /�!O'�.�•�:� .]i T= -N Q�l Q • o.w d d O r now' 01 Za.2 .II o .¢. -. i.0 ,.,noa NU �cc,a 4 p u o 13gY E: a� y GUY �'VmC ^�'YNYY3�d gy°.NN Cm �tN wN rwClJ U J�� 4-3 N V C'.q '� ° RtT 2L YLU. <i Vf^'N net �� Cp o-ng00 4aq Nr T .r°.Y "7 �q U�. dlt 'i^ �d5l 6N =...P•L- iuO UW••- N� �i C �C.Ca y� Cy _C d+O+Y i¢ artl mrwo•er .o °aGy, Hy ��a+ 11 �i�w'G^ p °o °ciq mo s N q $ d N m e1yd ma a as N A c_ si lf'\,.g, u ym Eq C epo [£A^.t� pp � m46 a4.-q r 0 N L .z C.y m U - B U.xm tl i rn N f W O T L �C G jyL'y�� -. C ^vT d Y N vs Off. iRN n thy, Ir E _° qqd ymu��. -.AT Yys aaN c G� yaµ9C Namo 24 4 X ( �:L D• c a¢ V L ° L d q 6 L� r a L OY LC NLW W° 1 CQO[ sRa �Y Lt ,�R NRC�.f O.l qC a � `6dai K Wy ° ON Y O a4b dm Ym^ m"' a, WY \., U 1cLLm R'W G _ ^L N ° HOy r Wd R 3 <C Yti Layl itY a H E U NY Lr r 4 L 4� •' 9a Gag LH N�MA ptRNRO- ° L C egr.04 6Y tLORR41 O ��d G m44 .°IAC 4dC C y... daM C01 Rm \ LT m ru�Aara C•aY " a ^� �. CC ��.. OC ✓J¢J... rl r^j uCgY cy N f-Ya C� gip^ 4Q� y. R..�O ZS _n > O ��~ �4 » id ,00a 4.1, y O C 4 v d n Y 4Y io ° a ua +vRV 6•� N/\\u --_9 4L �a.N Nr a -ti a .s' n NAG x�Ry GO N'? CI 4 N° A 5L �r2A q\\�IIL fNm� :apCUiN- 9 aYmqm 'S aSr �° Lyy,CG . m 3V 4 ^` R G y ',1 4NU Id .��jf�4 u a C Rye I'm L� yy N E �4 m 6.^.,,9m urnya '• 4tl` RO Y 'amFmGN ar > UL�"+p�R�`f duu u^d -iz: RLni�es �r�a W nG'yN °°�° NG ud "�wW YR�a W4C> W� .gyp, °L4 = N,II ratY � apGg Q•p yy ��° Bpi bar °G i�4 ...� Yy u D•R �k ^N Go. y. L m. M' .. L O •- H R K O A 4 .-• m E Re- 4 J /t. yST' _RrN Yyy.0 paL E� � a s q^ b C V V yt0 C `+. A EQ ' Yp.ULYU o-ri bV �YV O Z Y.V �F qC yam. LLi L-Z L1r 'EaYiC va OY G�QL a Rb VtuJ r wL� V c—a X u .k�EU O� Ctq NY.'�� = b Y� VANM q uCA J V Ny L.L V C 4�. O 1. N Y q,�Lw Nop nnoP . qN uN Cu Ql Y F Y oy VA m L C d -Q. yDM�pC mVb a�CV.. �Jy N HH qmS p C �yiUrffu �� 'N YN u.S EE �OfC OSC00 Yp:LNY Ya SiOI�M Cq VM.tl ;21C atO. G HIV ^d = ~Y gf.dG�i! VLO �'i tY C La b M S r CZ�V. s .y C. B. YV 16Q¢ ♦ L YgSCa h V V V g' ^C54 �q4 ' ^'d N ♦ c A VG uLM W y6 NU bV T m i - w'S LO. L1N NC�^ NpU r.btCY V �F4 ¢ 6G J N LV LV A pY p•9� 6 Y` 1 J3L AY q W C 1� A'O as CC �-- "Z r CGY .7q' .Y.N pi Fq0 � MNdrn Taa-Y ` L-� w� V �.VW t 6r1+.M CLV1 6� c. W-1 d OVA ` ! } At \1111 i IS 13, 1 N'K �t ANT` Y O9V OF q2 C L U.2 L b 2 N a CL; • V V N Y 6 'Be mY6 uEn iOY M a d n u u V' q ql M L _L z z q uur 9.0 — N N Z A ,i!C ,w y min N .'� ; E35 -9 A aXXi N f�Md C Yqy 6 ^V� y'S y / p'n o o" Q L4VnJY �PVyCy b�Yin C`S'C Lit L,� nt � E. PL. V.� V?1 ^N N'Yi M L E r•y r �+ alp.. YY �N.p aN VMVE ~ 'Ell Y MY66 ]RZ Nq zrl a- "+L d V nC O�+•� L � p p'Y Lnav Y�A2 �C f Epy -ca pNW LYM q °Y Nw.°r Any` MAr Y.T w N =CO p ygGi p' L 7AP Y� 6� r,N pi LY y�.n .N. 4y��gL ap .CYYO �r t.�3 pl O �' PaInI��.eO q.G a ff a i ,CO � cpac 2aq n�M oq� a p MY Ya'-`1 9�Y2` U Y Q q Y VN.a � r QGiCYCi'O 4L � Ap � � Ob VPY. 4.. q1 ^VL q4G. T N S V qy, C ~�� c Y L C. S b� C � �' � 4 q• Cb.p. n C Y C O. RRi l,' 1/ /N> �� .°a`�¢�u LL = TO.i CO %RO P .,.w rMYY uY c uyM.t ° L of =tCb L Oo y u. N C e�U91 a a� a$W LwcaOr raa uM .c. .,.... i °'�• c ^ 2��a �i B� iC L c s C� q.' L n'w r ¢e Oun.N,u. a a } CN tJ wo 'til'E 7F ;g-; gg� },[y aviary N N H ti y `Y!V\ EItiL Z a a YES 4CC7 -IiN. c a p c a^.c u�1 Rai tl =•OE Y�W Cp �N V A �� w9 Ilktls ZA nYy� aaa Y / iw. .'ti v a'L xa .°^o; ppt at 1pT a2C `V'UVN�.0 _ q AOW ��.- CtlO? Y x 'a�?L •'f!O Y qrZ �NLU"'i fl L u yy V VQtiY ,U�4 r�ry- L Q. y C r t A C i.• x Y tl Nµ d ' I b" �� wO0 YY. �Ow..�R �/ ,.� ..p„CIR u.�Gjtg4 �;v «. •tiN A � � N V� � w �m'�'4_ yl A V Vpc•la Qt wp %`Y.r mil suy �.Wr �%., + ,'f �� q/14 VL ACO i... y$} M �aiO Y L r / a O.� tTti tl d At� {i Nya y <p P+�O 43.p .H YO L CVY La u a9" A d .Lt c o'cs "d.Ti Lo,as . T:°. A6 v M 4 r #V34 2QR y2NL Vtlp CC wC :. Y•y 00L Er xCgq m Ca pG. A c 4+Syp^ v= ;9 nV G --.&v NO, .G pEO. i5 U •% yy •�,E. a,mD _ =,L tlpa �.� u>. N't. �� y W�O•C .. axitl 7.. yM^r0•L•w Tp Eq� ,pG Val �• �# YA �Cg y_-aiK qY W ��. y� L =W VY. �iy�p •ro a�� OOr,, .., NU`u0= l•ny �__.. :. Ptl3 _Q T=a o «- Crag. yE 4 A AE bt iAN,9.. Gal l� b C o, -,A.y ~Ctl pW -& ^C z1! 4 A� m w xRAW -'= ggqgL��G�NY rt y yC Cy G� YR a3Vrp IL C q� L �H uR� O.� 9Y ^AA »� O YD LCxi V'.'q.. YM6e JT�p"a CL - xr' _V.x R_u py '^Vfbw.L MOAq. dA i LE L QQ x� YW pCa } P,w b m# ga+plCOp EC pM�'n�e]• bF�R. V.•Q3QT C - uL tt4^ LC G Y9 a R4 O� OWLN�u+l" ay ^rpq a b30� a CO'N DO .tlby x0 tia` - DS OROaNa ;U Ym A m'u E MYY Q, 'R 3. VO .i N i C pM C LxQtE V CY VL U.0 L , ". te. D pN C6 Y. tl^p YO »G4C e9z J LLVOI.N +w K O xnQj. 4x ri v C ttp.uL Lam. x041 aC: Y ZiI a RCA= L G • � � 4� � � + � � � - � •tom a' i% Gin IL i E 6I d hilt it Ct �. y ar aJ` «. D �Pp Pt a Q0 a.. D OAAr a - (�,1`j < 41 Nitp a � C NV LE NqY Q.J'. MD. .` Y{rj n qG 5 L Y Y V R� < > u L a 9 C r dG p ECE.4 •� CT"C lLgU =qC Yu Ed �A DyM _;S 7T C ✓1"' NG�`r OF ONG1]V hN � Ab4 A �s+'4 �`.) YY N a \ "� � Ypppiii AAi� �N Y n.Y C4W YM s'3 d Y =pC G � v a _ V a' ax caa� ZRu GN 6K U. @b P:lN GtV. iKL. NfN p d X C r G if p rJ�Q Y .. D "!! p 0. Asblp o- as .t2 Rx - qO,r �A a 8 i ^L tpLi. N d nC R" psSR NN VGq t�l ve c4iSrT tl3 'L U' WmY.G 2N -�'`C y v m i a u. N s° o NIA u L c'w.'� a IM "Y. .p ¢ tU A .]IR at ">< � fy i Cj` n g G V p Yr.G N� -p ya. Db Q4 Sa L2. 0 ro N Y EE W L U C 5� CT D•a yINTA O. N r6 S+ �./ p°p 6 VV at V.pai vG. Sabi ya Jr aii $iG> 3u s oxs .� � c .�- � cud y. aVaF b y 9S ,{°.{.. +Mr Lq I" It E WNL! d 4 D' L \LEA C ' C• rt A C. C s. C mil C Y l/ \�� \r ` dK �!9 � ° ��2 a. m 4 Y u mq c A G dEL A r N_s d � as \rte S ri �T'a m:a °o Vim`• - a a i -.r",. b3 fi n�..OT T tli 'NaM i+ v up. Y 6 q Z. a. c� p� c� my i3 d me .ca a Axh ut mEa wO C. dY :U. L+O9 T? �049�YU � a d �� LxYC Lu 3G� N pp,, CC�OL1.66/rC^ CO nv W'u rt +C� 6.J FQ� p r I I1 � i Y OayA Y�E L RICA ,��. u • A d O Y ua C d Y Z 3 C N^ Np A4�4 N Viu y. JE y m y q L u Q. ar a it S maW.� a L .. ' C EaYi a d' oa � c C A i ya_..CL ^rn o"u. cam. ua 9L t UC u' d =a ca L CT i' c L nv Au°u. " 4 '� sNLi, ti9 a'�mLE. °1 «...c .. �... iBeYC. ,. n P-y.0 K aN K r � xa o N =,- � z J � t Al w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �vcnhrq� STAFF RUM o c� F - Z J `> DATE: April 24, 1485 1 TO Chairman and Members of the PlanninZr ommiss on ` yr- FROM; Rick "Gomez, -City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL �USE'PERMFF 84 -31 __D R : D - The development o aR ., integrated shopping center of ,approxi4ately 118-,988 s.quare'° feet which includes a gasoline service station, as proposed -Phase I in a conceptual Master Plan for future phases,, all on approximately is 'acres of land, in: the Neighborhood Commercial District, generally located on the northeast corner of Highl`and•Avenue and Haven Avenue - APN ' 201 - 271 -53 (Continued from March 2:i, 198$ meeting). I. BACKGROUND: The Planning" Commission, at its meeting of February 27continued this item to,,hold a special adjourned meeting with the applicant to discuss design issues. The purpose ,of the workshop was to discuss site planing, pedestrian orientation, and architectural design issues. The following is a summary of the Planning Commission's consensus; Architecture. The towers in the northwest corner and southeast corner of the site should be strengthetrod by adding river rock veneer, with the remaining towers to receive wood siding or similar non- stucco" treatment. In addition, the sides of the Lucky Supermarket, flanking the entrance should be provided with` river rock veneer detailing. With regard to the? storefront window options, the Commission recommended that details be provided the Commission's Commission's consideration. Site Plan. The Commission recommended' strengthening the linkage" jt between the free standing buildings through ;design of the plaza areas to avoid a strip commercial`apped.,dnce, Pedestrian Orientatioa. _The expanded pedestrian plaza areas should she provided with a %is�,�,formai and more rustic landscaping and hardscape treatment compatible with the craftsmen architectural style of the building. The pavement material should be compltible with the river rock veneer. The Comnissior requested additional y details of the connection to the Lynhaven apartment project to the east. , i ,, i ITEM E �, ll PANNING COMMISSION STPTF WORT ` Environmental Assessment & CUP 84 -31 ; DIVERSIFIED ° A,gril 24, 1985 _ Page 2 Signs. A Uniform -Sign Program should be developed with the uniform size, Watior�, copy, and color,; except for the;major tenants. The applicant has substantially revised the project design based upon the Planning Commission's direction as shown on the attached exhibits. Attached for your informatibn is the original staff report of February 27, 1985. II.. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support the Facts _ w 'for finding as described in the original staff report, approval of the project and issuance of- a`iftegative DecTara(tjanEthrough adoption of the attached Resolutian would be in order. Re tf Y submitted, r R' k mez C ty nner . G:DGas t ttachments: February„ 1985 Staff Repart _ Exhibit °A" - Location Map i .Exhibit "6" - Site Utilization Maps.` Exhi.bit "C" - Detailed, Site Plan a Ey,�Wt "D", - Landscape Plan E4.,Mt "E" - Plaza Details Exhibit "F" -Lighting Plan Exhibit "G" - Grading Flan Exhibit *N" - Elevations Exhibit "I" - Pedestrian Access Plan Exhibit "J" - Pedestrian betalls. Resolui on of Approval with Conditions it i I L . iai.. , . .ut , __ kz. CITY OF R"CHC CUCAM©NGA cU� f, STAFF REPORT \\ _, U' a DATE: February 27, 1485 � is�x j TO., Chairman and Members of the Ptanhing Commission FROM: RicC Gomez, City :Planner SYT Dan Coleman, Senior Planner `SUBJECT: ERVIRONMEIt<T•AL ASSESSMENT Ct3NUITIONAL USE PERMIT-84-31 - DIVER Eta RO R7 IES e Gave opment of an integrated shopping center of approkimately 128,988 square o feet, whici,,)'includes a gasoline service station,` as a gvposed Phase I and a conceptual master plan for future pEi4yes, all on about 15 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District generally located at the northeast' corner of Highland Avenue and Haven Avenue - APp} 201- 271 =53. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:- . <:. A. Action tcpiested: . Approval of site plan, elevations, and issuance of"a Negative Declaration, 5. Purooses Multi- phase development of a neighborhood shopping center. C. Location: East side of Maven Ietween_Highl.and and Lemon. G. Parcel Sizes Fifteen M) acres. E. Eyistinq ZoninsZs, Neighborhood Commercial. F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. G. Surroundirej Land Use and Zoning. north - Single family residential,- Low Residential. South - 'Vacant; Low Residential. East -- Vacant; Mediums- High Residential.. West - Vacant; apartments, service station; Medium- Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. H. General Plan Desigaationss Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial. North _ low Residential. South -- Loos Residential. East -. Medium Residential. 4; -High West : Medium Residential and Keighbort i0od rcial. i� i^ PLANNING CQMM8SION.STAFF REPORT Conditional Us? Penoit 84 -31: -. biversifie# -February 27, 1985 Page 2 1' ' I. Site Characteristics: The project site is.vacant and slopes tip the south at approximately 4 to 5% grade,; A sparse east- wesf', Eucalyptus windrow traverses the middle o the site. f11. ANALYSIS: A. General: Access to the shopping center will be provi&4' via the new signal ?zed intersection. at Alta Loma Drivlr krtfa proposed tempardrYaccess to Highland Avenue for Phase i. The shopping center AW be anchored by a major grocery stdre that will support a va�iety cr retail shops, 3 ,OQQ,square feet of restaurants, and a service station. ,Ph 1) construction will include a majority of the northerly 11 acr04 of the site. B. Issues: The first issue; regarding to site planning and "l lam cemen3f the buildin s re ales to pedestrian orientation, and atr2n-�ties.. The General Pla encaura a edastrianlb'icycie 9 p -. orini:stion versus automol-ile o Wentation for the neighborhood J shopping centers. TO 10plement ese policies, the Development;? i Code shopping center criteria i4e developed to require that . "vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically- linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system.J6 Further,,: the Development. Code requires that neighborhood shopping centers be "planned as a group of organized uses and structures.° The proposed site plan, Exhibit NC",, indicates ._ five satellite buildings along Haven Avenue, A, pedestrian linkage is provided from the main project entrance on Haven Avenue through the parking area to the retail shops, then l; easterly to connect With the Lan Bentsen apartment project. A 1, series of t�;ree plaza areas have been provided at various 1 locations within the center. The second issue is whether the nropo_ed architectura i esi n is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and ------ t Oeveiopment Code ..d6- -- Both the General Plan and aevelopment.Grade ;1 policies and design guidelines emphasize strong architectural character within neighborhood shopping centers. The Development Code states that, "a recognizable design theme shall be established for each buildi'ag.. That theme s be one which creates a harmonioui building style, form, ' material and roof line, as it relates to surr6 planned or existing developments. Individual structures sha,,9' create and enhance a High quality and harmonious community' appearante." The proposed elevations indicate the use of those design elements familiar to Southern California shopping Miter design, such as, machine applied exterior plaster, and tanopy = overhangs with concrete the roof material. In addition,, river rock, wood veneer, fray windows and other architectural ,details have been added below the canopy lisle. a �. I PLANNING COMI ' STAFF REPD,Rf �. Conditional Used it 84-31 - Diversified 1 Februzrx -t7, 1905 i Rage 3 ri C. Design RReview Committee; ,The Design Review Committee hay reviewea this project on two separate occasions and crpressed concerns regar ing the significaace of this shopping center � based upon lochtion on�a.,Special Kulevard' and future freeway visibility, The failo �- js a s,wwary of the vain issues and applicant's solutions. Site Plant major pedestri=an fig'" .1 paint snovU Sae prowicfed by creating ai large p7aza=,;onneci d to smaller Gaza . Smaller plazas should, be 6M64si ud 'in rms. of pedestrians amenities and human -scale desijc - Solution: lifcant redesigned storefronts to orient P�•owards p a�f zas: and pro�tided pedestrian ts�tuaes• {e.g., seatiang, shade' trellis). Par_king:✓�- sca ed entrance statement should provided by ` ellim' nat ng par Jon moth sides of .main enhance drive ate% expanding pedestrian: linkage from haven. �, Solutioa.- App�icantj 'Oliminated some, but not all `9aarksng spaces along ;gain drive -Pedestrian linkage expanded to 15 -25' in Width. Buildigg Locations: Combine buildings or , group them to eliminate multiple satellite .,buildings aloft Haven which fragment site plan. Solution: Plaza pr-9". ded between two buildings of a'.ain entrance and between Pad 11 and building to if,e uth. ." No. buildings combined. _. 'i .d� �_. Architecture. Create afstrong architectural theme using hic materials (e.g., stone, wood),., variable storefront seto. -ks, and roof heights, 4etails (e.g., paned windows, bay windows, liglAts) and colors. Solution: Storefronts underneath canopy redesigned;th river rock and detailing. Ij Signs_ Sign criteria #or ci'nter, except major tenants,'should he of a generic,, s = It with a singly letter styli and color. - Solution: ApplieantQpraposing no unifom letter style and a M.i four color palette (sli lar to Bemco Center program). PLAINING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT % Conditional Use Nrmit 84 -81 - Qiversified >> February 27, 1985. Page 4 D. Grading Committee: The G.adi'+�. Gxamittee h�1id significant concerns regarding the prop Pd cur�'utd fill oP the site that would create significant slope - �etgits on the south side of Lemon Avenue and at the southeast coiner of the project site. Further, the proposed `retention basin"i located int:he southerly portion of the site was -nut consi�CRred az�-ept3ble from an enginz�, ng and drainage standpointj:And �erefore has been ( J etimin �3 from the ceding plan J Exhibit G. , Phase- I construction would be acc ptable fi -w,'a drainage standpoint if existing f tms irk; haven Avenue north . iif.. the 'pru ject were taken off o at the Alta Loma basins,, -. This would permit Phase I drainage onto Raven Avenue. ;Regardind'the develornent,of ,Phase;/ j II, construction will require ir- ,ti�llatioa of e4 master( planned subdrain or �anz..r.pceptable a�, a mate dY°a pgge solution.l( -'The balance of the undeveloped,,lkase Al should drain into.th�, adjacent master planned, storm W,- 4inl'to be installed by the' adjacent aparWent project. _based upoiii the Grading Committee's«. input, the Design Review Committee Oproved the cut and MIS Slope heights subject to conditions, for dense landss,capicg;' treatment to soften the appearance of ,khe slopes. E. Entironmentai Assessment:. Part I of tae Initial Study fins been \� _.completed y the app'icaot. Staff has %,,t completed Part II of the \? i nvironmentat Checklist arjd determ1hed that although the prcject�xould have a significant effa�t on the environment in terms of drainage and trallfic impact.,;, there would not be a signifioani effect in t;ri caste Jcause the mitigation measur as des_ ^,_.ibed on the attachment —to the 'Initial Study will be reeglflred as Conditions of Approval to the project. If the Commission concurs with said finit ngs, then issuance of a \ Negative Declaration would be.in order. IXI, FACTS i`- C FINDINGS: In considering the pi"oposed Conditional Usef -•- -- Pe rm ,, tine arming Gorsmission roust make,' the Findings that the propofed project design and site is consisU rt with the Development � Code and General Plan policies described above for neighborhood ? " shoppigg4�. ters. Further, thi oroposed development, together with the Conditions of Approval, roust not-- be detHmental or cause significant adverse environmental,impacts. IV. CORRESPbNOENCE: This item tas been ad`v`ertised in the Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property o, hers tirithin 300 feet of the project 'zite.. To . date, no correspondence haN bee „-coved either for or again t this project, lY yJrrrJ . f .. _ w* PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - ' Con;_itional Use Permit 81 -31 » Diversified February 27, 1985 e Pages 5 tia 6 0 Ai V,_ RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support,-the Facts or findings a resolution of Approval with Co�lditions is attached foc your considet� lion. However, if the Planning Commission; cannot suq port ttiR pact . for Findings, then the proj�6t should be denjed a incorrsiste frith the Development Code, and ?jenaeal P a�� '"►o i 4 Ei y'sxt fii ed, R ck ex - F. C ty anner r d G.6 .ns jAttachmentV,. Exhibit .Ak. » Location Map Exhibit "!1" - Site, Utilization Map _ Exhibit "C" - Do-tailed Site Plan Exhibit AD* - Landscape Plan,* Exh btt':: z" - Plaza Details Exhibit "F" - Lighting P?fn Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan ^, o Exhibit "G -1 •• Grading Sections Alk Exhibit "H" - Hydrology Map { ?� Exhibit "I" Elevations Exhibit aJ ": - Storefront Elevations Exhibit "!Crt - Perspectives and lemon Avenue Section Initial Study„ Part 11' Resolution of Approval Cp r' 3r. l t CITY Or RANCHO CUCAWNGA Ps1RT 1f1 -- INTTiA: STUDY �> I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICANT =l" FITTING DATE • � � f 7 4— LOG NUMBER: PR.!;7ECT . • F i/l'P� %.�{ltrt�" PROJECT LOCATION. 4 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4 (Explanation of all "yeg`' and "maybe" answers are required on at ..iched sheets). ~7 'Y, ;S WBE NO 2. Soils ant' Geology. Will tt; �prsnn¢��ae significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships ?. b. Disruptions, displaceaents, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modiiicatiun of any unique geologic or physica3 features? ./ e. , Any potent�3 increase in wind or wateF erosion of sails, affecting either an or off site conditons9 k f. Changes in erasion, sil ion, „or deposition: g. Exposure of peoPle or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, groundcfailure, or similar hazards? h, -An increase in the rate of extraction andlor \ , use of any mineral eures `! i J 2. %�Sydrolaap, Win the groptrsal have significant results ins c s Page 2 I YES MAYBE NO a. Changes invculr�ints, or the coq se of direct-Ira Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Chat ,es in absorption rates, drainage pgtterns, or the rate and amount of surface water ii` runoff? c. Alterations to t'ae course or flow of flood Y waters? d. Change in the amount of surface *cater in any body of water? e. Discharg`, intr"`surface waters, L +r any alto atic+� of surface grater gesalityY f. Alteration of 'groundwater ^haraetexistics? J, t/ g. Change in thw quantity of - rouudwaters, either through ;direct additions or witty d:awals, or through interference with-an aquifer? I Quality? Quantity' -�- h. the redur'Ion 3n\the amount of Crater ott' -4r- i wise avax,.abl* foie, public water:- supplies'F 3-. Fxpasure of people,,or propiity to slater related hazards suety as flooding or seicbes? fit' 3. Air Ouali ty. Will the props sal have . - .4ticant results in. a. Consta,-it or periodic air eel; ons frt mobile or indirect sources? stationary sources? b. Deterio%!aiion of ambient air qualizy and or �- interference with the attainment e; applicai•:e air--jral ity s tanda ds? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic j conditinr^, affecting air movement,: moisture or temperature? 4. Biota 'Flora. gill the proposal have significant results i a. Change in tbe--cbaracteristics of e:pecies, including diversityj�jistrybation, or number of any spies of ztants -7 i _Y b. Ud=tlon of the mabers of .any unique, rare r or endangered species of plant:-? in: ., a.\ Chine in +t ea thazaeterisLMcs of spc'cie�, including. 44versiip, distribution, or yaiabers , of any spscle &'of animals': b. Redur x a, of the numbers of any unique, rare or cn#ngo�ved,.species of animals? }- � I c. 'la.roductilon of new cr clUrupttve specie, 'of animals ±.nto an area, or result in a barrier to the.migration or movement of animals? d. Dete!riorRtibn or removal of existing fish orJ -j wildl-tie &abitat' 5. Po ulagon `,Wily the proposal have significant resultin- T%' a: ill the proposal alter the location, distri -� hutiun,.nensity, diver, ty, or growtt4'r., of =r the hum 'A population of an area? b. W,,il the proposal affp5 :t existing huu.sing, or crgate a demand for a�Tditional �musirse. 6. Socio-Eccnomie`Fact -r.4. Will ite proposal have signifio -Wt results In.- G a. Change in local or regional socio- econ -kc characteristics, including economic or -; commercial diversity, tax rate, and,pr'lperty r values? h Will project costs be equitably distvibuted among project beneficiaries, i.a., buyers,.: tax payers or Project users ?, 7. Land Use and °'}ynning Corsideratlgns. Will the have si proposal gnifieanC results in? a. A substantia:t a iii em ion of the present wx ...._ planned land use of., av,`, area? b. A toafx.ct with say designatifns, objectives, _ policies, or adopted•--J2ans of any goveYr---Oental <, ? C. -An impact tpor „=a 'qulaity or quan4^ity of sxtsti�aB ao*sjrp ive r 4bu tansamrptive 1 " - PecreatiCtn.&I"6ppaxttii`ItiRs? Page j ` Y YES M Mr1YRf; NO j c. Tatroduction of new or disruptive species* of e d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural. production'? ; ; Fauna. Will thz proposal have sig#ficant resultsr �. ,; J :. �. � i r _ fl rte,. Page, 4 ♦ `S YES MAYBE, a NO r 8.. T*:ananortation. VIII the proposal have signif scant ;isui,ts in:: y - -, a. Ceteraticsa of substantial additional vehicular cavemen �{ ;� b. Effects on existing - street's, or demand for f� new street construction"? Effectn oa existing garkirg tacilitiea., or demand for new Varking? - --- d. 5rbstantial impact,upor'exlsfing transporta- tion syster.%? e.\ Alterations to ^resent patterns of circula-, � tion or mavementi. of peopli- aadtor f. Alterations to or Present and ; potea+;ial TrNter- bOIT�,'rail, mass transit or 'o4ific'! air. g. Increases % traffIt hazards to motor- vehicles. bicyclists nr pedestx�,aans? 9. Cultural Iesonreas« wiIX the'prdposai have significant results i . s. A,d3, @t•urh;Ln;e to tb:e, integrity of arch` ica, i r1 pa- Ie#*Dtolcezali arfilor historical r Foes? r ; a. 10. iieaith. Safety. and Nuisance Factors. 'Wit'' the propi6sal have si{ liiic�+�,_a- esulCs in.Z a. Creativn of any llea.lt ' hnza -cd or, pc`tential health" hazard`? b. Exposure o` eo le to- potentiaY heal hazards? c. A risk owF losia _,release of hazardous ' sub,!"rAuces in the event n£„2.n ,,accident? ` J. An Increase it the number -of ir4ividuals or specsia-s of vect r or patienogenic _ ow;;aniscs or fire exposure of people to such E , organis+a c lacrE.sse In, P,.Xi�+'3x+.$ naf5e level? Ftr ta' „ote,tti�Ily dangerous $. The .54*ionabie tors? t+ Y%g5xt Iii Aa 3xwtz : in nr gxare? MAME 1 :i. Aesthetics. Will the prn�t,Sal have ssnificant results in: a. 'i1M O'Ostrbction or degradation o`= any scenic . vis.'ta %or view? - p _ b. The creatio�\ of an aesthetically offensive site? c•, A conflict with ii+.e objective of - desigmted or potcBtial scenic corridors? v' =/ 12. Utilities and Publii;; Ser%1tces. . U-1.11 the propdsral bave of 1l significant -aeed for new syst6 alte itions to the ,:tfoiioving .. _ a. Electric goner? t f b. Hatursl or packaged gas? c. Communicz.ions sylatems? j Water supply? e., t$astt:Txte Tfac L -Ies? f. Flaod cOhCtPi' structures ?' - - Sol:w xastefaciliti «s? L: Fire pretectiCT�? 3. Folxra Yrrotectiony `. $. 5ckaois? ` k. Parks or Other recreational iyfdilities? . ' I maintenance of public facilYY`? including' roads aU4 flo `�� control facV, ,zo? M. Other snvzrnmz ,St , earn' �es7; = 23. EaerKy and 5�ar_ a Re^uOf �'l the �csgosa i i ve sigaifi.eant rssul. a. tlse of substantial 03 pJ!��cessive ue� or energy? / b. Substantial increse in",iemand upanfL} sting eources of energy? 7 An - it:crease In the Araand for d Topment F.f me" sources of energy -1 � di. 'An increase or_perne tdon of e COiisixmPtios[ = T , non�rener�abl #ormxr 4a f energy, when feasible f, rrabl aouzces of &hergy are avalable? 'l - r In co:inecticih, Tidtli the effects of � t pr:`ojects,, and probable f tuts prolects.� >; d. .Does "the projetC )ave environmental effects w h ►€ilI cause. su5stantia ,adruerse effects on human beinge� 1ther directly or Indirectly? YT DTSCBSSION of Ei;fl tD2 liT , WAMATION ii e., iif affirmative answers to i x the above que tious plus a�i aeus ^ {Frrt� of proposed ttitigation measure y if 9 4 , x x, } o� Y� R lj L9 ( 6 'mil Z f�! oY_ NO e. -- Substantial'dt,�Iet on of any ncnrenew4'tle'or ar, Ask. . Acatce na-tural,TesO�urce? G ; ; 14.,E Mama f a s o iaifieance C. ,., f A A. Does the projegt bare the potential to degr04 f fi the quality of the .env#Pnment, suhstantial:lg reduce the habi ,of fish or wildlife spec�es, f o o c m mouse a fish or � p b below self sustaining Levels, t�,rtaten to ) r eliminate a Flint or animal ce unity*, reduce the number or r>±str3.ct the ranges of a raze ox endangered plant Orr - •anneal or eliminate important ogles of the major periods of f, Ei Galiforn 16 histtry or prehlstory4 b. aloes the have' the- - poteatidl to gab eve GWhort term,. to ' -; e envirokmnnital goals?' °im�pa ::ap the ; = " "Viranmenx is, one prhich occurs izr a zL.l�ttively ; brief, definitive- period of time while IorgW term. impacts ',will endure veil into the future9. C. DGaO the'pto3act- have impatts which are individuslly limited, but 'ctmrulat3,ve�y c6nsideralite? �(CumalaCively considerable \4 m means Tf t the increzent -I effects of an \ \� ' project are consi4arable when viewe =` �DNDITIO.MAL USE PERIM T 84, 01 j FTTACtiMENT TO-P TIAL.STOY, PART .II '- The proposed grading plain wilt result in significant clst And ' fill grading that will resv7t in large, slop5s or: ' northerly and, soolZberly ends j 'proect: Reti -InIng -walls and' extensive larMscaping are proposes as m'i4igation measures. 1. ` •2. (b,-i X Constroctian of this;'pnodect will -include Ila 98sq. ft. ova buf1ding area and approxirnatel�`16 W.5%R,-'�'Wedted lea ing, facilities.,- These imparyi' is aces ll sigiiifliptly. -" reduce a6brp ion 1' $S avq �,; jot.gase / sur ace meter runoff. iA raTngi, of _ on- '4a :F-! kte,. w� drainage , aitigat.ow meerglx#s -are proposed to . , n rm+ze draigai je "impacts for da*mstrearrt propertiesand,,t Haven , ° ` Avenue.. 8. (a t,aj This project is an intensfare co rcial use which ►,�ii3' have significant ; gene,e# .of, .dddit oval ,results traffic, demand .for widening stre `,, ;'Aew Barking .,- facilitietr, and p'tteatially T= easi ''raffic hazards. r < Construwi ion will include4 sill it*rovement of Naves =' Avenue" and, Lemon Avenue .`ro4zages; including V- 0Cning„ sidewalks, und;; street lightS-,t Further, it landscaped mediaO will be _ constructed ,.on Haut o °�,yer u4 to control tut-nin+g° movements into and out or �th�" shopoing center. - Also* th=is project -rill install traffic „, signals qt the intersection of Lamon Avenue acid at, the main entrance to t €i center (Alta. Loma Drive). t 9. �1r) Buildjngs_• and parking ereas .will requir lz�hting tCI security purpa,tes that''rway :i light W glare t surrounding properties. ai: equ , e_ shielding wi' it tie required to mitigate to a ncm_sign level. �* ° 12. (f) . ��;- - , fjcant ~sae C q � ✓% .,”; a, pit V .. .. i AiiNliiRif , it ��9C:, Ti� �!•�,.�* Mar s rw��6 'o� i ♦ � Va �• a t tj m eaceaeow a awwWOw,occ . a.Mnsaa . a l tr�cwrr� cm u ss �... .� . b� 9ptY33!1I9N? l!�'JVpI' - m SiWftl..x.Yl£y t t LL z ill N. , \ ^•- �w •, ice_ f fit t j C4r est2j ; r -t Y 'X ! iftYJ1J1' : La T� G bE �4v 4`{ac3Fi i° :w _:�� •< �� ", E � r �.. .t _ _� i�a•4 . °.w� L ti•+,.a..n - +�.a«.c� a+%Rw pPx[i cls I acst.'rge�. -i 54i�ur..,�r,r. %»d+'�- +«�- aar�t. os••�i- n -.sn♦r- .. �, '�� 'M�45?' t� �{et i 1 r c ( l 1 t i , i : - M 4 , �. • : � r t,y � �� -'� i. --r,y —r♦a♦� � #�r� :!`�,,,Lp� }mot i�'�f �!' � � •� !f°I !: al �� '•i��w.`�i( L � -_.r }' S ♦ n � S rr 't^ �F u IMP qia 4 1 1 i•, �3 - I -iM ig'i4• i 9 �•4 �..„.r.•� r•i I! ! y3 t 3 u lit Fj (ii.. � Ir Ilk .^�' } v.(�t � x'.a�{_#t 'iw ". !• 3_ —.�_ 0.a ,, .� ♦ 1..�i�T7- '�11�'it � � � t y' ��k � }+ i 1 I I 1 I Y Q1 CU.�..ILL - IVt11d3�t7�')i i,VTM tBAYK..�.- tI • '1'Y _s .Yr Lill A I!!! mr�_[ a it Sib _ ;l cZ s 1j _.a ..._ lr V* "M, M"U V* VS'+n ri7e,�. y�y�y. .r�xa � ywowtwaeva �4 � a is icts�rr aes Nd t:31315tl3A1Q'�� ' ut I � Y�1Ce i n r 1 N= ,4. L a F io -a' AC�P;4�, =---- Rill b a lI• \ '1 j'1�1 ddda � L N li -S9Y9i rA NA�v'! . i - _„ rr . . c `1 �- _ t r lit llf it NLI Al =; yl y f F Fi �� 1th :<�: . `..y OMi1b�YN� � LMG1^ < 1:Y 7 [qN� � � •. V' - ... , v ' �t{ Imo" IL s __;—® �� •{ � 111'.. s .Syu S I � Q'•• -� tt .11i i lE . 'A� G'J �F J ___. ;�4 1a Y Sirs g C• t . �� °'�, •t'1..�•C.A L'+. 7 ►'S'+�6 �- .:,� ' -�. .�'.'1��.Y,`+�'.•'�T3fa�r. ^"ft r.' �."e'';c ;�-cN �37 t �j "�' '" L� '"y , 1L ZI, %PAW AdLz� iVr7=e OMOM.✓.9 IN-1 1L ZI, %PAW AdLz� 0701 -02 o 4}- 2--85 PG Agenda o' 3oof 4 1� I I I ` i<1 � ��1 ;elai /. �i��ds1�tA:d Wtt;�Cdae�t�l �4 lit JN '• nirft, fB.J�. �..�Ii. KF, 1yAF � �. � ".N � Yr 4 crr ((►►��G.� s� .r`.� *°T x. !_ } j 21 }yfiv Ao Q�l rt -AP 117 tat it CL. tit !lz ;� ��, i��►�I •� em�ATCnn�vAat, �taiRpip�''. .. � j �: ��— i • sntdc,er��.wt?xts �1+Cd Py4 r4Sy�yjY G I f I 1 G k rl f •'� j .1 te ` r a _ ID '� r t► s' � , i� � o o O bdf dacct t■ r.i ( `I�� r .. ■`ePiz:= LP'D'a:_9ESlttti � _ �S "_' T iur? �"'�.-' * r� �E � i rSSa •�uue 11 t�¢� {Ifs rF i r ■ � ■ j `. Q- �a o5 vJ +maxS saasRd pt�s �T 1' - RESOLUTION NO. look A_RES9LUTI0�3 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING tiOMMISSION APp1ti,igNG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8431 'FOR A NEIGHFORHOOD SHOPPA"IA CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST - C0RkiA - V1F- ; HAVEN AND HIr•yL- -anti , xrr`° `T IE NEIGHOORHOOD COMMERCIAL DIS -115 WHEREAS, on the 21st days of November, 1984, complete ap 77cation was filed by diversified Properties for review of the ab6 ve- descri� Q project, -� and c: _ �- WHEREAS, on the 24th day of April, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held', a public hearing to 'consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE,.the Rancho Cucamonga Pianning'Corriission resolved as follows: SECTION l: That the following findings cal be -met: I. That the proposed., use is in .:accord with the General Plan, 0 _ the objectives of the Develq ment Code, and the purposes of l the district in which the site is lac-�ted. j 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions ` applicable thereto, will' not be detrimental. to the public health, safety', or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project, together with the Conditions of Approval, will pot create advorse impacts on the environment and thiA'`a- Negative Declaration is issued o��April 24,. 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit 84 -3I is approved subject to the fallowing conditions:' PLANNING DIVISION 1. That approval of 'Phase II and those areas or buildings indicated for "Future Development" is conceptual only and reapplication for Development/Design Review is required. 2. Future building layouts and designs shall be consistent t with the approved architectural style, , 3. Future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and AOL irrigated for aesthetics and erosiort control. Resolution No, CUP 84 -31' ;. Page 2 4. Provide texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles from Haven Avenue to the easterly terminus oV pedestrian walkway. S. Provide lockin bicycle fedilities in convenient locations. Retails shall be irincluded in the landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City Planner. c 6. Provide pedestrian connection' near Retail 43 to the adjacent residential project. A lockatle gate may be permitted for security purposes if master keyed for the adjacent residents. Details shall be coordinated with adjacent developer and included in final construction plans, 7. Pedestrian amenities shall be provided within plazas,.; including, butjnot limited to, outdoor eating areas, canopy shade trees, raised: planters and benches, = and drinking fountains. Detail,, shah be included in the landscape - plans to the satisfaction cif the City Planner. 8. Depse landscaping shall be provided along Lemon Avenue is screen roof equipment from "public view. To maximize visibility of'landscping acrd to maximize screening effect, the slope on the south side of Lemon Avenue sha11 be configured to provide mounding behind sidewalk before slv+pe' drops off, 9. Shopping cart receptacles shall be provided throughout main, parking areas. Details must be included in final construction plans. 10. Landscaping and fencing treatment�*)ing easterly property .. -- line shall be coordinated with adjacOX developer. 11. Parking areas along` Haven Avenue shall be continuously screened with =a combination of ;berming,'hedgerows,` trees and low level decorative walls. "Berms shall be undulating witn an average height of three foot and a maximum slope of 3 l 2-,l. 12.. Stdewal ,�xvement material and color shall compliment the river rock veneer. 13. Uniform Sign Program shall establish uniform size,placeme -dt and single color for tenants. Major tenants may have variation in size, placement and color; provided that no - � more than 3 colors shall be permitted within the program (except for logos). E � w, +R i Ail- �^ 771 ._� Resolution No. CUP 84 -31 Page 3 cwt ENGINEERING DIVISION VI j 1. Drainage: i a. A portion of Master Plan Storm Drain Line 3 -H,, located to the north of the site, shall be - constructed with sufficient` inlet capacity to accept a minimum of flow, from the north within Haven Avenue to offset the l increased flaw generated by :;•the_,;%4evelopment. Construction 'of this line shall replaci the prtposed retention basin.' b. Increased drainage from the first phase ,shall not be directed to flighland Avenue, ;there "crossing onto the private, property to the soutbk. It is acceptable to direct the drainage to Haven Avenue by use of -.an interim earth berm or ditch, assuming Line .;) -H AsMn . place. Subsequent phases of the deV,JTooment of _the development shall be designed to direct iM flows;��um the site to fu4- -w Master Flan :Line 44 located t.. je r east. Line 4 -H shall be constructed with {4ny , --*e phases. Z. Traffic and Access: a. A traffic signal shall bO constructed at the intersection of Haven and Lemon Avenues, with the first phase. Cost of the design and construction shall be credited to Systems Development fees. b. T6 pavement width of Lemon Avenue shall be- as stated in the project Traffic Report. c. The 'interim access rt adway connection �,to Higfland , Avenue shall be approved by Caltrans. �.•____ . Grading. a. Prior to approval of the rough grading plan, the applicant shall coordinat-, grading plans with the adjacent apartment project to the east to provide a compatible grading solution which eliminates any unnecessary retaining walls and /or slopes. b. Reconfigure grading to .prevent runoff from entering handicap ramps. r } -3� u uy Resolution No. en P Page 4~31 lr , APPROVED AND ADOPTED 'THIS 24th DU-'(W April, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OE THE CITY OF RANCHO CU(,AMONOA, - ? BY: Dennis L.Y tout, Chairman 1 ATTEST- i Rick Goi�c, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Cowission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was 'duly „and regul� ly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City , Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the PTarning Co(mission held , on ie 24th day of April, 1.985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: ,OMMISSI RS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS • ..YYL�O LV� W gMYp q 9L3 ^6! q Lap f _p p�u�ay L L�V °�Nk� d6 yV rC.µO. q0 GL O `Yy�� LOlq.�i - . V " t t g N V p p1U pliGV ppCV aqs � C..y. } r LaL y`3.r. .S,5=78 CV Y, t 44 '� ci W C� LCp �LT� YpM.u�4�uQu n �LA u r a. S.c aau �FYNr Qi �. p L q CN .-• @ A yaN" Y C N Y L OIF Y6p1 w. � p C • Q 1 itl 2�OVM €'gyA4.. Oi a Y n YN1b Ly n Yh4� qGL C .«.V^ a.0 CpN C: Y.� V '` p a� C C. u G K p t � S N y a L° A 4 •^,. y� y .. •� L {`A LVgL'�nV�g6L n6�Y�j ya CND nL �� R C ��N. 9 P YON yOb YCgRZ q S�pg� q =FY tlap pCGC. W.LT 46.pdN �qn�, T; ¢� ^+6�: td' >^ EGp,' 4 `� .O lRy oCCn Ia NC anbY,•,u d0 �$} a�gye�C..�0 SFO qq rt�RYg ~ °C K�01 �O �jr q a>. N`40V 0.� ��4 °OOH Y� d SY °GNaaY aTi MGCyY Y 6LOZ�u y g YtlY ^C .Q�O�� tl*� Eta f GYC° L Via- `O2 a�b. wl C Sip w.� p.° NY. •;`;.�btL o°q Y n A .-qtr aY t 0•M^YN6V YN Ln 2r V4V..�- �00.>pN C.�at <Na;�Y2 40853. H.G dLGU- E� _i � V • M C S AY pNa a. O- _ L E; at � .�- �g +t N � , LMNMVLp�`. a urgT,q�a • w G w • t 2 218 4 q V N i YI �(� q qt P p yY g2py V at.�Q Yg q O O.o•,,, 4 C rs ts- °. '1\\l u 'ri°un,a C, i ✓- c o ndpu�Maew° � J Lby i NZ = ca c 'D�60'Sftlx:N I ng M uY pi, .pC2 O< w HR b +LlY9uN pal F+ns Mt �... a F; V O Z l u Ca i d F �,°+.n°.c ucaa ca oT'. o� u..+c u•'. 01�a°ia m .�cµ b c.T �� -Y °' a o•,.. c t o a <� Y� a o s .- L'�- t. eD+� p'Ya Y '�� - fi .o A, _.-�Mi.N L+`.� u. ov o `w �t7 a, y A o�� a•.. RV'.EE+D YA.VR DDNUYVU"y0 YOiYi9wN VAA P.. �__ ^V'N` �Dyy. MCA 2'^D ^,.A 6w 'C «TY �Or AY4 YNY G� Aq IA ti- ?Lpw{LO{yy��SQ�. +. - .4a }. EpT Lr., ` r.. L h V T V C Y 9 R'JC 9 N y.. V LA «.-' --"t A w io$ Nz=Y Zb C L C N A N D a .2-2- N •,,,Y9CC .pYV 9 V C N �� V Y• L.. O a C Y � L� V tl« A A E p ..�+ N V 6 V p� Ag1�aT V ^C a3.N i.N�VUN in aY mY.ygQ 'uj0 • Mi Dw Npwy'NT� C N C� CZCa i.. N90•�..AN aAi 6�'4 �• Vl O =aC q^ ELNr OLzp L�-nD .LAq OO�Zp. Y S. DAVW Ea•Sy^t YNDNVLby Cb0 uP ^N'y w� V. ��N 9 4m` V VL��O >Y~ �G 1�1 Y LY a �eD -.�A {Gy1 .i LbyA Aw VS ~OLy .OQ� Y4 RC a�ww VY.`L .pg CM 4C4 4y CrYas �G '" CO LY9a w C�.. —G`Jq� YV LV $T =V OyyY G ALE6Ya� �}}o'. Gi�YL .-u uq �,w 6HYnn Y Y • 9 3 g p Va �V V,OT NO CDt DatrC1 3C.O ^v A iN e� °i$ aci.� Myi i a L • � =; C�D.L6 '~"h6 tL^.t NCIN K�N.uD NX 4 `CV Ja"VVI Iz C i « py-Y�O V� «D.A V A L NL��y CANY • y ?VY y O19 N L.: D C Y'G aao�n. tLt6" Y - q g 9 GflTO«Dy qyEbs'. �'Y. 9 Q p O d�aai� �i w�NN O !Qt t: cTu u *+inxc.- �cAn I �} LV t V+^- uu NL�N G O Q Q! ^ ^ ^ ^ I-O _ G.L w wAn Y Y:aV Y Y6 N N^ A AV<= iC• c c w Dr=y c cY. - - A A L , ,.. °.. A c c . .o c a• G y yw+•y _ G sc �y� N O yU�jyYY.. V Va y y�l ^N D DCodp� � NU T T�O� C i « py-Y�O V� «D.A V A L NL��y CANY • y ?VY y O19 N L.: D C Y'G aao�n. tLt6" Y - q g 9 GflTO«Dy qyEbs'. �'Y. 9 Q p O d�aai� �i w�NN O !Qt t: cTu u *+inxc.- �cAn I �} LV t .4.—.,w.. . V►. L OORO L. Y =0 .O C� O C` rr Ci LYCIN�q« GT OO2 ^N E;4 Tt CIY p L �4Y d' n2 co.oa•4P1- ,a ^•.O- q Y i c off^ i. r 'A �+ 1; 5, m S. 5 , °s:°- Ii °+-m µ `gin 9 sago .. ua eag ~� t m \..� �. C�. Crr � °a =oa ont.Y ro`�o .yi' •qo�� may S= µNC 4 O m° Y� oAq Y w. DSO a. G Y 9atlq 9�y L bya e \ �vkR LN�0y4 CY i}M ^„4Y q ^ O Z w4iS '� _ 9 Occcc � y q� � VY.. Y� .ra•°•YVU�y «N.k OV`yMm CM��4M yA CM Lev. NCG M V Uq V4ppN C CNY TG.bgrr^°. W {8w0° n p Y4�trC aC� Aarr� Mdu* V M Q4imf P °x � VMAM O O14Fy NLi! RO. 4gO.6p UC C��Laty.'. G'OaL 6� CC.� I�aO.Y A. r� -r ^qY L{ UK A t ° eNNmi VN�y Y... 'Z QG 'prrYi NT$ L o ►mwgc npy 2' 5 L 1 p µ~ ~YtlA -�.N �Gy fLi p' M?a � V'.a14�u pq, 4lVVVU��1C yC ��O,O� M -l!, EEEE iCyU 7 Pd ^NN bl4a.�DN Co pr.Og C° a1M `M4 rrir. a RR N r N 0 N 11-23 M {t1 i RLL Qaa{9 �L � C L = �V CIT Ol �' vQ rLSl tlb }��Cqu m. S pp. GMM 4r FaJCy „=40 OF Mµ N x W Vp rx0. M Oy V ny P YrQ� br SA G tGCL p` Y^ C RCY A T= �C N"'� r 9Y 14 ?> S paC LVLi AS It �yCl 6C.0 44 i >LV Sw _yp VV Ik VO NV 4 � Yp.� NGLC OcL- y. ',� .�!. i� A> > N ys„yr C. ![NQOa4 ~Uq 'r Lr6 Nh G9NU � ¢ pp ju4r. prY CL° It LMtl� _� aN V r YL aaC9.'�♦ i Y � L C. CL N S N� r6 Tr SC �Z LU g �^ 'g3rd d493'OyN Cw � gpCr�L Enu wC U n• Y� Yj� acR r°r o¢f N oN - ^iL two, '°<i n.°. tam 0 r. 41 cai r Nr � 0 rVy Ca,µR Nr4Y N � V a. O.° Ny XY ii Q ✓s a°j"!—na � s GC O C p tl� LAO � yOr Y C 4 Y�r b 9 fC C9 L� V �W Mh m:PaL 4'O Nr"C,G >C '. rVMrt Cw` OG�Y� GC LKri..L. � yN^ L9 {q oum ' ��y 4A ' Vrbr L gY aa} <Z3Mi ar M P L V < w`r.r -a� r <v N ML6 �- dN t F}+O GL <ct ia. r o N.• �e Y �Lc R� 'Oyrp IC t`L 6. K,naM1M1 CYU� YL,G AbC a a.•ul.+♦ 1 .4.—.,w.. C p > C Nly r'VO pNN O.» O ° S iO l\�!`..V.+ .II.. O'•' y �• = N C �'.0 }ate Y A tgya VC Y Y� O L :Ji � _wt56 S n L b q ^� V V Y V` • a i V_ «. VL 4ypI C is rtl VY-•tr ��Fit�L� V .. Z G J4p X yypy a �O YNL 9.r� Nv O^I a vvv� _ 7u P^ 9Rp Viu TT.Q Mp ..v. 4L°. m: ^YY. Ik �]$!!„YLYLCy== `fin,,ppC pyN` `+1 y CTaN Q °_�� Pet bµYU �p GN 2�a'�Pfr 4VS y,��S R.yadS yam_ � > v40 XZj2.9 F N.. aTMin °L 44 NNL K bV R tl�b ti- t 3VI 4Vt b�!�I!C (E S V ^� L> Y »Y PY �L Qu:. dLO Ora MSn pRo Syy CrtC. IIV �O •n N 1 v�6 �pwap S'p�G NiP W. V�C^ LYG. VC yYa. �C bIR� �OVobcc AV4�° Voi � �4L P�'•a ^fyi V +•�. YG� .tiutl eAw4 A�N S0.°i aye M SAY aV ^'O at�N CS q .`II V sfii �,V LOiq a+`V _�ji'.611 -w O Sy z O �V ARV .'1ttly N ' you ti u� �` y yG N ors a$yw Y �..0' uij ==, tlg N TF^ 4s CC SOSCL Kii V.. qVGOM,r GI N1��6° V R P y4^ NY fU ... QV6�' LM. NL4-• N~ �" y6��u Yt>l, yqr _. V °ix.._ tlV la LPL »erg m � ^WN ^LoS N. w•p %+ �� -. :Ca°4$ iy a emu$ s ° {• >a'+p °x$'+ ARVO N� `I<SYmO NY aO.t V� Q �R ° ON�S.0 FT> >+Otl PL C^ t pVa Z t AR ^wL L�6 � ,yr Qw°r4 L?R�3A L�LV'i. L � L�� 1 A.4 w 1"�6•+ YLWN 4 FwA 1�41WL C.. O„A Y. ih L'ti^ww. p N GVp ti Np Ill ILI F II. II a N � 4'LO GC • ds �.�.d M4 °v SO •L+l. w Ai 1sC N4`R °a �°yc, rCC YYM as .�. vC ` �G y rr. P 9 q V W G 4 u VCLpL Yy R1V.» bVA � b.p4L a•r yp.O. V bA YL.. t< Ta ^9 CM N « �Y1p ...iQ LTiCii» Ya �aA,:- SY �py■ P r2 O sePO ^LV'• Y Ab yd 11�� iL 64» �"oV z tl 4 c qu s co L . tlLrY S� V V PN = ^y b 4LGti A < ^hA CA - ' VV::pY LOf _ Otla ,LV 060v ... «6 »� • `tl GO: Y Ya �pV ^Y °1 F ^dN Z- M GI V,VR O Cjl1 S..L p+R R� rcla n O u 9y °' L.r°+ ° a=`"• '� °"' :: r ° r a ° "..+w °y .'n" +- u4C .-�.� �L C c�btl� � w �� a4 '•�qp ;� Mt .�"�'T -.,`rte Yom' � ♦. nr-c° r c o ,R �PU1 6�.e�t fr sl 7r.o.w a �b� °w.te ei . w... -. e° °.""6�5 $ a"c�ulZ S K� UM Y rPr 4 CO L N°y R, =5a M AT9 w 21 Ns t�.v°6'� l t� V ua tl GM M1 r p �sy rA ^.�.. L N S$ !�� LY�O r �'d'c 6ac W.X w � .fir ti N 1••y �,NF ` �� { �,? f`` �{ { c.+sM - C 3a LY L V ,tip CO y� rH 0ffi L�' 4 h 7'1 a. GQ bW dC ffi4Nc OVA L r Y9u wcW L W°ZA. Vd.M 12 C 1Z' tl3 T x°a Cy pLE ✓Orr N p aCz ffi VWf+D'Cdq L w a o Z ffi, 6 �. 4`' 4 4 �e Y 4 0 Y 4 M N N 4aqq E p It 0 Nha Cu01 #L Vhf (( ENyQj E °n gL Y N`qA CN ONi cc°N CY DV�y9r OVr V Ya_yw Nom~ vtS G L. 0. s � owe oc 19 v ¢m r g a x u a v nZ W @Y� 0 40e 44ffilN y Vh u " U^ 'Ot` CL4 0 o_.i H ca �..`. � vy. to •,. -j ce°. ai �; 1 0 f Ln .. • °ca oc c qg a Y Lq lTLb [� .,.avh.. o Lr Am r°aNN C tb.. RyaJ �H �Y9 �O 110 � ^N 1 Y A �u� 1i �°' 'K.YAi°O C` b u °y s L '°°.`N r w �um''}� ya• a �t Lam. ° yr ia 11A z V Cu Yet �.l „� qac w t'�.a- Vr s L 4 L.. Ycc. aE."v Cn.. nG iy uY g ny NL i..� o ^pas GO n� of Na 3yic41 ,ym. tz si ' Q Qya = N4 NiWtm L�LRVAa°Ni '� v'y^ 1 L4 9: a.b1r; raV -L. '� h0. 4Q" ""VI R I�� q`Vf �a - 0U`gqCfVM QY �tr L4 N° CE Oi6n °qy 1y K. Lf Sr �*}N1i°' Y t w' G �tprvWhq KCO CV�..C.� :.i 'G vsi.'~ OI Yw AN 'Y �. 01 C� S. V 4V`N. 4 &351a.M4 CaY(Q_N Vt �.v �1f VaR �O�u!gO CN a4. L.',MY Pffi -°'� Mi 6'W'. by hV4N*N'. K {t .L p +v _34 ' y '<ra��'M W 6 #.P • Qi mt3 �.., tl. A9•G,p r Cfr;; ` •u "v'N.. � -�«'�. a+e• «�i tai -ter^ Pats »�.e a; x c a ,d V L Yt N q> yY N d Y TN y Y 's..;. °,^ .a..'...'' asa-� °t c2 ry t Fw Y I W 4qa ce.� C"AL gG�ci�. Yc4 CC {� maa. as lacw.r> �,a° °cdt cma °1 �Wn -�'y�. U�. aix Y FN) I. LIZ - V ~Q till Pa. V V r] j U..�� Y. St,gn' -O �Y tagR�y a k 1" � ..�. Y.w � Y"" LNA LL i+Ah a� L.� Qpp cY�o`� vA -4f _wi �� YC�i+} •i3sut 6 \a,•, ,. ,,, ,N. Val a�� 4q� "Q Q.p iL� FyN gbq !gy 4an{r. tali ; .1 4. �i'L`YAQ W�q� .aYyw iRY .x •�• � L.Y � v: „t r C N CL Y p� :F rag CG jeW p ?.gym iV 9{q =,V -� •pike _� �I''. r » O A IL n uL'F� p •.Y, t: � w Y Z_ U >: U i 6 � O ygY43A �l K V1 YS,W 4+` 4 a,FY N6MY VfQ G4�..H KC] t'A.�. tYM NLFV ,i, Oi "fap'1LD 1 m' 5 Vt a r YG at_¢ L� 7 ti o � •G CL Nrt GpC OA ti9 GG �4 Q Wµ a. � n� G t4c � A 4 m A °�� .0 trt3 � ° L A ; .a m L �• \ % T 1'I L w b'uK :c a% a� ws ,°, u n a'»c <.s si =' � , z i , 1 t IA 1 r, P� 4 v at� 0 J ! r 1. G d G r O d_ pppay -0c spa �' atp �,c pIS y� O G % A Y !I 4 -0d JgJGA l pJy. �'d: d -NiJ6P iA` r` flA� ijP IiP pi A >p T .1.� -vol % i� •'JJ�pP�. P °J p.°I i A 1J �d / O �6 i W G d�T4E.O OdC'C OC. 7 r7 I6 dP. O ` °R i Jd /O, D cJ O 6 3 !A JeF Q'vl iJP, f_ R D !, ya .. J �a s �Ri 1� ♦P °ass, i <Jp.. !/O I G!O o J �!,°�_ °J� n �a A o i �' G °p-Y` 3�:6V. °. � .'�'d leyi� : puck �♦♦ ! °a -0010 d -0d i� A pGA 6% s JANAPC o� N ds /°.% Ji ! >R°•' -J%� 1p I s Rar AP pd d 1 k sv�sOp. yJ EAU psi, i{�y A yR a, dv u °o... aorGy °J� �� t d O iv Jd^ 'yam 4 Pd �� i �G�Jd i A � `! • �n y. d� v A ` ii -0G o• � ;J a yd d��P d� J °yJJfp �R d4 W OJ O14 V.. Opt. c i yi c i -0:� OJ T DyJO !l4pa0 bA� °. I�i J�. ��Q d- iJ r s i ld�� ds '•ay Di �� o° °� d.Yd f °, v R dd'o1 JA a "iVdyy, P S''i dr. d d I d OoJ lj�ai � r� G 4p Wpf is P `AG /P ^N % Eli N q 8.. 3 w � W ! �M! L Q t ♦V ty_ 4� L e ✓� ! O.' O6'. q �Cf 4yX ' r Ir O itC tA a"L y� qi aR. A q..... r,Y Ct - k� � 3 Ly : A 4w F A tw •f u 4¢ pp 02! Y3. aR _C �C Ri G v L may' � 1 C'tl=� �{ -... rt I rxtl ti L Y 6+ r!�3 LM1 .Cw VwO. 'w[•�may 'O Xv AdQL JAM— O .yap 71 ".« !M. z 3t s L y, �y ry Y� Mang y y A Yom' a a Cry; 4a, "yL R r � 'QaROte (!VZ7 p b tyR b..Y rz «IIG a G a �SZ - i t '°' L y,. +c � � i ! '^ �r aa, Y r4'R•:,�. d. " W c r• '6 G"Y Car !6 �.. C �'� 49 C. C �� ! � CYffi •I O.! Q �LZ 4V .u� Oaf 4v:r T -4 q�E 3R o•^ +o �i'�s CITY OF RANCHO PUcAMONGA t _ DATE: April 10, 1985' TO: Chairman a� j !members of the Planning Commission l FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY. ,1` Lisa Wininger, Planner t�'�Istant SUBJECT: EgVi ONCUTAL it�i` CT REPORT M RU'iERP,i. PLAN AMENDMENT 84- 03-A - H & H , IRYsSTME#TS -,A request to amend the General 'I F tart Land Use,14ap from Low Density Residential (2-4 du /ac) I to Medi= High Dc my Residential (14-24 dulac) on 13.55 acres of land located on the south. side of Feron Boulevard between Turner and Ramona - RPH 209• - 085 -02, 03, and 14. I. ABSTRACT: The applicant requested a General Plan, Amtiendwnt ;froab \, Density Residential to fora 13.5 acre 'Site 4' 0,, Feron Boulevard between, Turner, and Ramona. After Me ermination by the Planning Commission that the project could cri,ate adverse environmental impacts; an Envirormaeital Impact Report was prepared,, Which identified significant impacts in. the areas of land use, noise, hydrolog and public services. I*a addition, , six alternatives to tthe,,.proposed .pro,)ect were discussed;' At this meeting, the Planning Commission will make a finding regarding the adequacy of the EIR and, based upon the EIR t and public input, will ionsider the General Plan f wdment. `, II. BACKGROUND: On September 26, 1914, the Planning Commission considered a request for a Gen l Plan Amendment from Loa, Wr Density Residentia, (2 -!E du f ae) 4 to Medium liigh 0 §---t Residents for 13.5 at X54 -24du aa)'1 a acre. site located a the I� south side of Feron Boulevard between Turner and Ramana�(see i Exhiiiit A). The attached staff report describ£✓ the ,,fully Ur existing site conditions, General Plan and'�velnpment'$ts rict designations. Should the General Plan Amendm0t`- be approved, applicant plans to develop a project co' 0sting of pnu ,� "ominium units at an approxi -iate density of -23 units per aer, Based an the findings of the Initial Study, the preparation of an Einvironmental Impact Report was required by the Cjynissfoa gtith the following:. areas to be discussed: hydrology, population; socioeconomic factors, land use and planning coats derations, I trafj,$�: recreation; health, safety and nuisance factors; and uti7T�..,-�s and services. public ITEM F PLANNING CiiISSiOtI STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84-03-A April 10, 1985 _ (; Page Z r_ �k The Commission also requested that the following project alternatives be discussed: Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Mixed Else, , an -d a Res deritial/Part alternative. Preparation of the Draft EIR was initiated in November and completed and distributed for 30 day public review in February. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Draft EIR which was distributed to the Planning Commission in march discusses`'possib a impacts and mitigation measures in the following 'topic areas, land use "and - aesthetie4 `population and socioeconomicsi r parks -'and recreation; transportatiop /circulation; noilse; hydrology; public' ._: services /utilities; public safety; air qua�fty; earth resources; and cultural;yresources. Each of these areas are discussed in the EIR text and �,itlined in` the ,General Stamwj .at the beginning of the document >Q.5f these areas, land use and aesthetics, noise, hydrology, and public set- micestsafety were identified as ° significant impacts. This report provides a brief discussion of these impacts and mitigation measu cm-: proposed„ if any, and project alternatives. For additional details ase consult the Draft EIR. A. IMPACTS Land Use and Aesthetics. The Draft EXR "concludes that the proposed project is inconsistent *fih the goats and policies of the General Plan regarding siting of Medium High Density projects and cnupatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. These criteria include siting of Medium High Density project along major thoroughfares, close to transit facilities or near community facilities. In addition,: the proposed general Plan Amendment would result in a density which is incompatible with the surrounding area. The Draft (� EIS st'aiesithat the'proposed land u-e change represents ;r sign cent adverse envirorment0 impact which cannot' be xht5aced adequately, Noise.. The project site will be significantly impacted by noise venerated from the railroad right- of -0ap on its southern property line, exposing residents of proposed projects to unacceptable levels of noise and vibration. However, the Uri-aft EIR < ebes discuss mitigation measures which will reduce the significance of this impact to an acceptable lever. These measures include sound attenuation barriers, building material and orientation, site planning, and specializid ¢ _ acoustical studies. These measures could f incorporated throughout the: ec revi aer txri a' ,2 ran � esses reduce noise impacts tet art ' —el _ � accipti I evei <---°— PLANULNG COMMISSION STAFF RVORT,�S General Plant Amendment 84 41 - i April Ill, 1985 Page 3 J. ire HYdro'ioqv. the project site is identified in the draft ZR -- bed to S�tio Year flooding in addition to Periodic ingndation due to tack of storm.drains in the project area. . In order to adequately mitigate, this Problem, it would be the responsibility of the ` developer to construct on-site d�aanage facilities as required by the City irngineer in addition to substantial off -site drainage xacilities required by ° the projjact improvements. Construction' of *these 'facilities would -ate ih4_. m le bunt. would require a mayor inves en o be borne Public Services /utilities /public Safes . tie proposed project will result in an increased demand for ,public 'and services, utilities, public saf°eiy provislbh. At present, pdric, fire and schvnl services, are operating at or exceeding capacity. = Thus. residents or the proposed' project could be "fgnifhantly impacted by reduced levels of- service in these theme areas! Although mitigation measures are proposed in the Draft EIR wrgch Gould, to some extent1, 11 mitigate a portion of thi,�.r�nPact, it is not possible at the project level to oitfgate the impacts in the areas of police, fire and _ ; �school-services to a level of Insignificance. i 8./ ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROFOSFD PROJECT. Its, accordance Oth t e requirements Of the CA Y ornia Environmental Quality Act, and at the request of the' Planning Commission,, six alternatives to th were cons4dere n e ra e s an he al .ernatives are; No Oevelopment, No Project; fart Medium Density; Medium Density; Mixed Use., and Residential ark Those alternatives f�hich appear to be feasible for development with m6imal and acceptable environmental re the No. Pro.e I at the Low ff4dfum cost! Residential alternativ Na Pr Oject. The No Project alternative would coat nve u- General General Plan designation -'cf Low Density if Residential of the project site. RevelopMent of the s project site at the Low Density range would be fully ' compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Only the impacts in the areas Of Public Safety/Services would not lie fully mitigated. F - -�•.»_ —' — w- vrapersy an - Medium High category could alloy( up to 24 du /acre adjacent to development averaging approximately 6 du /ac and in places as low as 2 -4 du /acre. The location of this project is inconsistent with goats and policies of the Genero-4'Pl'an regarding siting of � r PLANNING COMMISSION STAF- REPORT General Plan Amendment 84-03-A April lit ;. I986 ' Page 4 Low Medium Densit The Low Medium Density alternative represents a s ➢tight increase in allowable dwelling units over, the exirt_ing Low Density Residentai designation- .New -ver, t0 s density is within the range which is come t'ble kith existing surrounding ; development. As with the 'No Project alternative, the only impact which, could not' be fully mitigated by development in the toaw $edium'Density range is that of Public Urvices /Safe Y,, 1'�s- the areas of schoGls, police, and fire prates inn. j Tale remaining alternatives �_ ,a Deve ppment, Medium Density, Mixed txs�� and Re t lark) represent Significant levels o i pact!�ed�� of are0infeasible for future development in terms of s design and economic ' viability. C. E19 ADEDuACY Based on staff review of the Draft CIf�, the document appears complete in its review of the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and is in compliance with G'EiIA requirements. All of the items identified in the Initial Study as potentially impacttve have been I discussed 'fully. In addition, the discussion of alternatives exceeds the requirements of state law and provides a useful basis of comparison the with proposed ` project. The Draft EIR has been circulated to agencies and citizens and, as yet, no cammeats regarding its content have been received. Therefore, staff feels that preliminary" approval of the EIR °adequacy - is appropriate. Should the General Plan Amendment be Council, formal 'certificat on of appealed Fina EIR by the City Council will be regeired. U. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS: The major issues regarding this request are Land use compatibility with existing adjacent development and consistency with, the goals and policies of. the General Plan. The other significant environmental issues of noise, hydrology and public services must be also considered, it rl stated in t ed Medium Hiaf [tensity wear �n tible with exir.t111 res d the ` , and would be ina ro r - t e center of esi. a nei hborhood, with rza Trae _ - -�•.»_ —' — w- vrapersy an - Medium High category could alloy( up to 24 du /acre adjacent to development averaging approximately 6 du /ac and in places as low as 2 -4 du /acre. The location of this project is inconsistent with goats and policies of the Genero-4'Pl'an regarding siting of � r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84 -03 4 Aprii 10, 1985,,1, a Page 5 - medium high density projects and preservation of existing neighborhoods. Development of,. a Medium -High density project would , a significant impact on the trend of future develoment in the Northtown area. In terms of addi- iogA_1 environmental issues,`noise and h drolo y represent yeas w:�h� e roug caNital i ements and speci,`lized cons ruc i n i DYini "f1rtaT1t2 ` The—zleWSTM r. v v 3Tt i ;-Tire an sc oo rvaces � e currently operating at�i, a6 ve c4acity and it is unlikely that, there is any way to mile a� thesp,r- eff=ects completely at the project level, creatiq P aatf:i pii;hlic safety hazard for project residents and r�i level -of service to other members of the =,nunit' Vt i}eil. :< Based the issues '1, cussed �a' ve, it is clear that the proposed, General PI Of inappropriate for o v dn-eln c thepLow- site.. the sseda the EIR only Medium Density appears t �e an acceptable alternative to the proposed General Plan Amendment. Any further increase in residential density could severely impact the existing \ y neighborhood and represent inconsistencies with the General Plan. c, V.' FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission upon examination of The General Plan AmiWrent, decide that the change from Low Density aesidential-�n__xv_;( promote the land use goals and purposes of the General Plan, and that this Amendment would not be materially injurious to,the i_-04apent proA,_irtiet the fo owing are the findings that are necessary an approval; A. The Amendment does not conflict with the nand Use Policies of the General Plan. ,�.._._. B The Amendment promotes goals of the Land Use Element. C. The Amendment would not be ma11Y injurious to the adjacnt properties. In addition, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required prior . to approval of the amendment. VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The nai1_v Report newspaper and notices were sent to an expanded notification area including all property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the proposed project, in addition to other interested property owners in the area.. To date, no 4{ j correspondence has been received. t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84 -03 -A April 10, 1985 Page 5 u VII. OPTIONS: At this ,time, the "Planning Commission has several options regarding dispositior of the General. Plan, Amendment - request. They are: 1. Approve the General Plan Amiml*lent as proposed, �- 2. Deny the General Plan Amend a }fit. 3. If the Commission feel's that :ipeditional issues may be l resolved, continue item to »r2xt possible Commissions agenda. Note: At this time, the %Commis;ion does not have the 4nt ate sf adopting an alternative from those discussed above. A new General Man Amendment would be required to be initiated either by the City t >r the applicant should this request be denied. The Commission may wish to discuss alternatives at this time'Ao provide further directio!! to ` staff and the applicant. VIII. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis presented in the EIR and this report, staff recommends denial of the General Plan Amendment on the grounds that the required facts for finding cannot be met. fhould the Commission concur with staff recommendations, approval of the attached Resolution . denying GPA 84 -03 -A would be appropriate: ectfu ubmitted; !1 n ome tRG:LW:ns ner I Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map i September 28, 1984 Staff RepdOt .? Resolution of Denial ILI D sanchm Ql�o .VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT �q Q — i oil T ii �•F A NQ SCALE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiIiiiONGA EXHIBIT A FOOTHILL LVD, V Off' ARROW ROUTE NINTH ST. �I 26TH .25TH FERON BLVD.) 24TH MAIN ST. 8TH STREET. 2 o per, P of Q Q a m Site w , 2 H 2F w ul S C1 uj SIXTH ST. FOURTH ST. sanchm Ql�o .VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT �q Q — i oil T ii �•F A NQ SCALE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiIiiiONGA EXHIBIT A l� CITY UIP RANCHO CULONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 26, 1984 TO Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Lisa Wintoger,AAssistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -03 tl a INV TM NT A request to amend the General Plan Land Use a from Lew Density Residential (2 -4 du/ac) to Medium -Nigh Residential (14 -24 du /ac) on 13.55 acres of land located an the south side of Feron Avenue, between ;Turner and Ramona - APN 209- 085 =02, 03, 14:, I. ABA CT: A General Plan amendment is reque", for a multi- family project in the North Town rlighborhood of (6ancho Cucamonga. The requested change is from, Low Density Residz,-k 4l to Medium High Density Residential. The Initial' Study prepare6oyc staff outlines several concerns Wch could be of significant environmental impact. The C9mission will determine if an Environmental Impact Report is requthed and, If so, what the scope of the environmental assessment should be-directed toWarl►f { II. BArKGROUND: The project applicant, H & H Investments, intends to uiesidential project; consisting cf 316 condominium units on a 13.55 acre site in the � 'lorth Towr'nrea. The proposed project would have a density of appnoximately 23 units per acre. 17', current General Plan and Development district designations do no-- 'permit the proposed density. Consequently., a G7neral Plan amendment is requested to change the current Low Density,_.._ Residential designation (2 -4 du /ac) to tedium High Density Residential (14 -24 du /ac).. The purpose of this meeting it to C determine the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan wiiendment. III. PROJECT AND SITtJOESCRIPTION: A. Action�Re Requested: Review of the Initial Study to determine the scope of-an- Environmental Tupact.Report for this project. B. Purpose: Approval of a General P:l A,wwndment from Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential C L ti . -a 4.6 f F 8 1 L4 oca onon. : o eron ou evard. east of Ramona fit Parcel Size: 13.55 acres ,, {rT, v 2 PLANNING COMMISSIr STAFF REPORT General Flan Amen _,-nt 84-03 -A September 26, 1984 Page 3 l B. Initial Study; The completed Initial Study is attached for you:^ review and consideration. Part 1 has'besn comp` , by the applicant and comments: from Foothill fire P'r,rte Aon a`_strict and the County of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department are attached to the initial Study. Part 11 includes he environmental checklist and analysis analyss of the environmental concerns. These concerns include., hydrology; population; socio- economic factors; land use and planting considerations; traffic; recreation; health, +,safety and nuisance factors, and, utilities and public�servicet•', as outV4,ed below. Udrology t This project lies at the terminus of�,a�drainaie channel which drains unto the project site, suriounditJg properties, and streets. The project 4site is.locatdd within `a INN year flood plain per Figure V -5 of the General Plan, and is potentially subject tc a 1 -frot depth flooding. Construction could have a significant effect on the d ainage patterns and the rate and amount -of surface water Ajnof�: A drainage study is necessary to analyze the impact ' the existing flooding condition on the project site and the impact that construction of this project would have upon the surrounding area;, Population., This project is located within a predominately residsnCi` area characterized by alder, �smali single falsity res?±�pces. This proposal would result in construction of 316 unitsi'at approximately 23 dwelling units per acre.. This is a considerable increase which would have many impacts related to Iand useocompatibil =ty; socio- economic factors, circulation, public service capacity levels,. eta;. Socio- Economic Factors: This proposal will result f construction of new ,dwelling units with• a tentative price of $76,000. This project may have significant impacts with regard to the local socio- economic characteristics, including economic-*--- diversity, tax rate, and property value. A tnareeting/housing study should be prepared which analyzes the, impact of the construction of this project upon these 0aracteristics. Land Use and Planning Considerations: The project site is centrally `"locatei.1 within a prradomminately single family neighborhood. This proposal would change the 1kneral Plan land use designation and zoning rom Low Residential (2-4 du /ac) to Medium-High Residential (1 -24 du/ac). TVs FrOPo3a; would result in the construction of 2- :story M'Mi- ,amily units, whereas the surrounding neighborhood is prodowirtately single story, single family residences.: Therefore,, this proposal will substantially alter the present and planted land uses. An analysis sitouxjbe prepared of the land hoid%9 Capacity of the site awe Vie compatibility of higher density, multi_story residential units adjacent to single family reidesces. } 1 f, PLANNING commiS5IrSTAFF REPORT }` General Plan Amen. „dnt 84 -03 -A - September 26, 1984 _ Page 2 ., ; C Existing Development Di-strict: Lgi/Density Residential f -' F. Existing Land Use: ' Vacant G. General Plan Designations: roje� c- t Site - Low Density Residentia!, North - Low Density Residential 1 South - General Industrial East - Low Density Residential West - Cow Density Residential H. Surrounding Land Use i:nd D welo rent ,District: North - dunior High School ow Dansit” y� Residential) South -AT &SF Right -of -win and Winery (Industrial Specific. Plan) East - Single Fancily Homes Low Density--_riesid- csial West - Single Family HonesLow�Oensity i2e`santial - 1. Site Characteristics: The ��jecy site lies at the terminus of, a drainage channel, The s.+,e is located within a 100- yesr`, flood plain} and a small drainage course traverses,the,site in a north -south direction. Vegetation consi3ts of a' row of trees along Feron Boulevard, s�attered trees throughout the site, and assorted grasses and we ds. Feron 1oulevarO�-,_and;,Main Street c direct access to the .north and west t. dries 9f tie site. `IV. ANALYSIS: A. General: The California Environmental Quality Act requires - that whenever there is substantial evidence that a significant impaqt may 3ccur, an Environmental ,Impact Report :must be*--.-- prepilred. The intent, of the law is to provide full public disclo�ure`and allow full and complete consideration of all environmental impacts._ Informed decisions can then be made which consider project alternatives and mitigation measures to Lassen potential' impacts to art acceptable level. Staff feels that the requested ,General Plan amendment'-'could result in significant impacts' to the scope of ,future development, the character of the are 7�nd.xhe socio- economic composition of the existing community atd other impacts. These concerns are outlined in detail in the Initial Study, a c,PLANNING COMMIS$ � STAFF REPORT r General Plan Amen&..4nt 84 -03 -A _September 26, 1984 Page 4 , i Transportation. Used upon the trip -end generation rates as�d in the City -wide traff model, this project would result in' 2,500_,daily vehicle trips. ,`This compares to a total 648 daily _ vehicie trips under the maximum eliowable density in the existing "Low Residential development District and General Plan designations. This project could significantly affect uthe existing street's and_ create a demand for new construction or widening of existing streets . yt` traffic :study should be prepared that analyzes the impact of this project upon the existing street,system The project site is located `across. the_, street from a public junior high school and along , ik; sch,l6�, route for children walking to the nearby elementary 1,,choal. This proposM could r increase traffic hazards .lay motor• -vehicles, bicylcists, or pedestrians. Health, Safety. and Nuisance factors: This proposal could -r create potential tra c hazer s to motor vehicles, bicylitts, or pedestrians. The project site is located within an area characterized by high crime rate associated with jw*anile gang activity. In advition, the adjacent railroad line which carries freight and passenger traffic generates periods of high noise levels. The project,;, site is lozated in an area with existing and future noise contours of 60 to 65 Ldn per Figures' V -7 and V -a mf_the General Pian. tJ Utilities and Public Services: This proposal may require significant new construf,tion or- 'alteration to existing, flood control structures to accept and divert water from the existing channel to the north that drains onto the project site and floods surrounding streets and properties. This proposal wilt result'in construction of 316 coda- ?minium units that could generate students which could create r,'- significant need for new school facilities or alterations to existing school facilities. This proposal will.'generate subst7atial 'increases in traffic volumes on streets in the; area that could have ;:a significant` need-for additional road maintenance. Mandatory Findings of Si nq ifi!.'ance Based upon the completion of the Initial Study, Part lI Environmental Checklist, and the co.rments above, this proposal may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 1n add-f ien,.thisCoraposal could,, ave significant imp& s relarding they potential to achieve short -term 1\ /', -� CITY Ot RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIROMEN.TAL CHECKLIST t DATE. - Alw /s k3PLICANT: Y7 t/j -i4m10 S FILING DATE: LOG ;Nb,%MER - /► PROJECT: - 67PA -03 "/T PROJECT LOCATION 5 F:e, \. I. ENVIRONMENTAL`IMPACTS (Expianatina of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required an attatbed sheets), YES MA'E$E NO _ 1. Soils and GeoloRv. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable gr =»ad_ conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Lisruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of thc: soil ?, _ :. 'Change in topography at ground surface contour intArvals? ��*e d. The. destruction, covering or modification: of any unique geologic or physical features? ^, e., Any potential increase in 'rind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on ur o�� site conditons? j u f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? )( g.. Exposure cf people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, -or similar hazards? h. Ali increase in tt+� to of extraction and/or use of any mine resource? Hydk:olo , Sill the proposal have significant results in t �� Vage 2� YES myn ira AMk a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral Stream channels? Vpat b. Changes in absorptian rates, drainage terns, or the rate and.,amouAt of surface water runof�? 4/-- C. Alterations to the course or.£low of flood ` waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharg into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. -_ iteration of groundwater (jchz'racteristics? S. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either throuab direct additions ar with- drawals, or "through interference faith «an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h« The reduction In tje amount a1 water 0'thor-` rj wise available for public lower s-app\r1es? I. Exposure of peopie or property, to water - ;related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions fro mohile<' or indirect sources? Stationary sources? - 0 b. Deterioration of ambient air quality And/or interfexetci with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? r" c. Alteration of local or regional clifatic conditions,, affecting air movement, moisture of temperature? r7 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution. or number 1 of any species of plants? ` �r b. Reduction of the cumbers of any' unique, rare r or endangered speciee of plants? �. ,.Page 3 l C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of. plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural" action a production" Fauna, . Will the proposal have sigfiifi ant results in:.. _ u a. Change in the chara species, ct<.ristics of s , including diversity, distribution, or numbers Of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbi,-rs Of any unique, rare or eudarCgered species: of animals? / c, Introduction of nev or disruptive species of - animals into an area „; or result in a barrier to the migration or mbvement of animals?- ” d. Deterioration or removal o£ existing fish brn wil,llife habitat? 5. Papulation. Will t,%e proposal have signi.Ilcant results in: ' a. Will the �proposal alter the location, distri- bution, (nsity, diversity, or growth rate rrf tke humaci population of an area? J �/ 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: I a. Change iu local or regional socio- econcsmle characteristics, including Economic or _ commercial divt`rsity,_tax rate, and property values? b. Will project- costs be equitably distributed ✓ among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, ; 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 ?' yt b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, A policies, or adopted plans of any governmental." entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptit or non- consumptive rec»eational opport6iiities? tf -^ rage YES 11AYBE 110 y 8. - arisaortat o]t. Will the proposal have significant . results inr a. Generatioa of.substantial additional vehicular,I� movement? b. Effects on existing streets or $ , y?eand for new street constructi6,t�,. ' r C. Effects on existing, parkin ,acuities, or demand for new parking? f d, Substantial impactj,upon existing transporta- tion systems? �� e. Alt °rations to prey t patterns, of cftcuia -- 1 tion',or movementiof people and /or grinds? f -' t. .Alterations to 6Y� affects on present and potent4al'waterborne, tail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in tr, ^ =fic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or - ,:stri'ans? 9. Cultural ResoLtces. Will the ,� proposal hale significant results ;is: l a. A disturbance to integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? �. 10. Health. Safely, and Nuisance'Factors. Will the proposal bate significant results in: ` a. Creation of any, ha6ird or potential health hazard? y b. Exposure ct£ people��,o potential health hazards? f� ! c. A risk of ex1.losion br release of hazardous � substances in�the event of an accident? d., An increase, in the number of.ineividuals or species of vec; or= or pathent genic organisms or the {exposure of pe,iple to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? 1 f,. Exposure of people to potentiaily dangerous a noise levels? U f g. The creation of objectionable odors? ►. An irrcreare in light or glare? Page 5 _ YES .xL'4YBE . NO '11. Aesthet4 S. Will. -the proposal have s ant ignific results in*.` a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or 'view? ✓ b.he te? creation of an aestheticai�y offensive 'desi (! conflict with the, objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public ,Services. Will the proposal have a significant deed fos ne systeta5, or j' j- alterations to thellIllowing:, �l - a: Electric p?ver? b. Natural or packaged gas? 7 ;, c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater ,facilities? f. Flood control structures? c; g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? _i- i. Police protectiori�? f J. Schools? _ k. Parks or other recreational facilities?�_- 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? `f m. Other governmental services ?` 13. Energv and Scala Resources. Will the proposal have significant results _in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? M. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy?. - - c. An increase is the demand for development of new sources of energy ?, f - d, An increase ar perpetuation of the c6nsumption of non, - renewable forms of energy, when £sible w. renewable sources of energy are available? ft' PARe. p° 78S 14AYBE ND e. Sd.istaatial dCpletion of an n. y nonrenewable' or carce'h4tlural. resource? , `. 14. Mandatory F'indinAS, of 53o*+aficance.~ o a. Uses the praj!�mt have the p, A tial to degrade r= reduce city of the. envi_0 4 antially habstria fist at. wldlif._•, cause a : Jshwpr °w3� if _Specles, x^ P ulaz_on to ~drag below a sunning 7 e "threaten to " elimina _t a p�Tant andmamm ty,dvice T the n .. ar 'r the ran e a rare or, endangered plant or animal or elate importaat exanple4 ,af "the ods a, California h.?'�r,or prahistory�? b. Roes the ra 4Wt haze the achieve �9 r. p j shalt -tern, cos bMe d1sadvantagg of orig tetra; enviror;6ental, gals? (A sbo rti tRetom, 3aipa t' .on-the envirafuaent s, -Obe which occurs In a, rei ive ly_ ' brief, ;definite` period of time whlie; Zos g._ term impacts v, endure .wall irjtq(tthe')future). y C. 'Does the grajeet "have impacts which: ate � Individually Limited,, but cumal . ativE,,, „ considerable? - (Cumudativek .Cnsideiable :. means that the a ncrementai,effers of an individual grajectE oon�iderable when vie In connection with ;the effPrts Of past prcjeotsy and probable future pro�ects),, : d. Does the project have' en�Viionmental. effects r 0 F which w *.11 cause substainzial adverse effects ` on human,beizgs,, eithex directly or indirectly? / II . DISCUSST4N OF MMROt7i MgTAL rvkZUAT2(JN Ci. tha above questions plus a discusst.rc ofprogos /Od mitig t on measures). ic a r� 5 Page:7.. ` III. -,)ETE1L11NATIQN {� the basis o (this inrial evaiution: J '� I find � j E] the proposed projet-m COULA NOT 'have a significant eft 'WEGATI�E on the environment, and,a DECIARA.TIOR vill be pr area. I find r' that although the proposed. project could have "a significant 4 effect on the anvironment - there;vill not be a aignificant,effett in this case becaus "the zuitigatian , ` � measures do-scribed on an, attached sheet ha�ve'bein added t-o the,,;�pxoject.. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IdILC- BE pREE'AREA I find the pioposagd project MAy have a Sig I is effect an the envirnment, and An MIROMENT MVA Tr REPORT s' x 4uired. Date t, Title Q r t , 4w .: i ,e INITIAL. STUDY PART II - GPA 84 -03 2. 'H rolagy: (b) (.j (e) (i) - This project lies at the tef "inns of a drainage channel which carries water from a drainage area of approximately 620 acres, as shown on the' attached exhibit. Runoff troy( this channel presently drains onto F'eron Boulevard and floods the protect site, surrounding properties, and streets. A small drainage c urse traverses the site in a north /south.directlon� The project site ii- !%rated within a 100 year flood plain per Figure.Y -5 nf.the General Plan, and is - :potentially subject to a 1 -foot depth flooding. Construction could have a significant effect on the drainage patterns and the,--.rate and amount of 1 surface water runoff. Further, this project could expose: property to flood hazards. A drainage study, is necessary. to analyze the impact of the existing flooding condition of the project site -,and the impact that construction of this project would have upon tha- 'surrounding area. Specifically, the drainage study should propose mitigation measures. The study should also analyze drainage impacts If the City's Master elan of Storm Drain syttam is not installed prior to construction of this project. S. population (a) (b) - This project is located within a predomiately j residential area characterized by older small single family residences. This proposal would result in° construction of 316'units at approximately 23 dwelling units per acre. This is a considerable increase which would have many impacts related to land use compatibility, socio- economic factors, circulation, public servive capacity lovels, etc. Construction of this project could significantly alter the location, distribution, . density, diversity and,grcwth rate of the population: of the area. 6. 5ocia- Economic Factors a This proposal will result ies construction of new dwelling . i5ts w�atlt- a tentative'price of V6,000. 5,800. The residents of the surro nd.ng' neighborhood have.Aistorically expressed a desire for construction of affordable housin?- for low and r derate income families. This, may hr -j4hif •s regard project {vei. cant ima47 with to the locallSorio- economic characteristics, .including econ is diversity, tax rate, and property value. A marketingthousing stuZ should be prepared which analyzes the impact of the construction of this project upon these characteristics. 7 Land Use and Plannino Considerations - The project site is centrally t located within a predominate y single family neighborhood. This proposal Would change the 9eneral.plan land use designation and zoning from Low 1t ?sident al (2 -� dulac) to Medium -Nigh Residentail (14 -24 dutac). This ' proposal would result in the construction of 2 »story = condominiums, whereas, the surrounding neighborhood is predominately single stagy single family residences. Therefore, this proposal mill substantially alter the { ,4 4 Initial Study Par" Paget I General Plan`- Amen,,aent 84 -03 present and planned land uses. An analyssis should be prepared of =the land holding capacity of the site and the compatibility of higher'yensity, multi -story residential units adjacent to single family residences. 1 8. Transportation (a) (b) (c) (d) (8) - This roposal 'would result in construcion of 316 dwelling units that wi generate substantial additional vehicular and pedestrian mov pt. Based upon the trip -en generation rates used in the Citywide traic model, this project would res 'it in c,500 daily ,Wehicle trips. Thy., compares to a total 64$ dailjn� vehicle tr,cps under Yoe maxf*um allowable density in the eyisting Low ��'�`;_" Residential��zonin% grid General Plan designations. The area surrounding project site and the street 7�ystem were planned for low density residentail uses,. Ramona and Peron are designated on the City's Master Plan of Circulation as collector streets withja one -way rapacity of 600 vehicles per hour. Turner Avenue is- plagced as a seconder street with a one -war capacity of 1150 to 1300 vehicles`perlhour. Therefore, ti is project could significantly rffect the existing streets and crea^ a demand for new construction or widening of existing streets. -4-t affic study should be prepared that analyzes the impact of this pro3ec1 upon the existing street system. This traffic study should take into.ac nt the approximately 450 dwelling units approved within a quarter miler radius on Faro. and Turner and potential peak morning,odar. traffic confl /Jots with the adjacent school. The project site is located across the street from a public junior high school and along a school route for children walking to the nearby elementary school.` This proposal could increase traffic hazards to tutor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The traffic study should propose potential mitigation measures for these hazards. 10. Health, Safer and Nuisance Factors a This proposal cou d create potential traff hazards to motor vehicles, bicylists, or pedestrians as:,'iscussed under #8. -._.- (b) The project site is located within an area characterized by high crime rate associated with juvenile gang activity:_ This proposal could expose a large number of persons, to potential theft, vandalism, and life - threatening situations. (e) (f) Proposal would result in short -terse increasesbin noise levels because of contruction.activity. In addition, the adjacent railroad line which carries freight and passenger traffic generates periods of high nose levels. The project site is located in an area with existing and future nice Contours of 60 to 65 Ldn per Figures V -7 and Y-8 of the general Plan. The General Plan designat�ss the project site as "conditionally acceptable" for residential uses subject to a detailed analysis of noise reduction re — 4 trements. Necessary rioase insulation features determined as a result of this analysis should be included in tis'e project design. 12 Initial Study Par ".I General Plan Amen 't „rent 84 -43 Pa-ge3 12. utilities and Public Services is proposa may require significant new construction or alteration to existing flood control structures to accept and divert water from i the existing channel to the north that drains onto the project site and floods surrounding streets and properties. The fifty's adopted t Master Plan of Storm Brains calls for the construction of a sto m drain connection to the existing channel to the north that would continue south to the fAllroad tracks and westerly to Archibald Aver►ue. Presently, there are no iirainage easements or agreements for the construction of this storm drain out to-Archibald Avenue. (h) The impact of this proposal upOM,'the need fo-, -new fire protection systems or alterations to existing services ",s unknown at this time.. (i) This proposal could significantly effeect the need for additional b }lice protection services for public safety (see discussion under 10 . (j) This proposal will result in caz�truction of 316 condominium units tat could generate students whr� could create significant need for ne4�zchool facilities or alterations to existing school facilities. (1) This proposal will generate substantial increases in traffic volumes on streets in the area that could have a significant need for additional road maintenance. 24. Mandatory F ndin s` 'f Significance -- The California Environmental Quality/ Rc#r TCEQ A requital the City to disclose, consider, and when possible, avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts. The City is required to review whether this proposal wilt have significant impacts upon tye environment. If there is substantial evidence that this proposal nri-y have a significant effect on the environment, the City must require the preparation of an environmental Impact Report. further, if there is any doubt, or if there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the City shall consider the effect av --- - -- significant and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 1� 1/ Where any of the conditions listed below occur, the City shall `rind' that�,J project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an '-IR.. Based upon the completion of the Initial Study - Part II,` Environmental Checklist and the comments above, this proposal may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. In addition, this proposal could have significant impacts regarding the potential to achieve short -term to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. The propsal could have significant impacts which are individually "limited, but cumulatively considerable wh'an viewed in connection with past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. This proposal could cause substantial adverse effects un human beings either directly or indirectly. g _ FOc.! �t HILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. 0. Box 35 I 6623-Amethyst Street' Rancho Cucrmortm GA. 91701 (714) 981.2535 i - i7TE3t'; APR 0;t April 5, 198¢ t Ell 10., 1 jt 't"� f {a t+ A Dan Coleman Associate Platneb City1 of Rancho Cucamonga P4 Box 807 " Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Reference: Impact of Project 84 -03 This project will have a significant impact on the Fire ,District's ability to provide adequate _ service. It is estimated that the proposed project will generate,an additional 49 alarms i.nftt�`��tion annually. More on the project is needed to determine -i$ mitigation measures must be taken. 5' erelyR e Jim W. Bowman Fire Marshal mbm n mba ER-OFFICE. ME(.0 DATE April 2, 1984 �\ , :1 w t t vF P?tl rFY W .1 U}t'1!T D p FROM John A. F'utscher, Captain i -r P'HO, 4 Rancho Cucamgi$a Sheriff Ia $tatibn, APR 116 1984 TO Dan Coleman, Associate planner PM City of Rancho CWWWnga J � SUBJECT PRWeOSED GENEM PLO AMNDMENT $4 -03 AND Wft CHANGE IiYATT PROPRRn Our Crime prevention itnit has examined the Proposed project for the i south side of p,.,eron between Turrer and Ramona. It is our fifding that, while there is no factual, basis upon which to trs% for a Negative Declaration, we do anticipate a remand for increasedpalice setviaes if the project is approved. Our experience indicotkes that there wile be a higher degree of domestic and neighborhood.- type.. disturbances in a medium to high density area t av, in a loss ded4ty area This is genexilly attrib- utable to the restricted privacy afforded in medium to4high density housing. In addition, the project's geogr43,�ical proximity to the home of our most active street gang, *could result Ju a need to increase patrol in the area to prevent the senior citistz-as from; fslling prey to that criminal element associated with Streer gangs a:,,d to afford them some a degree of freedom from intimidation by their me:ye presence. M RESOUN1TION ND, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMM8SION OF THE CITY OF RAKNO CUCAMONGA` r-(ALIFORNIA DENYT.G GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -03-A - H & h INVESTMENT" WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised pt.blic }j � hearing to consider all comments on the Proposed General 'Pl,sp Amendment 84 -03- ` A; and u I WHEREAS, the Planning .Commisr;)n reviewed and considered the Draft Elk prepared in conjunction with this-Amdndment, and considers its content to be adequate. SECTION 1: The Rancho Ciican�onga P`anii3ner ' p mission cannot make, the following findings;. " t, A. The Amendment does; nat.-conflict with "'ti;-n Land Use Policies of "the General Plan: ". The Amendment pr&_I�tes goals of %__- he Land Use Element C. The Ameq�f -hent would not be materially injuriouk_�: or ` detrimental to the adjAcent;propertes.. NOW1 THF,REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that t' `Rancho Cucamnn. a' ,. Plarning _ Commission does hereby deny Geneeal Plan Amendme -03 -A. APPROVED AND ADOPTEDrJHIS 24th DAY OF- APRIL, 1985. PLANNING CCMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO- CUCAMONGA lr ~+Dennis j• L. Stout, Chairman - ATTEST.- V Rick Gomez, Deputy gecretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy $evret #h of the Punning Commission of the City ,of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereb~ ,certi�,j that tge;�foregoing Resolution was duly and, regularly introduced, passed, and,--adopted-by the Planning Commission of the City ofRancho Cucamonga :.at a-.regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of April, 1985, ny the following vote -to -wit. _ AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES- . COM.MISSIONERSt ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS. M CITYOF14ANCHt - CUCAMONGA;' "-�- REPORT H z DATE: � A 4 }} 1977 April 24, i�85 I, TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:. FROM: Rick Gonse'r City Planner . , ✓ t.�J1 BY Lisa A. Wininger, Asiistao; Planner SUBJECT: Eti11SRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT P; M 85-04 R "7� request to amen the Devil ailment District 'leap from "L. (.Low Oensi�y Resident�ial) t "I5P",i(In p'strial ''S eci Ura fic� P L 1ndystrlav Hark for 2 acres of land located ion the � southeast corner of Arc�ribaid; and Main - APN 209-062-O L, 02. - i I. BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested a Development "V4strict Amendment for a site located an the southeast corner of Arehlbald and Main =3from 'ILI' to "ISP" - In &,strial Park. General Elan Amendment 85 -01 -A for the applicant's _parcel and the parcel dirtrtiy east was appYoved by the. it„- Council ern March 2Q, 1985. State law requires that +;r the Development District designations be consistent with the Generai, Plan land use designation. Although a General Plan Amendment has been gran the applicant cannot alter the ex-.'sting use until the process has been completed and the Development Qistri$_ Map has also been amended. The issues which, were discussed in consideration of,the General Plan Amendment are described fully in 4:ie attached staff report. However, tnrough the General Plan Amendment hearing process,, =all land use fssue5 have 'been resolved zf;b no significant issues exist regarding the Development Distritf -'- r Amendment _ Amendment requests )i n Since the - project area will be annexed Into the Industrial { ` ! Specific Plan area, ad3ition4l' development standla,s will, be required. When the I5P update occurs later the y�',r; i>his site ¢ wa?3 be considered in terms of specific`developmen�iVtandards "for it subarea of the Industrial Area. An Initial Stud J y was prepared in, with the �,car`4o�',roe environmental analysis for General Plan Mendment:85 -01 -A. No sigraifican environmental impacts have been identified. r; y■ppp � G'k ITEM ■�. bF .F - ..,= s� r .... r . ,.. � c _ . .. rA... Sh. tad .s i 'a.. +GU would be appropriate Res 6etfully ed, !f Rick ea f Cs �City� l RG:LW•cv Attachment: Exhibit "A" • Vicinity tip March 20,x, 1985 Staff-Report Initial Study . Resolution of Approval' .a tJ # PLANNING COWIS ION STAFF REPORT o o DDA 85 -04 1 April 24, 1985 } Page #2 ' Il. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the approval , ,qf GeneraI Pia Amendment 85:01-A, Staf� Stiff—recommends approval of t the suhsequent 1 ;walopment District Amendment 8544 and issuance, of -i Neaative_�,< Declaration.. Should the Plants ng Comaission, c cancui^ ' approui' �kf the attached ,,esQlutiun recommending approval to the City Council, CITX.OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF ORT a o ,. 19,77 DATE: February 27, 1985 ; E'. TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Risk Gomez, City Planner BY: Lisa A. Wininger,`Assistant Planner SUBJECT: EAVRIONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I ( GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-01 - R - RICHARO - A request to a*nd the 'Land ilia Map of the General lart from Low Or ^nsity;Residential to Industrial Park for 3..9 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald .b ytween Peron and '8tii - APN 209- 061 -1, 2, 21, 269 - 662 -1, 2.- - I. ABSTRACT: A General Plan ftendmerit -vas requested to change the anted use designation_ from Low Density Residential to Industrial Park for a.2 acre mite at the Archibald southeast corner of and Main (see attached report). 'The Planning Commission, directed' staff to study the proposed land use change in terms of an ` expanded project area to include the .project site and -other parcels To the north and.,east,.and determine the appropriateness , of the proposed change for a larger area. At this meeting, the Commissall will consider the land use change and determine if the project area is to be expanded., II. BACKGROUND:,, At the January 26, 1985, Planning Commissio meeting, a request was considered for a General Plan Amendment }" from tow Density Residential to Industrial Park for a 1.2 acre site located on the southeast corner of Archibald and Main (see attached report). At that time, the Commission expressed concern ti regarding the advisability of amending the Land Use Map of, the General Plan for a 1.2 acre area. Staff was directed to study expansion of the project area and land use compatibility of the proposed _ change with on and off site uses III. ANALYSIS: r A. Project Area: Tlij� expanded project area which was examined by staff includes'seven parcels located an the east side of Archibald between Feron and the AT` g and SF railroad right -of -way, divided' by M&in Street Yr. (see Exhibit 'A).,,.. The., area north of stain. Street h copsists of five parcels with three tingle family �Pianning if Commission SK Report �, February 27, 1985 WA 85 -01 -A - Richards Page #2 ` r Ab 1F, 'I j bomesit a neighborhood market and vacant land. The j area borders.by single family homes to the east and is approximately .1.4 acres in arec,,;p The General Plan designates the land use as tow Density Residential as does the Developme:t District,designatioh. { The two '�arce� located -south of gain which equal 2.e c acres consist of the Custom Alloys site ',which „was'_ orig3naTly 'p�apoed` for the Genal Plan Amepdmeni and a vacant parcel owned by the Santa fe Railroad.. V Bordered on the East by' single family homes and theme soot iy the! railroad right -of -way, the area's current Genera Ilan 1? f and Development District designation is Low Dens ity'R-esidential. In examining the merits of changing the General Plan Land : Ilse' Designations for these, areas, it appears thA1 the proposed Industrial ark use mould be inappropriate for the area no h of Main Street. The existing residential toes conform with the Low Density designation although v the commercial use is non - conforming in nature. ;Single family develop-ent closely borders the eastern edge- and the ot 1? configuration and area j1.4 acres? would li development of industrial park uses., �t Theme -a'r 5 uth of Main appears to be more appropria �e for industrial park uses.. The two parcels make up 1.4 o larger area (2.5 acres) than was originally proposed forthe General Plan Amendment and the proposed land ,. use change would not conflict with any on -site uses. . -- i The eastern boundary of the area is separated to some , extent from existing residential uses by the rr ” undeveloped right-of-way for Reid Street and would be impacted somewhat less by the proposed industrial. park .. use than, by the existing forge activities. Therefore, l staff recommends that the project area under analysis \� for the proposed General Plat) ;Amendment include the two adjacent parcels east of Archibald and south of Main (APN 209 - 062- 03,�Op. i Und Use Cwmuati_b�i3 it_Z._ The proposed change `'root t0� . Density Rest- dentr- o IndustHal ',�IMP & Parts could act' ;!^ surrounding usas through additional traffircf noe and 1 banges in aesthetic cWacter of the nei j,bor boo d,� ' , _3 / Planning Commission SL�f Report February 27, 1985 GPA 85-01-A - Richards Page #3 However, the Industrial Park de 'gnat' ;the �sl I on 15 -least A n �._tgnse of - the industri uses and a probable ed4 r ction to current level,4' of noi4;e, emtsslons, and vibration coalUbe anticipated witt�the_ elimination of the forge. Residences facing the project site on Main would experience most of the.- impact, should the property develop as an Industrial Park use. It is possible that some of the nolse currently experienF.,ed ftom the railroad right-of-way'could be buffe'ried ��* the neighborhood by future development of the project site. Retaining the Low Density Residential designation could expose new residential development to high levels of noise from ArWbald and the railroad and C, would allow continuing operation of the forge as k legal nonconformiiig use. With the current land use designation, it unlikely that new, development will occuton-site in,/,,ifie near future. �IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that whenever there-, is evidence that a significant impact may occur, an Environmental impact keport must be prepared. Staff feels that the requested General Plan Amendment could result . in some impact, in the areas of circulation, aestheticsi health, safety and nuisance as discussed in the Initial Study attached to the previous staff report. However, none of the impacts, discussed above would LZ consid4red a significant adverse impact which cmld -,not be mitigated through the design review process when a propned,project is, submittej4___ Therefore, staff feels that no further environmental analysis at the General Plan-level is merited. Further environmental review at the project level should include a full discussion of impacts and mitigation measures proposed in the areas of,pirculation, aesthetics, health, safety i nuisance. V. FACTS - FOR �,FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of ThRe GerTeraT7TTiF_AftMmefit, decide that the change from Low Density ResideAial to Industrial Park would"'pramote the land use goals and policies, of the General Plan and thatjthis Amendment would not be materially detrimental to the 'adjacent propgrile6,tLor would not cause significant adverse impacts as listed underAlie Environmental Assessment, fol I owing are the findinds thAt are - necessarypn approv-al. rAlk f 1 Planning Commissior'A .,f Report " February 27, 1985 GPA 85 -01 -A !- Richards Page §4 A. The Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan'. B. The Amendment pro(Obtes goals of the land use element. C. The Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties.. VI. CORRESPONDENCE. This item has been advertised as a public "searing in The Daily Report innewspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of 'the` boundary of the proposed project. To date, no correspondence has ..;been received,,,: VII. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Planning Commission determine that the Facts for finding of approval indicate., that the land use ° change is apprb`priate on the 2 parcels adjacent to the railroad, adoption of the attached Resolution of, Approval would be required— In addition, the applicant °will he required to file a` Developm.0 District Amendment to, change the DD designation ff,im "L" to I ��iustrial Specific Plan - Industrial Park. old the Commission�,wish to deny, the Amendment3 a Resolution of Denial is also attached. RewectfuV ubmitted, . c Ric Gomez City Planner RG;LW•cv Attachments; Exhibit "A" - Project Area Map January 26, 1985 Staff Report Initial Study Resolution of Approval Resolution of Denial s .a t h V ~ W .x�Fp m•�« � "1 t� R._ r _ cc rM - - L7- �'. Ul cc P, T- 80 LU LU 9 -- vc 1 a @3j LL Le 07/14' z — LLI i is (3— f --- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �13CAM STAFF REPGRT t J 10 � � 1 z I9 }7 DATE. January 26, .1985 TO: Chairman and Membe.,s of the Planning Cowiss p'k FROM: Rick "omez, City 'Planner BY: Lisa A�,ininger, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND G5 �RAL Pl0 AMENDMENT 85 -01 -- A - RICHARDS -«- A request "to `am d the Land�use Map of the General P'ian from_ Low Density Residential ite Industrial Park for 1.2 acres of land located on the southeast corner of ,'Archibald and Mai APN 209: 461 -01. I. ABSTRACT: A General R1an Auandment is requested �to changf: the land use designation - from. Ld:" Density Residential I to :Industrial Park ` for a 1.2 acre site ,located on the southeast corner of Archibald' and Main. -:The applicant wishes to cea!;e the current ronconforming use as a forge and sell the structure: for use by an electrical contractor as "office, warehousing; -:and storage facility. The Comalssion` will determine if the proposed changei�,-� is appropriate in terms of scope and land use compatibility. .:. II. BACKGROUND: The applicant wishes to develop a light inctustriat use on a;.2 acre site located on Archibald Avenue tnear the North � Town area.,, The existing industrial activity, will iie discontinued to allow --the proposed officer "retail and stortge use ,by an electrical contractor. The current General Plan and Devd1opment'Distrirt clesignations of*-' 'LL Low Density Residential do not pe',rmit the 'proposed use. The existing use, a' foundry, is curre,itly nonconforming in nature. Consequently, a General Plan Ameodfrent is requested t"ange the Q) current Low Density Residenti�� designation (2-4 o '-re), too Industrial Park. The purpose o •,,this meeting is iu.eo, `�e the proposed General Plan Amendment and any possible altt'.rn and uses for the project site.. III. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested:. Amend; the General Plan Land Usdi ft from Low Density Residential (2 -4 du/acre) to Industrial Park. Y J PLANNING C "SIt3N Sly . r` 'REPORT} GPA 8541 -A�— Richards Ja17Wr' 26, 1985 Pad (" #2 �. r _r_ S. Location: East of Archibald'Avenue,,south of Mai - Street. C. Parcel Sized 1.2 acres D. Ezisting Devi =lopment District Designation: Low Density Residential CS E. Existing 4;an ""4. Metal Forge f. Surrounding LaW Use ",i arm-Welo ;rient District Desi ng ations: North - Commercial 40 Residential Low Density 1 ResidentiAl) 'I f� South - A , SP R-Wrd d right -of -way and Residential ( ndustrial Specific Plan) ' Easy - Vacant and Residential (Lox Density Residential) Commertlal and Jndustrial (XNdu; trial Specific j Plan) G. Surrouidinq Ge eral Plan Desianationst Nom- ort rLow Dens ty Re^siOential Soutl; - General Industrial East - tnw, Density Residential ( "r West 7. Ge- ral Industrial { H. Site Characteristics: The project site is bounded on the south by the railroad right -of -way and on the east by vacarit parcels. A 9,000 square foot metal building located on the southern portion of the site houses the existing industrial use. Other site features consist of a small outbuilding, paved parking areas, sevoral eucalyptus trees, and other s shrubs. <� IV, ANALYSIS- A. History: When the General Plan was adopteo4, tt north Tows area, roughly'�bounded, by Archibald, 26th, Mar-r"J, and $1:n Streets, was considered to be distinctly single family residential in nature and received' a General Phan designation of taw Density Residential.. The Custom Alloys forge and the neighborhood market at the cor;ler of Archibald and Main thus became Nonconformipg uses,. (� B.- Reasun for Request: The project applicant wishes to cease operations' as a> forge and sell' the structure for, use as warebtRAe and storage space with limited office and sales activity. $. tnce ,the proposed use-differs significantly from � r the current noaconforw.ing use, the General Plan •Amendment R has.,-been requested to permit the proposed use. )i ,;4f addition--,., it elopment. The second major issue is that of t)e size of parcels for (` which General Plan. Amendx,nts may besconsidered. While the ' 1 PLANNING OO.MISSION Mi. r REPORT GP,A 85 -01 -A _ :Richards � Januar >26, 1985 Page 1. i ' C. General Plan Land Use Goals and�Policie� The existing land use designation`bf the project site and the surrounding] neighborhood i s' Low Ogsi ty Res +identi al. The General P 1 are describes the Loo' em� kity Residential = designation a; "characterized homes homes... appropriate where the traditional character, of detached single family units' prevail and where the level of services including road;', shopping and recreation are not suff`ccient to jtistifyfa. higher density." � In comparison, \the Industrial Park de; ignation requested y J the applicant is defined in the .Gedral Plan as "gro ed Cdncent: ations of industrial avid research and development offices, organized Along major _thoroughfares on the periphery of the Industrial Area". �? The General., Plar, skaies _. thai: opportunities should be T encouraged to ,mix-. dif;;nent but compatible land uj�es and t activities in the City, and t:tat,1land uses must be organized to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent uset'. In addition, it is implied the Development Code v,md the -in General Plan that nonconforming- uses shall grad"ua'lly be eliminated -where .possible and replaced with uses that are consistent with tie existing Gen�pral Plan desiilnation. j � D. Issues for major arise y��n \ ,Consideration TO .,issues consideration of this proaect, the IlThe first issue is that the compatibility tof,, proposed ,land use with existiA surrounding- lane' uses. The cu±�rent industrial use, whilW, separated to some extiiit from moat; of the residential use in the area, is clearly incomgatiJyle'wi h the single family\ homes in the area. The aeration noise, emissions, vibration, triiffic, of a,-,,forge with attendent and aesthetic impacts ` is inappropriate in close proximity to homes. This use has, he en allowed to continue ='as a nonconforming use only because_... it was in operation prior to the establishment of the Low Density residential designation. 4 L, The proposed industrial park, while a less intensive industrial use than the forge, wood pose some of the same ,problems in terms of ` traffic, noise, and aesthetic quality. Since th^ existing structure Would remain, albeit , t in a different functiun no significant improvement would occur in screening or sitEidesign. In addition, the parcel size of 1.2 acres is too small to allow development of additional industrial park uses, thereby ,Yimiting the scope ,;4f addition--,., it elopment. The second major issue is that of t)e size of parcels for (` which General Plan. Amendx,nts may besconsidered. While the ' �.. TAANNING COMMISSION S17;rc REPORT 6A 85-01-A Richards' January 26, 1985 z Page #4 city= has",.ino formal minimum 'plot size for Generdl Plan �~ Amendment consideration, past City` policy dictates that areas to be amended be defined by logical physical or other boundaries, and that all properties in the' immediate are4 . whici have similar charactert.Wcs be given similar consiideration. Allowing amendments for parcels which do not meet; these criteria would °Lead to a "spotloning" s #ration, when( small pieces of land :scattered throughout City bear and use designations' which create inconsistent patchwork patterns of land use. Based on the above factors,; staff feels that the General 4 Alan Amendment as proposed is not appropri4t,1 for the project Site. However, "the site's proximity to the rai=lroad right -of -way and associated .nuisances, Jtq Archibald Avenue;; and overall trends of devef *nnt in the North Tco4n area, �{ suggest`that t:hz Low Density R¢sideotial development may�nct be the optimal ultimate Ind use for the site either. \is report will discuss alternatives for land use of than pro�rft site which consider land use compatibilf.Ky and sije const�ts. _. V. ALTERNATIVES: In considering alternative land uses for the project s ei it is apparent that the small size of the- s;Ite ti limits the scope of any use. In oror{,to discuss alternative .,uses, it is necessary to maximize the area undei�nsideraV!Dn to determine if the site may be linked to adjacent properties to form a larger, afore logical project boundary. Exhibit "B" shows the area fronting on Archibald between fsron and the railroad right- of-way which is either vacant or sparsely .developed. This area differs significantly from the single family character of the North Town neighborhood and forms a logical area of considek- w4soa. for changes in land use. C, Two basic laud use alternatives have been considered for th@ " --' l� expanded projart-area under di cession. Y I. InWustrial Park: The -4fte ss 'proximity `io the rail'r`'oa r right -of -way and the Ind`ustria'l Area-iz-a-, well as its lec Lion along a major thoroughfare appear consistent with' the i typical Industrial Park use. However, inc*atibility with surrounding residential uses would a4.zin be a problem. Even with an expanded. project area, the .;scale of the project would create a very small Industrial Park; In a441tion, the ° y parcels are owned by a -Variety of person�id gainin§ t ownership of a sufficient number _0 parcel?; for - an ;Aegrated development would be difficult if not impossibly. '> PLANNING COMMISSION SIC F REPORT' GPA 85 -01 -A - Richards January 26, 1585 - Page #S 2. Adium Density Residential (4 -14 du /ac) Lilo the discovery ;ownhomes project just north of the project area, a medium' 01 density residential project Would maintain the predominantly residential nature of the area while - reating a buffer from `. Archibald Avenue and the railroad right -of -way. This land ✓'1 use would be more compatible with existing residential uses than the current or proposed land uses. 'However, proximity to the railroad right- of-way could expose; residents to railroad and automobile noise which would require mitigation through sit6' design`, and harriers. Also, problems ,exist in terms of project scope and parcel_ ownership. Sil+ -e design incorporating existing circulation ward also be difficult. Since the Medium Density Residential designation allows a =' range of 4 -14 dwelling units per acre, the Development District designation could fall into the Medium (4 -8 j�ox- du/acre) or Medium (8 -14 du /acre) categorie Depending on theinumber of owners wishing to join togetyf I in devel ping their properties, the Commission could def,.mine at a 11ater date if the project scope jumtified a Low- Medium or Medium designation. ` V.I. ;*ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE;6MENT: The Cal ifarnia 8nvironmentai Quality —;. Aci requires tha � -sn ^e is evidence that a significant impact may occur, an Environmental Impact Reppoo►cr music be prepared. Staff feels that the requested General Plan Am dment as proposed could result in some impacts in the categories of —� socio- economic factors, land use and planning considerations; circulation, health, safety and nuisance factors, and . aesthetics. Part II of the attached Initial Study discusses each of 'these impacts in ;detail. On the, basis of Vhaye potential impacts, it is suggested additions?--:environmental arfalysis would be necessary prior to approval of i�``amendment as proposed. VII.` FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of " the GeneraT Plan °Amendment, decide that the change from Low Dens�ty Residential would promote the land use goals and, purposes of ti+e General Pl ap,, and that., Amendment would not be materially detrimental to the adjacent properties or woulrp not cause signific0t, adverse impacts as listed under the 'Enviro ntt Asse sment, the following are the findings that are necessary on ap —4 ai: 1 J - PLANNING COMMISSION Sll..." REPORT K 6P4 kiS -01-A - Richbrds - January 25, 1965 Page #5 A. The #amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan. B. The Amendment promotes goals of the land ��pe eleme 4 G. The Amendment would not be materi 'fly injurious or detrimental ta-the adjacent properties. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: This` item has been advertised as a public hearing in T Daily i#e ort newspaper and notices were sent to all property, owners within 300 feet of the boundary/,,of the proposed project. Tordate, no correspondence has been received. IX. '_ RECOMMENDATION, Based on the analysis of the Land Use Policies of the General Plan, staff recommends denial of the General Plan Amendrtert submitted. Sfi_uld the Commission wish to consider, the a,`ternatiive land us @s discussed, direction should be gfiekt regarding the nature V further study of Land o. -Jk in the project ` area. "The CommissIgn E as several alternatives" 1.br action, 1. To a►,prove' the General' Plan Amendment per the attached ` Resolution of Approval. This alternative is rot recommended. 2. To de the General Plan Amendment per the attached ResoluV n of Denial with no further study. This mould confirm\�he current Low Density Residential designation. 3. troth applicant's conservt, to -p tinue the amendment, and to provide Stiff with, -specific 7tirection as to the scope and type of ' -7d use'- o ride analyzed and brought back for Commission 1_ on. (Shoup the �ppl,lcant decline to consent to the changes in the scot/-,of the amendment, it would be appropriate to deny tl - C%..Auest and to initiate anew amendment for revie, _uti�g the -next General Plan Amendment Respectful1 submitted, " �. Ric. Gomez, City Planner PG.LW: cv Attachments: Exhibit °A* - Generall9an andbeveinpment District Map Exhibit "B" - Expanded Project Area Map Initial Study Resolution of Denial Resolution of Appjaval CITY OF RANCRO CUCnu6aGA PART Ii - INITIAL;STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS`j DATLE.� ' APPLICANT; )1 ►t'1C'TTF ,; \� i� FILING DATE;_ � to PROSECT."�� ;> PRO. ECT LOCATION I i. ENVIRbNN;LrNTALrIMi ACTS iExp7an Oall "ye and., "sbe" asweatiaz rs are required on attached sbeLit$% YES MAYBE NO 1 Soils and Geol. arzy. 'Will the prapdsal Fave „ significant results a. Y ;;stable ground conditions or :.n changes- geologic reiationahips? ; b. Disruptions, dtsplaceme�ts, compaction or burial u the sour _ ,. Change 3n topography_or.grcund susfacr, contour Interval-S? d. The destruction, covering or rant _ " «cation Of any Unique geologic or gti7011ciY features,; -e "1 e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion Of soils, affecting Either on or off . sit-, mgndltons? " f. changes in erasion siltattnu, or deposition? g, Exposure of peaple or proper ., to .geologic- hazards jh as ta:"�tnqur es - end�l ides, mad- p1id25A groivy4 failure, or s#milor hazards,t T, b. , !nit inctease in the of Ckttantj*fj tnd /or ' ?ese of any minerai re &oitrce? 'r Ash will 0A proposaL ha+ra significant c c l f ` YES 14-4YBE NO a. Changes in currents, pr the course of dit citron of, flowing streams, rivers, or eph4meral zi-eam channels? _ b• Ch?ngas iw absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water / c. Alterations to the `course or flow of ;jaod' Waters? d, Cha =age in the account of surface water in any body ;of viler? e. Dircharge into :surface waters, or any - alteTat'on of sarface water quality? f f. Alteraiich of groundwater the :sacteristics? g. Change in 'the; quan�::,ty of groundwaters, , -, j either through e'crecK additions or with- dravr,Is, or tpsrcugh interference with an : aquifer? i , R�uality? Quantity? c h. The reductidia.in the amount of vatar-atheF- wise available £_, 'ptihlic f water ss^ es? i i. E;;posure of people or proa =rty * 1 �i§ r related hazards such as!�Xloodiri - lches? ` i j :) fir Quality+,- 'Will the proposal have significant _ l'results 3n- j a. Con£.tant or pericd.» �-_ .. air em%s ;iians f.oiu wbile indirect f i,' ar actress ?., + .- Statioi-,- sources? b. Deter ors loo Qf rnbiegt air ytiality and /or [ interference t� Y~ -die attainmenr of applicable Ai�^ quality standards? ' c= Alteration of local or regional olimatic J conditions, affecting air movement, moisture ` or tsmperatutz r J 4. Biot3 i Flora. W4,1 th_ ¢ropasal Lav 4 si aific&�t results ' l `t sity, distrIb6ti6n, or number sf plants? v. b P�YuatisYa of the numbers of and= •-nnicio,t, rare ...�;� _ or endangered.apeGies �;.aats? : , Page 3 YES. MAYBE, K0 c. Introduction of n/w or disruptive species of plants into an a'es? d Deduct on in the potential for agricultural -r'i:oduction? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results - / inr fl " a, Change in th clmracteristics of species,.= including diversity, distribution, or numh_rti, df any species of animals? b�. Reduction of the numbgrs of ny un��tue, rare or endangPred'spec3asi`% animals? ,> c. Introduction of new o >rdisruptive specze� of " animals into an area, "or result in.i!" c . ier to the migration or movement of animaYs� == d. beteiioratio# or removal of existing f5!sh 4t r W {ldliZ4,ha ttat? WV41 the prgposal�lave significant'' results in: 3; a. Will .fie proposal alter the joicWon, distri- bution; density, diversity, o,t/ ovth rate of the human population of an b. Will the, prrposal affect exis,rA*4g housing, 01,/ create a dsmann for additicintX ,haus3ng? - �•� b. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the? =pzcposal have: sign3 ficant re.:ults in Lunge a. in local _or re 1 socio- economic . characteristics, inc2ua pg econ=ic;�ar commercial )diversa y, _•ate, and property, vat ies'1', b. Will projtict cash bereau�cably distributed amocb• prq {ect hft.eflo5 t 's�� i.e., 'buyers, . tax r _ payer 7. Land U-a and V � �iY f /Consi4erati. )ns. Will the proposal have �cant resultj,( in? - i, a. A; substaatial alt,kration of 4he present Cyr ed land of � r Plano nse an ar ,� � -� — b.` A cgnffl3ct4 any desla ations, o�jectit+s, polirie;t, or s40pted pl. s of any governmental , entities?, r c. An impact upon th-, qul ity or quantity 6f y ' k f l existij coneum Live fir non- t- or.sumptive r t+ ICCCrearlonel opFq t "3ties? J Page. s MXYB . No " 8. Transp6rtatioc Will the proposal hagp significg� t, i} Q results in; I� a. Generation of suostat tiai additional velQ' cular movement? SIG b. tffeets n existing streets, or demand for �� new stzest construction? (� c. Effects on existing, parking facilitie,�R or demand for new parking' ,fir i d. Substantial impact upon existing transports —' � (; Lion systems? e. Alterations to event p); patterns tion ar movemen6of people and /or goods? O Y';'�1j ✓ f. Alterations to or, tffectg on pteseut -and potential waterborne rail, .asses= 2trarisit or, air = � - traffic? . g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicle;;, f bicyclists or pedestrians? ,, j 4. Cultural',itesources. Will the proposal have � significant results ino a. A'disttrrbanca to the, integrity! f archaeological,, paleontological, and /or-histolal resources? I 10: Health,—Safety—and Nuisance Factors. Will the f proposal have siilnificant zesults iri. a. Creation -of any bLalth hazar4.or potential health hazard? b. £xpoS'ure of people to''Potential health hazards? c. _A risk:,= explosion yr release of hazardous substances in the event ol" an accident? d. An %ncrease_iz the u�-i ilr of individuals �^ or species of vcNa '.= pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase,it ,exisr�ng noise lerals? �. y s f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels �.. The creation of objectionable clo =s? h. Ail 3ucraege in �ig4 or $?.are? >� � _ I Page 5 BY No Aesthetics. Vil:�,,the proposal have significant Am, results in., a. The obstructi�n or degradation of �hny scen�jc Vista or view? b. The creation of an�-,aesthetically 'ffensive -site? c. A conflict with the objective 0 designated or potentLal stinic corridors? 77 12., Utilities and Public Services. ' Wi the proposal ITa—v significant need for new sys ms, or alteri��ions to the following- a. 'Electric power? b, Natural or packagect-gas? c. Communications,systems? d. Vater supply? e. Vastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? 0 9. Solid waste facilities? h. F4,Te protection�4 i. Police protect:,kon! Schools? s Parit or other�recreational facilitie'l? 1. Maintenance of public-1acilities, including roa6s and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental,,�6rvicas? 13. Ener�y and Scarce Resources. WilX the proposal have significant results int a. Use of..substantial or excessive fuel or energy? i � b. Substantial increase in demand.upen existing ��z sources of energy? c. An Increase in.�the dem�2(�;i for development of new sources of snergyj d. An Incieape q; perpetuation of the cor.4tmptioa. of nou–'renewable, forms of energy. vhen feasilz�e rejae4ahls source's of energy are available? ``` r • v : YES k &E NO e, Sub depletion, o� any nanreneweble'or at:aZ4 natural resouice? . � 114. Man {aatory Fi-ndinrd Signifia e v l a. Does the project have<.the a�ential to degrade " the quality.of the environment, substantially Teduce the habitat of fish or i ldlife specXea, , { cause a fish or_ idl,ife Population `to: drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,, redece' the-number 'range . or restrict the of,-a rare' -.or ,r ;l endangered plant o:� animal or elimltiate = portaut exarc�ples of the major ,aeriods of Califprnia history or prehiatory?:.'_. �✓ ` b. Dives the project; have the potential ta achieve shart -term, to ;the disadvantage of long -tai, ;. enVironmental goals? (A shoxt =terra impact'on the envir-onmene is pre uhinh accurs ic%_a relatively Brier', definitive "1 pericid of time while Iang- fi J term impacts will endure veil into "the �qu ra). ,or C. Does the project 4taw+e impacts Wch are--.,f � ;� � iidiViiTually Zfi,.�iiced, lxut.,c�mi�,tati,Vu3,t coniderablL? CCumulaeivriy t:0nsi8erab Q V) means that the ineremeJital effects of an individual nrcject are considerable v-htn viawed �w-Ith t- in connection the tffaets of 'pasi"grojects, and future probable projects) i. Does - the project have envirormental,effects, u which ;rill cause substantial adverse effects wi htm an,<.ie3srgs£ either directly or Adir_ot1� 12. Di5CUS51oll OF ENVZROA''AVUTAT. EVALUATION ,r'i'se., ai affirmaL'ive answers..to_,.._ !t the above questions plus a discussion o.` p�oposed uitiption measures). Y ,t y9 , III. DETERMINATION 'at On the basis of this initiai evaluation I find the proposed project, CONED NOT have a- si�ifi,tant offect on the envi,Xonment, and a VEATIVE b we gred�1 g. „ 't I fiord. ,that although the propaped projez4 could -have ,a significant effect on the environmeat,}'there. w;Cil; no bs a a3gnifiea.tt eff et r t in tL;ts case; because, the ma tigafiion we described as an :. attached sheet "Dave ber_n added to -the project. - -4t GATIVF.`' DECLARATION idll L" BE PltE2'AItED �.+ h ( :� i find the proposed piojec: MAX have s ignifies effe4t'on the, envirnment, and +an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT IE?ORT Xeq. "?fed.. r r` / DateY""--"y! r x.::' +J RESOLUTION NO.. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO GUCAMONGA. ,PLANNING COMMISSIOtt RECOMM.ENDINC APPROVAL OF DISTRICT NO. 85 -04 REQUESTING A CHARGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM "L" TO "ISP` FOP, 2.5 ACRES OF .LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND.MAIN. WHEREAS, on the 4th, day of April, 1985 an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and ' WHEREAS, on, the 24th day" Of April, 1985; ,the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing p6';Z�uant to Section 65854 of the California Government Cade. . SECTION L The Rancho Cucamonga Manning Commission has made the fai1owing f9Rda g �� • • 1. That the subJect property is suW%ble for the uses permitted in the proposed ,district . in. tOt s cf access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and AhL 2. That the proposed district amendment would not have significant impact on the environment ncrJt the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district amendment is "itn l conformance with the General Plan. .� SECTION 2; The Rancho Cucamonga ?lanning Commission has-,ii nd that this pr?ject will not tireate a significant adverse lmpaet are' -ti4, .11vironment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration 0► April 24, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; 1. That pursuant to Section 55350 `�io,..65955 of tht California Government. Code, tr!:at "the Planning Commission of the City of Ranctoi Cucamonga; hereby recommends approval on the 24th day of April of Davelo,pment District Amendment No. 854 _ 2. The Planning Commission hereby reconw*601s .that the City Council approve and adopt Oevelopmernt District Amendment No. 9504, 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resol-utior and related s,;aterial hereby adopted by the Planning Commission (, sFa11 be forwarded to the Cityy Council. ,, s APPROVED `AND ADOPTED THIS 24T.4' DAY OF APR�l , 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF :iiE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON'jA_, BY, L. tput, Chairman- ATTErT: R ck ;Gomez, Deputy, Secreiary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the; City of , Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the. Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on tha 24th day of April, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES. cowaSSIONERS NOES, COW ISSIONERS � ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 41 r-, fiITZ OF RANCHO CUCAMO.4GA �TAFF REPORT 0 0 Z DATE: " April 24, 1985 1977 �a TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd "u. Hubbs, City Engineer._ BY: Barbara Krali, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS'INr AND PARCEL MAP 9102 - llAON CURPORATION - A division of 4. 33 acres of land into oareels in the :Industrial Park designation (subarea 7), located on 'the west, side of Red Oak Street at Aspen and Laurel Streets - APN 208 -351 -024 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested. Approval of Parcel Map. B. Purposed _Tc divide 8,.33 acres into 6 parcels for the development of six office;;5uildngs, C. Location: West side of,Red Oak Street,at Aspen and Laurel Streets -. D. Parcei Size: Parcel I - 1 -91 acres Parcel 2 - D.76 acres 'Parcel 31- 1.49 acre'. Parcel 4 - 1.60 acres Parcel 5 - 0.66 acres Pavice .6 - 1.91 acres Total 9.33 acres E.. Existing Zoning.: Industrial Park (s0 irea 7). { F. Existing Land`Use: Vacant. 1 G. Surrounding Land,Use Worth Vacant. ; South - Vacant. East - Vacant. West - Low and Justice Coter. H. Surrounding General Plan and-Development Code Designations: North industrial Park subarea 71. South Industrial Park (subarea 7). :r East • Industrial Park N6arsa 7 West Industrial Park: (subar -ei 71. 1. Ate Characteristics. rhe.,site is vacant and is approximately 6 �eet he w =; higher than t street grade. f ITEM 14 rLANNING CGMMISSION'STA F REPORT _ Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map,910 April 24, 1985 f Page 2 i II. ANALYSIS: This parcel trap is a, subdivision of DR. 85 -05 which is on j tonightis agenda for approval 4f the' Environmental Assessment. The { irregular shape of the parcels conforms to the circular pattern of the project parking lot. Ecch parcel will contain a building and a portiln of the parking lot. The Development Review was reviewed by the Design Review Committee of d found to be generally acceptable. How.:�er, the Planning Staff fills determined that the project is 'deficient:.-in required, parking space§,. City policy'reruire spaces to be provided based upon § mss floor area whereat, tha develo r; provided spaces based upon net �Ie�Sn le area. A the April 10 1965 vlonninq Commission meeting, the developer requested and the Commission agreed to the preparation of a parking study to determine the appropriateness of calculating required parking based upon net leasable versus gross floor area. I Staff requested that the applicant continue the Parcel Map until the parking issue for the uevelopn;�.nt Review was re;;oived. He mated that he preferred to process the Parcel',\Map at this time with tte understanding that the parking lot layout wilt remain the same and that the building j floor area may have to be redlced to provide the required parking, depending upon the results of the impending parking study. A condi {•ion has been included which requires that the parking issue be resolved prior qr to the processing and recording of the Final Parcel Map. The street improvements. fronting the site are existing `except far sidewalks and street lights which will be completed as a requirement of the Final Map. III.. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW- Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the "Initial Study as completed :;y the applicant. St%� has completed Part II of the Initial, Study, the environmental checkli-4t; and has conducted a field investigation.' - -upon completion and review - of.,the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found nc,adverse impaeffs on thr; environment as a- result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESp ",gDEWCE: Notices of Publi "' Hearing have been sent to surrounding proper .Y ownert; and placed in the Oily Reportliewspapen� Posting at the site eras al; o been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommenden.th,:t the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 9103 and authorizing the issuance of a Negat ;ve Declaration. r Res ctfU11 y Subm tied," LEril as II� Atta ments llilicini�y map / ParceTMap �. �� Site Plan ' << _ 7 •--- -----r #� ; troorHUC V. _4. - acxxevaxa _ ... ... ' fi 4. A- r ` i Pea p"? .' . i/ *•`. •apt • x 70ft�- Z /` CENT£? flh cfi; oRrve "mm • 62 Y �iA�9y'9 =Z' 3 � 4 ' pw a o f G; Q?�suac 1 dC lJtY 'a4�C wW N fi4k j 1 . � lip .^..�•Z R6UY�. CITY OF RANCH€? CUCAMONGA '. P.m" ENGINEERING DIVISION ....ter.. VICINITY MAP N-a # isTT i i �i��N t�Ei L is r v aYT,_:Sit wf N 1( f� 6 ! Z E i �� .� -..�i. t- 7 jilt n :1� a � G ��.� -..�i. t- o ;r tom` rQ CITY OF R{ .�. � .r . y �,% +s•`I'r > . t r (� �' ! r z �1 s VIKUOA ru ti � y "ice ap? �. Gr yi'� mow^ .:• r `L�. - � � rys'; r � � �n- �` � � � ''.:rte !% �''`i`'` �' � =+� ,.,'�"` ✓ $ ' i r �� r1rt,.)4 „ ■! \44,1 \��,�”" ii Q _yy i s F ff y i � r G � �. ,� ��.. f_ � � . ENVIRQNMIR -TAL REVIEW -APPLICATION >� INITI4 STUDY 7 PART I 1977 \' 1 if - rv&l+u41ue AtlreS70z ?f 17/03 SEHERAt For all projects requiring environmental review,. this :form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Don receipt of this applicatiarr, the Planninq`Division staff will prepare Part II of - the Initial Study and make` t. recommendations to Planning Commission, The Planning Commissionawi °ll make one of three, determinations: (1) The project will have no ,significant' environmental impact, and a Negative Declaration Swill be filed, (2) ' The project will have a. significant environmental impact and an Environti6ntal' Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information 'report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project, Date Filed: 2!27185 Project Title:�Laurel /Aspen Executive Office Park Applicant's Name„ Address, Telephone: Daon Corporation F _ 4350 Jor.,`'Karman, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA QW6 ' ., 7 '1.4/476 -2766 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project,. D. W Mays - L. D. King, Ir i 2151 E. 0 Street, Suite 120A Ontario, CA 9176 'L .714/988 -6492 Location of Project: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Parcel 6, Parcel Map 6715 Assessor's Parcel No.- 208 -351 -024 #,.ist other permits necessary from local, re9ianal, state and fede *,, agencies and the agency issuing such permits: Grading Permit - City of Ran: o Cucamonga T Building Permit - City of kancho Cucamonga 'Water /Sewer Permits - Cucamonga County Water District c, iii ,4 AIM ) 'w.i PRO.- ;CT DESCRIPTI4Fi Propy'sed use or-proposed project: Deyelopmedt of a 6- office building'-.',complex. i1 Acreage of project i,,area and square footage of existing and proposed if any: 8.33 acres total build 7 '( Describe the - iranmentat settin q of the project site including information on topography -,7 soilstahi ity, plants (trees), land an %;pals, "any cultural, historical or' scenic, aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description any 'existing structures. and their +use (attach necessary ilf sheets): i , This project is in the Rancho Cita 1,ga Business Park. The axea is` present y -:;under development and construction of utilities`, storm drains,'streets, etcw are under MY, including grading of the adjacent sits all part of the overall project. `Some of the surrounding properties are already developed. This project will blend in with the overall planning for the Rancho =Cucamonga Business Park, The site is an existil'� g vineyard with a clump of trees at the southerly corner. There are no existing structures. All existing vegetation and trees will be removed. ,I Is the project part of a urger project, one of a series ; of cumulative actions,, which although individually small, may as a wSole have sign�i,cant environmental' impact ` This project is a park of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park,project 4 sir 1w2 wy l .' -A. WILL YES -THIS -PROZECT: 1. Create a substintial change in ground contours? X1, 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or gTare? X 3`' Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage. etc.)? X 4.- Create changes in the existing Zoning or,General Plan designations? X S. Remove any existing trees? How many? 15- X 6. Create the need for 6e or disposal of potentially hazardous ma-terial,s si4h as toxic substanros, flammables or explosiilsl Explp.iation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if nec�isary): SEE ATTACHED SHEET 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste (",rials this project * will generate daily: sewage 0.131 d/SF or 0.0:),/16 (average), peak flow 0.051M 0.-S— solid waste to ay, estimate 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by thi project: 15 trips per day per 1,000,-SF or 1,550 trips per day 9, Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this.- project,.in cubt--,-yards-. 10.000 CY, no material will be imported 10. 'If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete tha 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 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 information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made 'by the Planning Division. Date- '1/:2 3ignature Title Pral Atro & 4Z-1-- roc 7 V it .' -A. x u i -tiJ= PRESIDENTIAL CONSTR!!MON � � Adak NOT APPLICABLE The following information should be,7 rovided to t the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning [kivisiiln in -4rder to aid', the school d district. in assessing' their . . ability to accenmodate ";the proposed residential d development. Developers are required to seed.a letters frim the school district far accommodating the increased number of students prior to issuance of b building permits.-� Name of Developer and Tentative Tract „No.: _ _ Specific Location of Project; Jr � ., PHASE 2 PHASE 3 P PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL j 1. Number of single fancily units. ` 2 IT family units: 3.. Date proposed to begin codstrurtioa: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Modelis and # of Tentative S. ;\Bedrooms Price Range - _,_- .. --+-, __._.,,.._._ .- .- ter._.-- • •-- '--� -” Attachment to ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW! APPLICATION Explanation of any YES answers (Page 1 -3): Item No*. 2. The existing noise level will increase slightly irainiy ;due to traffic within the project area. During the construction,'period, noise levels will be higher because of the operation of construc- tion equipment. Glare from the buiidfigs will be minimized by use of architectural features. There will be an incremental increase in the demand for municipal services, however, this can be minimized by incorporating security and energy - saving devices in the design of the complex. 5. There -.re a number of small Pepper trees at the southerly end of the site that will be removed for construction. The loss of these trees will be minimized by selective planting and landscaping of the complex. M dpi E Attachment to 5NVIR69MSNTAL REVIEW APPLIQ4.jTON ;= Explanation of any YES answers (Page I -3), � Item No'. - 2, The existing noise level will increase slightly. mainly due to trokffic within the project area." During the construction period, noise levels will be higher because of the operation of construc- tion equipment., Glare from the buildings will be minimized by use of architectural features.. 3. There will be.`an Incremental Increase in the demand for municipal services, however, 'this can be minimized by Inco*ratigg security and energy- saving devices in the design of the complex. 5. There are a number of small Pepper trees at the sa�lttierly_ end of the bite that will be removed for construction. The lots 'of these `. rrbess wAll be minimized by selective plat ing "'and' landscapiiig of . the complex, r 1 t c I { A M� 3` 'RESOLUTION NO. r A RESOLUi`ION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE .CITY GF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING,PAROEL MAP NUMBER` 9103 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 9103), LOCATt;''D ON THE WEST SIDE OF RED OAK STREET, AT ASPEN AND LAURE( STREETS WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9163, submitted by Daon Corp. and consisting of 6 parcels, located an the west side of Red Oak Street, at Aspen and Laurel Streets, being "a division of Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 6725 as recorded in Book 67 of Parcel, Maps, Pages 4 through 7, San Bornardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on March, 4, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and '`r WHEREAS, on April 24,, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1.. That the map is consistent with:.he General Plan. 2.. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is - consistent with the General Plan. 3.. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental duo ie, public health problems or have adverse affects air - abutting -° property. SECTION 2s That this project will not create significant adverse environmentalimpacts and a Negative Declaration is issued. on April 24, 1985. _ SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9103 is approved subject to the recommended Condit,ons of ,Approval pertaining thereto, j APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA h BY, i7 Dennis L. Stout, Chairman I ATTEST: Rick,Gomez,,Deputy Secretary 5 CITY WF mw X10 CUCAMONGA', RECOMMENDED CONDO NS OF APPROVAL r LOCATXF 4 sou-ch side of Laurel between Aspen TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 9103 " and Red Oak Street - DATE FILED; March 4, 1985 gEGAL DESCRIPT4: Parcel -6� PM 6725 as NUMBER OF LOTSt 6 recorded in Bk 6i' of Parcel Maps, "Pages 4 -7 GROSS ACREAGE: 8.33 San..Bernardino County, State of California ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 208 -851 -024_ DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Daon Corporat4 SAME L. D. King 4350 Von Kar.,an, Ste 100 2151 E. "D" St., -Ste 120A ' Newport Bch, CA -92660 Ontario. CA 91764 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with title 16 0� the Municipal Cods of the City of Pancho Cucamanra include, but may`hot be li ited to, the following: „ A. DLAications and Vehicular Aec4ss I. Dedications, .shall ' be „made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements;as shown on the tentative map; 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on 3. Corner property line. "radius will be required per City Standards: 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be (dF Jlcated as follows. f 7 X 5. Reciprocal • access easements and maintenance 'agreements ens' uring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common s roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. 141_ 1,3 x F 6. All existing easements lying within futurle ri -of -way are to be uitclaimed or delineated on the maps per ��ity Engineelt's requirements,_ X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where-sidewalks meander through''priva�ke property. B. Surety X 1. Surety 'shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of thq City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing complet�n of the public improvements prior to recording, 2. A lien agreement must be executes prior to recording of the map for the following: E. 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison Trior to recording for and /or prior V "issuance-of buildtng permit for 11 C. Street Improvements I/ Pursuant to the City oi'' Ranch >Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section IC.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security. with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. i. Construct full 'Areet improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutters A.0 . ::pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and strec' lights on all intorior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide ded �4ted right -of -way shall be construi.ted for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing mpprovements; Prior to, recordation. Curb & A:% iDr�ive Street treet A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pymt Walk Ap r. yTrees. Lights Overlay Island* Other Aspen Meanderno X X X -_, X Red Oak Meanderna X X X X Laurel Meanderna X X X } *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter /7-1/ g rt 4. Prior to any work being peti•ormed in the public right -kof' -way, 3 fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained fr-Om the City €llgineer's -. Office, in addition to any other permits required. X S. Street: improvement plans shall ,be prepared by a Regist red Civil Engijieer and approved by the City Engineer prior to f issuartra of an encroachment permit. V�' :._'Ue1r"_?1lo er shall coordinate, and where` necessary, pay for the relocation of any Power poles or other ,existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Exisinrh'g lines of 12KV or less, fronting the property shall be undergrounded. B. Install apgropriate,.street- -name signs, traffic con'rol signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street, light locatio,* 4 as required, are to be approved by the Southern California ,1dison Company and t{C*, City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles, with underground service. X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to approved by the Planning Division prior to i+" issuance of . building permit. l i 11. Concentrated lk drains shallibesins installed to City Standards, i D. Drainage and Flood Con*rio7 s-- X ` 1. Private easements for cross -lot drainage shall be j required a(-d-sViCh be delineated or r!aticed pn the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent araas„_. j 3. The following si orm' drain' shall be installed to the f satisfaction of the City Engineer k 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage A. study for the project Biel] be submitted to the,City Engineer for review. i' S. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shaft be constructed to detain increased runoff r{ E. Grading X I. Gradin pf the subject property shall be in accordance with the Unifo., Building Cc_ \ City Grading Standards and - ,occepted gradin practices. ° ehe final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. ,. X li 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualifieC engineer .� linensed by the State of California, to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological repo �t shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of anplicaticn or grading plan check 4. The final gradi,pg plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision. map or issuance of building permit Zc ever comes first. F. Beni --L- x X 5. , Fica grading plans f Bui T'ding, and Safety [ building permit. I. Permits from other ach parcel are to be submitted to the ion for approval prior toissuance of es will be "required =as follows: Ca1Trans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District Cucah hga County Water District for sewer and water,, X San Bernardino County dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of :a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants,,Conditions and Restrictions (G.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation Of the map. 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of "approval from CalTrans /S,an Bernardi ndtounty Flood Control gistrictu 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies invol�ed. Approval of the final map Will be subject to any requirements that may be received from tlhw -. _ b Z. The filing p the t� tative map oP apprdva1 of same does not 'guarantee ;rn% sewer treatment capacity will ber: avaltable aM the tine building permits are requested. When building permit- are requested, the Cucamonga County Water c�istriot will tie Ask,4d to certify the availcbility of casacityr Permits will nat be •issued unless said certification is re�ive� to W,4tinq, Local and master Planved Trails shall be provided inn accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trait plan indicting widths, maximum slopes, Physical conditions, fencing acid weed control, in accordance'r�ith City trail s,`.andards, shalt be submitted to i and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation �4�~ andtor prior to building permit issuance or - --�_ 9. Prior to recording, deposit shall h pasted with the City covering the estimated cost . of apportzn►zing the assessments ." under Assessment Ltistrict 82= among the newly cre'4ted parcels. 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be subrs',�ted; Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, referenced. tie rtes and bench narks SPECIAL CON71I1'1ONS -, The final map wilt not be processed or Mcorded until the Parking requirewents for the project 0{,thq °•site are resolved to the satisfaction of the City Planner. ?C. _ 2. The final panel lines on the final parcel Ha ,shalt be adjusted to Provide the required 4UI6�,r''of parking spaces Within each parcel } CITY OF RA%dIQ CUCAMON i4 LLOYD a. Ht# as, CITY Emamm by.. ... .Cpl � r � pp Reve7oPm�t�District Amendment � and issuance of a Negative peclaration i B. Purpose: To facilitate the deveiopmeut,`'f Offic'e'/Professional uses. G. Location: Southwest corner of Base Line avenue and Beryl Street._. D. Parcel Size, .77 acre E. E. "Istin4 Zoning: Low Residential (2-7 F. Existing Land Use: Existing single famft residens G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - existing SRF, Lxt Residential 2 -4 d0ac'_ South - Existing SRF, Law Residential Z -4 du /ac East - Existing SRF, Lore Residential 2-4 du /acct ` West - Exiej7,rig Office /Professional, OP H. Gem�ral Plan DssigltAtions: 7 Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Re 'dential East - Low R idential West - Office -; i ,. ITEM I t, _ ----- CI1'Y OF RANCHO ClJq" MONGA Gam' o r r STAFF REPORT O Q Z Z „ U U . 1977 DATE: A April 24, 1985 TJ: C Chairman and.Members of, -the Planning Comimission FROM: R Rick Comex, City Planner BY: H Howard Fields, Assistant Planner J SUBJECT: E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMCNT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AMENDIN ;t5-05 Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -•- A Development District Aiendmeat from Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Office /Professional fir- 0.7T acres' of land located at the southwest coggir of Base Line Road and Ber;,A' Street - APN` 208- 593 -I0. v 1. Pl�_,)ECT A AND SITE DESCRIPTION: -; A. A Act =on Requested: Approval �' c PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ` ._ `. DDA 85 -L {l Page #2 I. Site Characteristics; 'the site ilt, a vacant corner lot wit" --: . exist nT meta ring vaaIli situated on the west',,property 'pine and a fairly 10vel graded pad. f II. ANALYSIS: i! A. General.t This Development District Amendmeni� is a City d., proposal necessary tc.bMing the sabjGt site's inzh te re,ider,tia1 designation Into conformance and be scent .c6s with the adopted Genera! Plan's designation of ` office: this amendment veque.t will rectify past omission in the 'estimation "designation ")6<\ and approp :date; land use areas during the transfer of data f�`m the General Plan's Land Use,-Map to the Development Districts Map. In terms of lano use compatibility, this proposal wilt continue ltxlsting office /professional uses to the corner of Beryl Strew and wild. not proseft ry adverse impacts the could t be no effectively mitlgat�., :. B. Environment Assessment: As a resul`c of.t`, ,e initial study, the project wil not present any significant adverse impacts opts°;., . AOL the environment, however, there will be impacts from future offia-: development that could he mitigated- based eon the folloWirtoL applicable mitigation measures. ; ILUPact<: The project will result in future office development th. v�tl increase surface water runoff dire to the creation of i <pus surfaces, €i.e. buij:dings, sidewalks,, parking lot). A11 drainage from subject site will be directed toDiry,' Street and under the supervision of City Impact: Project proposed will generate additional vehicular traffic on Baseltae Avenue. 7 Mitig_aticn: Site'Aesign will take accesfi;.xoff of Beryl Street thereby 'minimizing, ingressle9ress.on Base .Dina. *X1. FACTS FOR FINDLIGS: The subject prap?rty ,, s;sitable fnr� the proposed land use io terms of access, size, and compatibility with L, existing 1:" uses in the surroUlding areas. Further, the propa$ed District Change will not h,,4 a significant impact 00 t, environment Jr surrounding properties= %'and is lit Coy formance Yl:fi�t the General Plan. tiJ r L. j 3 ♦� � � ; l R '�`. t. �" _,t �`..c' Y' «a'. r�� ..'� t °ff.`s }... . xy � i`�J( _ os loll m ic [N LM I# .�Ly t 11: G H OF lNFP L yiw 5 t LRti .� tai• li °� k rI L OP t -11^G QP OP NC t Nc + oF, ij +!F•F:4�f . (jV. Q$i� ilk i iC tttyi LM �..� •_ �.(� tAtll� * M k -"i - tL .. PPAII L " ^jj AMR LL. .�. C �r� M , e• 6S'P� [ »( W. M } i q .. ' V app t +- � •f'r+. `.. g �,- /�� L OF Gc Gc as � !._a Y • X & r � � . �M - � #y 4' V NORM f CITY OF ITEM: F 'LAl\iN l Ca DIVISION Extitt31T ____ ___ _" S tai E:- T j r<y riva _ ''D ' 24 6 2f ttt > o {� STREET 7- fip5QRD5 �pt1 ! ?y s 21 S - 22 V ( '� 1'� " �•. 9� i - pit i p r ' 1� 21 �gY L � REEiy •.: xit T 3t; � roll (19 vfv?�ll — — — -, — - _ y'> 1-- sue• -�-rn� � � =4 - k 1. © pQl 2 d t`' » i 3 A FM SLK ltrrt 140 $ t rSK4 4 •49) fit, 1� H • �� ,��1',`�' pER i O o ', i9 h aasa ' tL b oGSui 8 �JCJ EE 7 zo Si'M o .tt •�. tsj" ` O !14 .>r G 18 T .qa iM ` 3ca n • � � V GA Q � � - 12 i. -. •tea \ 4 3 SO^ 9s {T t�G ,aa ec ' • ; (51 `• irr5- .S' 92 yl 19 14 1"'i eH n oea,4 t•1 pry ra5�2 p4 24 t J S Q..r 25 S NOUM �? RANCHO CUCAMOkGA PLAMM DIVOON r-X$-IBIT:_a,SCALP - -- I� RESOLUTION'NO• A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO 4UC �iGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPRVAL OF DEVELOPFI -NT DISTRICT AMENDMENT NO: 85- 05 REQUESTING A M� ! C , rR THE— TASTRiCT DESIGNATION FROM Log RFSIDENTXAL TO OFFICE/ cOFESSIONAL FOR 77 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE $bUTHWES��CORNEIA OF BASE LINE AVENUE AND BERYL STREET. WHEREAS, on the 13th day 'of March, 1985, an application was filed and ,accepted an the above - described project, and 14HEAEAS, on the 24i;h (ay of April, 1985, the Planning Co msissi,1n held a duly 'advert sod public hearing ;pursuant to Section 65854 d� the,,,, California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Generals %Plan Land Use Plan designates the property as Office; and, L, - WFEREAS. the proposed district 'change ' is necessary for consistency with the general Plan pursuant to Section 65860. of the California Government Code: SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access; sizes and compatibility with eitisting land use in the.surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed Ai ,trict change would not have Significant impact "oh the environment nor `the surrounding properties;�and f i {. That the proposed district change is in conformance with the General Plan., (SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cu��nission had fund first this pro) 'Ject wa not create a significant adverse imps won t:re`enyironment and recd Ends issuance of a Negative Declaration an '1985. NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California- Government 'Code, that the Planning )( CommSSsion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby +Bends approval on the 24th day of April, 1185, Deve opment District.Amendment Nb. 85 -05. r v 4t Resolution Nu. ; ;! = DDA 85 -05 Page 2 -" 2. ;ice Planning Commission hereby recommends that the aty Council approve and adopt Development District Amendment No. 85 -05< B. That a Certified :Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby =adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwardeer to the City Council. APPROVED AND_ ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRMI 1985. I PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON'GF�g Dennis L. Stout, Cfi man I ATTEST: :r ,7 Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, "Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the diity of t. Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutart way'uly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comnissia of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the - Planning Commission held an the 24th day of April, 19B5, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: - NOES: COMMISSIONERSs ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.,:__ . r r 0 0 l �1 k C 61 -- x CITY OF M,;CHO CUC?�-TONGA —7--- PART IE INITIAL ST[gi'_'.= :r1( EliVTiiGN.*.FF_''.QTs�% CT��C�.I5T � DATE: +� 1 \ APPLICANT- 4^r'7_i1 oyc FILING DATE: �iifitiL°�t �{'LOC PROJECT. NTr2t� .✓�Ef% "GO +�a✓Tds e9,ell `d E,S^Sfax PROJECT LOCATION: _J'aa B. E*NIROti:+�ITAL TMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and ' "maybe" answerer are r sheets) . equired on attached , YES FL4YiE. 1. Soils and Geoln¢v. Y111 the proposal have NO signif f ant results in: a. ;XU` able ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? / f - tY "» Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial b 2 of h soil 1 e ✓✓ f v* c. ;Change in topography or ground surface by contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e, Any potential iucrdise in Vind or vater - erosion of soils, tectingreither on or off C site conditons? ,r f. Changes in erosion siltation. or deposition? g. Exposure of people or ro er P, P tY to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slidas„ ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An Increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. H�+d_ tov Will tha proposal have significant � �Q results in,. "I .k " r Pago 2� YES °AYES NO AOL a• Changes in cuerents> or the course of direction Of flaking streams, rivers, i Channels? or ephemeral stream , h. Changes in absor do drainage p 4. rates, or the rate Paeterns, and amrsiTntl hurface �� runo_i4? \f water 1 C. Alkerations the course o Maters? r flora of flood d. Change in the a C aj 'an %,o� r-: water in any body of wacar? e `Discbax e i $ Ittt9 ,s Mce water�i oSanyl, a alteration of --- --�_ su : �wate� tv, f. Alteration of 1 undwater characweristics ?' i' Change in the gdant3ty of graundwarers, either through iirect additions or with drawees? a+r th T' ugh Interference 'with �) aquifer? an Quality? ll Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- Vise available for public water supplies? -- Exposure of people p.? property to water related hazards such as flooding or,seichesl 3. Air Qualitz. Will the proposal have significant zesuits in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regienal climatic conditions, affecxing air Zovement, moisture or temperature? 4. &rote Flora. 'Will the proposal have sgPificant resetlts Change in the characteristics of species, -.tncludiztg diversity, distribution* pr.num�er o�`Y species of plants? � b. ReducClti a b* ` the numbers of any unique,. rare or eziaangered species f i lams? ;' i sarw � � �' •. k ?aee .3 Y£5 `LyFHr No c. Introduction of 'neo: or disruptive species of plants into an area! d. Reduction in the potential nor agricultural i — 'production? Y /` Fauna. Will the proposal have. significant results in: - a. Change in the characteristics ox spacies, including divdr it., distribution, or numbers of any species of °nimals? V- b. Reduction of the ni e of a Unique, rare or endangered speci of `animals? C. introduction of net o-r disr , e species of animals into .an arep or re'sulti a barrier to the migrat ,an orlp a0) - en t af� nimals? d. Deterioration or r e� wal `of p cYsting fish or wildlife habitat ?1 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results int a. Will the proposal alter the"location, distri- bution, density, diversity. or growth Vate of f' the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing ho "ing� or create a demand for adds- Clonal housi ;` ? , M 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in ;. a. Change in local or regional soc-�o- economic - -.-- characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rata, and propsrty valualues?. b. Will Project casts be equitably distributed —` among project beneficiaries, i.e.., buyers, tax payers or: project users? i. Land Use and Plannine 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 w entitias? E _ c, An impact: upon the qulaity or quantity of X41 O.xistina conaumptive;gr: non- consumptive recreational tpportUKities? � f ease � $. Transuortation. Will the proposal have results YES .li_ ��3 in; significant a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? f } b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new 'street t! : construction? c. Effects on existing parking cilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existiil' transporta- tion (agstems? e. AlterationsJto present \4atterns of circula- tion or movement of peoihe and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water- borne, r rail, mass transit or air traffic? 9. Increases in traffic hazards T.v orator vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the significant results in; proposal have a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeologtc�d, paleontological, and4for historical resources? 10. Health. Safetv and Nuisance Factors. Will the Proposal ha ignificant results in a. Creatioii,�any health hazard a^ otential health hazard? �>P b. Exposure of people to potental health hazards? ' c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances In the event of an accident? � w d. An increase in the number of individuals or species Of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure_of people to such organisms? I e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people tc Heise :levels? \\potentially dangerous a: The creation of objectionable "odors? l h* An increase in Iisht or glare? 7 �, ' Page S 11. Aesthetics. kEa '�aY'aE NO Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? } b. The creat! on of an aesthetically offensive site ?'+� c. A conflict with the objective of'Q signated or POtential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. VII th proposal ._. have a significant need for new systems or alterations to the followi'v a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? l C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e- Wastewater facilities? f- Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities ?, h. Fire protection? i- Police protection? 1 r ✓` J. Schools? k. Parks or other xed�eational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads yd flood control faciz its? in. Other governmental services'? 13. Eneret and Scarce Resources. will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? f b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c.. An increase in the demand for development of Al. new sources of energy' di ',,%inCTeaSe Or perpetuation of the consumption of uon- renewable forms of energy, When feasible renewable sources of anergy are available? .- Y r 2' Yn i e• =.- Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or y scarte natural resource? / ✓ 14, Mandatory Findin -1 of 5i ificance,' A. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish ax rildlife population to drop -' below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a. plank or animal co=4unity, reduce the r}umber or restrict the range of a rare-,or endangered plant or animalrar eliminate #,taportant exampled of the major Periods of California history or Prehistory?, u% r b. Does the T P 4ject have the Potential to acitS.EVE '^ short«term� to the d sad*- FantRse af' long. tests, environmental goals? (A short -term ,;�ct on the environment is one whi�tLh occurs in ;arlatively brief, definitive period of time while W term imparts will endure well into e futuro). the r C. Does thgg,Project have Impacts which are �. individu -lly limited, but cumt4t-iv -ly considerable ?,_ (Cumulativq?-;�-40 i4iiible means that the incremental effects-6f an Individual P"Jtct are tons3.derable when viewed _ In connection with the effects of�pasr projects, and probable future�rojects),.� F d. Does-,the project have environmental effects which will caul 34 substantial" adverse effects on human beings, either directly,.or indirectly? C' DISCUSSION OF EMY as t lusTa discusATT�fN ti. e: � of affirmative iI. the P j w s to ,j tq sign of proposed tigatian measures). " ,^" 1 r = IM DETE Maw An the bads of this inir3,41 a 2u ttion; 11 find 1 the prOpassd P%Ojact MUD NAT have a'sizTLificanc -. "'Zt ✓ on th "'ronment, and a NEGA:TI -VT Dr.CLARATWX Wlll beIr..re9ted. I find that althocgh the proposed project could ;gave sigtsificant effect on the environment, there will not Se a siSAI icazrr, eCfact In this case because ,the mitigation measu"$ d"Q,)- „ %red o ' an attached sheet have been cAti ed to the Project. 4 *Z TM DECLARATION WILL U ?UrARED. I find the proposed projeL Mid have a�j'tgnific4ant effect on the envirnment, and an, MgRo.'Y.-#Eq* WACT Xf`PORT is required. Date nature rz _ VAT- IS0 ATTACHMENT: DISCUSSION OF ENVIROiMENTAL E S'Lrt3ATI0N 28. A -_ change of district designation to oft izfprofe.ssional will facilitate the development of office building, t oeby creating additional impervious surfaces, increase the amount: of surface run -off, 'and effiecti, iely diminish �' absorptiun rues. All drainage will be directed toward the street and_will. be--under- - _ the _control of the €rgineer» _ 7A. This proposal will alter the existing land use from Residential' to Office/Professional. Nbwever, this change ti+lii:asng tYe existing zoning into , conformances %Qth the doh ed Genetical Plan. `tong j In terms Of ranga impacts, tthis conceivably facilitate similar �crementai zoning requests and ' significantly= alter the planned i�pd use in the area.' ., 8A,8,C. The project proposal will yen rate additional vehicular traffic from future office uses an wilt create a demand for neW parking. Additionally, the Pproposal malt create �- \Nza_rds for mator, vehicles, bicyclists, ; . and pedestrians due limited horizontal site distance.' .r 101,.., Project wiil increase !the, amqunt"af light and glare greater than what is presently, on -site, however, .no greater than• - - -., similar office uses. 1 r j CITY OF RANG O CUCAl1+ -ONGA 33CA tTgi�+ S�`AEF REPORT r 01 o a F � Z U f SATE: April 24, 1985 iyTr" TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gcr,iez, City Planner BY: Dino- 'Putrino, Assistant PTanner' SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -29 THE OL M a eve opment o an eight bWliRg industrial p^ arcs— complex totaling approximately 164,000 square feet on 7,4 acres of lased in, -the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) , loca�e( o9;, -'tile . east side of Milliken, south of 6th Street - AP:N,_29- 26? -58. BACvG.ROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, I985, the co—n in f s —ion reviewed Development Review 84 -28 and continued this item to April 24, 1985. The Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to refine the proposed plans by addressing further emphasis on pedestrian areas' "and amenities and vehicular circulation. ANAL`lSIS: ` A. General: The applicant and staff have met and discussed those issues which need.to;,6e addressed`further. Due to the short period of time\etweer, meetih9s, the applicant has not had suft `lcieht tirpe to complete additional! plans ?,nd submit them: to the Planning Division for review. Therefor €�, the applicant will present the '< charges to the plans to the Commission and staff at this meeting. Should staff have a chance to review said plans prior to this meetiag, a recommendation will be made upon presentation of the staff report. R Pectf y ubmitted, I i ci y City Planner RG: DP.: jr (Y, r Attachments: Planning Commission Staf' "'Report - April 10, 1985 ,y Resolution ' a 1 Eli, J UMM; Hprl! LUx Syub T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commissio"; FRG(; Rick Gomez, City Planner BY- Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 84 -29 KO L OMPAtSY The development of an eight building industrial park complex totaling approximately 104,000 quare feet on 7.4, acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), the' east side of Milljken. Avenue,.south,of 6th Street APN 229 - 261 -58. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested:' Approval of site plan, elevations and: issuance of a tegative- Declaration. B. Purpose: Development of 8 multi- tenant '-industrial uild"ings. C. ,Location: East side of MiIIike,r 'Avenue, south of 6th reet. D, Parcel Size: 7.4 acres E. txfstina koning: Industrial Park (Subarea 12) F. Existing wand Use: Vacant 111 G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Manufacturing Me disco), General - -and Heavy Industrial South - Vacant, Industrial Park` East - Vacant, Industrial Park l West - Vacant, Industrial Park H. General Plan Designations: �ect Site - Industrial Park North - General Industri l South Industrial) Park PLANNING - COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OR 84-24 - Koll Comparsy April 10, 1985 Page Z t, n I Site Characteristics: The subject property is the south`s portion of c Master Plan located along a major boulevard. - 11. ANALYSISe A,, General: The proposed project consists of eight (8) `r detached mufti- tenant industrial buildings with a total of 66 industrial units. These buildings total approximately 92,900 square : ,Feet.' B. Issues The first issue is in regard's to the a _r_apriateness 6f--: the Milliken Avenue streetstape arc" r eccture. andscayina)' The Industrial Specific Plan encourages the use of arrhit.ertural bai,lding forms, texturcd 1 and patterned building materials, and 'color in order to project an image of a complete and high- quality design appearance within the Industrial Park category, Like Haven' Avenue, Milliken Avenue is designated a= a Special Boulevard and,,an important roadway cd5 ridor to the City; thus, it is ner,ssary to enhance it-,,, imagA. The proposed site plan \indicates three (3) buildings faoing,t."C'r iliken Avenue1,with parking 'located up front along the ,(:street. Plaf,"ning Commission �blicy has been to locate, pa't,;apq in areal less :+ visible from Special ilotQevards w? erever` possVile and to require extensive bermed tandscapUg. Tire'' 3eCOnd issue relate S to pedestrian orientation and :. amenities. of the General . Plan'. and the.: Industrfal _9pec7-fi—F— Plan encourage pedestria:i/bicyd�Le— orientation` through landscaped open 5pad'es integrated with�'n,,edestrian walka to create -a campus -like setting. The I dustrial policies Specific Plan and Development Code policies ere) velrnped "' to require" that , pedestrian accev; is ted and logically linked to provide a- cbrr�prehensiv� irculation system. Further, the Industrial Specific Plan indicates that the pedestrian areas shall be harmonious with the design of the buildings on the site and shall enhance their appearance. The proposed site plan 'includes some pedestrian orientated areas between Milliken AvenueL and the proposed;. 'applicant buildings. The has indicated that these areas would create a piciic area image. ire third issue which is related to the second -issue is vehicular circulation. The vehicular circulation s a J1 be t ,; coordinated andrj ogicaTly linked?'to provide a corpe&v�si�; buildings Circulation system with convenient access to M witho!jt interrupting open spaces. PLANNING OR 84 -29 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT i , Koll Company �( - April 10, 1985 Page 3 : r G. Design Review 'Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed this project on two �fparate occasions and ' } expressed concerns regarding i&r significance.. of- this indu`rii��al project based' upon location on a Special 3ou11 - d. Tlie`fol,lowing is :� it summary of significant' issues s idern:Tfied by the Dcaign Review Committee and applicant's solutions: ' Site Plan. Pedestrian areas should be incorporated with every building or create one central pedestrian pl,;�a" (preferr -ed) with linkages, to be utilised by all Units within the - proposed development, as shown on EeJbit 'B ". Solution. T,fte applicant Chas provided some pedestrian areas' -the Fn west sine of the proposed project and a small area within the center with no logical linkages, _pedestrian Pedestrian opportunities have nof,�been 'ad6ressed on the n60theast, 'east, and south east sides of� the proposed project. < Site Plan. Vehicular circulation should, facilitate a convenieit 'acces while preserving the integrity of the pedestrian /open space system, s0ution. The site plan has been; revised to include a slight change at the access point on`the proposed 5th Street in which the aisle bends gently. This change is minimal and, does- not address .the fWl intent or 'significance of the concern. Architecture: The building 'elevations, should create interest and depth based on configuration and finishes and t� patterns._._.__ Solution. The applicant has staggered the buildings and Units the exterior finishes include a combination of fluted and sandblasted concrete - with, - painted band. The architecture design is satisfactory; howevev additional treatment may be used. Landscaping. Extensive Landscaping should be provided l throughout the proposed project especially along I lliken Avenue. This landscaping shoulC'include significant areas- of rockscape for water conservation of wager purposes. r Further, the landscaping should cteate.�foca? o,n- �a . identit, such as: vehicular access `points, prooeirty, site- ,. concerns, and pedestrian areas, t . �� yyyy PLANNING COMMTSSION,STAFF REPORT OR 84 -29 - Koll Company - RPri;I.10, 1985 Page Solution. The applicant 'has provided a conceptual landscape i plan which basically indicates .land ape,, areas and. some�j focal point areas.' A detailed lanescape plan should bi _- submitted which addresses ;the abov e/ ✓ seribed4 - �i J D. Environmental Assessment: Par-,F of the Initiai.Stuijy has been completed by the appli �„ ,Staff has`camplete Part II of the initial;cqxudy and foun�_no significant adverse environmental impacifs related to the proposed use, or project. 111. FACTS F09,,' FINDINGS: i10 n review t�f ..the proposed Development Review app le ion, ye Pianoipg Co6m ,sion and ; make the Findings that the pro "'se project design anti site f�, consistent with the Xndustri11 Specific Plan, Developmieyi Cade, and General Plan olicic, described above for multi "tenant industrial i centers Further, the propgsed development, tt %gether with tine > Conditions of Approval, Qst not be; detrimental .or cause significant adverse er- ironmental impacts. E; IV.. RECOKMENDATIOX: "- 'If the Planning Commission can support the Facts ft�r Findings, a Resolution of Approval with_ Conditions is attached,, for your -' coneideration. However' "If the ConmIIssion cannot support the FaCt'� for'Findings, tk(r1 a project should be denied as inconsistent with the industrial Specific Plan,, Development Code, and General Plan policies. Re gectful ubmitted, o �...�_ is om Cit ter RG :DPscv Attachments: Exhibit A - Master Plan Exhibit 8 - Sit---Plan r r Exhibit C - E1 nation Plan } Exhibit D - Landscape Plan, Resolution of Approval with ,Conditions Resolution of Denial 4� r ME r d• WTR9lr �.. ., fj L F � i ,• � Um .y f rr �r ts- , 1 • �� (i11 ++y � •r } 1� M ' II ;I 41 ;.T,, t 1 p •� 'MQlQ2EO t3T11slTt1iM.7Td ��i..,.�.. L :� raal}ct U TH CITY 0FD T �. 13 Rt�� ✓t 1 C�CIO1�TCsA TITi..fi= ,� *' � �};!- A.l'+it�1M DIVfS;[�}N i EXHIBIT " �� E= T`5 #` y�. Rf'JOLUTION NO. J A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCANONG& PLANNING C 1htISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 84-29 L'CATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLI EN AVENUE, SOUTH OF 6TH STREET, IN THE INDUSTRIAL P DISTRICT" WHEREAS, -Ion the MO day of June, 198 a complete application wis filed by the Koll evi of the abov - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 24th di of April, 1985, the Rancho 'Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above -&t.af bed project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Pl "ning Comrt:issi.on solved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be -met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord,.with the objectives or, ':,the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes #f the mane in whi,, the use is proposed- and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safely, or welfard, or materially injurious to �7 properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use is 1A compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordin "e; and 4. That the proposed project is consiWt with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the i environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on April 24, 1i SECTION 3:.; That Development Review No. 84 -29 is approved, subject to the follow ng con rtions and attached Standard Conditions. Resolution No. OR 84 -29 - Koli Company Page 2 PLANNING DIVISION: i 1. A combination of 'landscaping and berms shall be provided within landscape setback to screen parking and loading areas. Berms shall be undulating with an averagecheight of three foot and a maximum slope not to exceed 3 112 :1. 2, i:andscaping shall be provided along building elevations, within parking lot's, and within 'the landscape setback in accordance with Industrial Area Sl;`ecific Plan requirements. 3. Twenty percent (� ?O% of the required parkins spates shall __- be Compact '181 a 16' with proper signing to so designate as for "Compact Cars Only ", 4. The open space /pedestrian plaza areas shall be designed as pedestriar, oriented focal points and include an integrated . sidewalk system, plaza areas with seating and shade structures, drinking fountains, and extensive landscaping. 5. Extensive landscape treatment shall be provided at the Milliken Avenue intersection. l 6. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided throughout the project. ENGINEERING: 1, The northerly, driveway approaches shall ptiivide for mutual r% access with the adjacent northerly property. 2. A parcel map to create two separate legal parcels, one on either side of 5th Street, shall be recorded prior to the .4 ~ - issuance of a building pen. -it. 3. Notice of intention to join the p- oposed median island � maintenance district shall be filed with the City Councile � prior to the- issuance of building permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF APRIL, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY, " Dennis L stout, Chairman ATTEST:e Rick Gwaz, Deputy Secretary 1 y i kesolution No. OR 84-29 » Ko l Company Page 3 I, Ri -k Gomez, Deputy Se;,retary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereb}lcertifyy that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed' and adopted by the Planning Commission of the mg City of Rancho Cucanga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day o rii 1985, by the following vote -to -wit; 15 AYES:. COMMIStONERS: NOES; COINISSIONERS ASSENT., COWISSIONERS, f is F 3, u U Cl �O S. d Y�. a= ra`iO° =ui e iTt 4.ti J'w'Y.P iw'• �V4 ACon. L4 Y CCo~�;� utj v,. Mt. ,tiM +x C Y Ia�v. G�1T14 SyxW■ YCi-O�`VO YUys C - O. M9 NIo«N.e I L y.7Z c °y y i : 0 '. s'CS yu pp Cp! {} Eh .CAO cMr q t L� *e- GN� +efitV.`4 aoY Ca, ag',2P �c A g ~:• gs w„• =a uS.�+ffii�uw €'•xi n4 O1",,.� L'. �"N 0.`.°"'i wz . ��7"`. +D...p. yCC CyyyC t W V$$� `HOC OWY O ~Y4L 3L J" LMyVECCCCG C qN Ww. �ppy: 0 . rrt CC N+.• l NpNGO, �C - SO L�V C tl Oke V iLk OyTy w11C °1 ':.3 bL p ev-4 0 a V S � p 2-2'. M O OO.C; O ..E CRt & °u.'fi c _11'i gQU .. I.�.r.a,:� 6 ' si S a d V u o � Z N v r.c Ai ,W 6�w 6 � wµ 4 r p..06Ci C�N N N 1 � SvO y M ° y O N py WuT^O�.Yy�JL wi �M��Ya.S.pL 4T �, Q u .ACV O s.v.'aatlpv s n � Yom ffi i a� SdgG� •��" ° Z. 4' ? p1L _ �t Cr. Q tlpCY !" _j G � VYG V G V W pW �Cy..N U�tl A C ppV m' n Sq o x�cY W n 3 Y o L�li N 1 y� rt� G ea d W d W "� ~ +0. O LLJ V H Z �Gy tl �T A O O rya °y IXcwO —3 ��cn[[ H �. c�W � ♦N �i r �QQ, '�''1} u1 ;t CqA Ga'O\O .N OTC oqc... Eau a�g rBw@Q aao RoG� 4c Jfa °.+ ...�acd�- au'�c ?/ri CNyA ~ r $�(•�MtSw g CNNw .7 .4 V4'$ ` O G «g G y q Atyk I j N x 2 w U9 CY _ ... C 6q 4 G40; �.:qq � bECif ,.Gy �. WGb ¢... • �� N p NyV F"` 4 qA� V W AC V r�V�.,� O.'OV IZ ,Ln t QO.4 ut CS•U y9 NCO LcOyy^paEI N -- )i( ^4C qG V V u N 4 N S G C w q D F N s_.9 9C v _• I V CJ q V ^..^ d Y t u a 1 0�8 .Vp�Q?.N�Vtt.N ,N O`U C� ^CR �y� D, G ND qNy Vy� 'Sig „gin COU y y u F ti C N 9 L N f n g m y b ENE O s rte LyK O 0.N Gwe O R CN ,E�a V+VdY T C• Cn °° SIC- i ..�•� NaY.Cw YOy.CW V�.'�""Y~ C �.' C '1 O. �'^ iC1 z O C O •1 C 3 Y Q uFq OCf LyF�tt CII 6 NEyCT p4pL.Y +'pQ q I'f _ .bow IC VPE Vrr3 K.f V r CE�:Uby ACV.Cif b. LVVL L iF"tt g C -,— L i!31L u V" '�S 4 UV z,V ,- - �6V VO ar ^ C A • ' S oo:s �A �cxa � oN .c ce-4 0 : ':� ��.yW '•; zrNda- � «NN �`si:Naca & �,,. ha°.` � w.. ^x GF+c x.t ufs -Kt "x4 Kwc.,m y N O. i3 Yuc 'T� �^ A OK w. data �� YWC�N Cwy V �Y 4O1.. -ZbVgLT � l � q LNFy. «D S - 'Ol °fi 4w. O 4L0 ..CCIS d� F UVf�IwU M bC CC CN V V dT rz O}V dC4 .,F4u �� N� 4w = ^,y�1.p4 V. x�FN.O Y�l GO t30Ygp N�r,��.. • �i'.1�. qp sL CO. OG Cw F CRaOd� M O. >t 'rt. VC F S _ qUa i N 4 � 3 c2 O,� C7.i yNL t44L... V' I Qba Cyyyq q� W4rt C6L .,G N CL T --40 C NAL V9~ OV IIaq,CC 9EA Ot30 C A OO A \.Y i♦ N� V.�N V7C�D�d C1CRElC OC C N, wwCap VN ffi W� • �' 'q N G w �'O � q d `O O�� S S w � h N S O y I y° o'nry rwL «-d2E vqA w�m4�cd eCGF ai�: v «:i y o� °I �O a XC --a O r. K ;L,,ra• c VO y..4 O'L c>W4.Lm �1 4 FC "'/ 1 ¢ T �. 2 Sn N _ NU qr NY, pNN ► - NdLVL R � i 4 Eel; Lo T �•o. �+ ° Asa °1e i �' r V'* Y g 6 VtA 3 Pt 4+dLKS 01 Ol.� ppip y dL tiY'O1. 6 w E t...�CC y4 1 VJ.1 :l >C p GN +3�?'_J�_ QYI � «1tJ'Y V NyO LYi... A4tSG� 1-,�GU V G V E 9 G C . 'WNO 4VV VC 4FVF Lf6 }}..C$ SYN x.4 PF NO'. 11�ND N4q Kit Jws'q CyV 4�p`www �`u,YNC4 d • L. L a C O•d r� 4 Y N' C °� C Y 4b. El Y4 fi q ^Y *O.� L !r G tia b E i+�'.'�� r'� m x C Lrly - N N Na°i! ;CtC .. y n' q4 0I JtQ3 Nx CaM CLQG V q G.:� d gACy � A op. af{ +r° C 1•...Y ,�U 3 9 -0'L`G _ .G NO Yq OIC ffL L9Q Sf �no0.O0 4 r A�w0. qa.9 V rdV A q N LN_L 4ry i} 0.N.L� Q 'id a ��° cC� 0V ° >�aV' ad �a t, 'q '..YAV 7 AM3 R C A dP+ ~Nd uA 0�� w•.,.Q g., dY. '` vAr c LKd.. . r '� Q �� mao W mG '°>,.« -v a rw b. i 0. Nm .+ a�yr` +' qII yMat NC.0i_ ate• -••- u:�A�a y uv G.x-q �llt 2 Yu� °5� 'c .2,51-Z cvc Cq. .c = 6 am u,•..N' Lxwy •-• kt L.�+w.dc y d G N II 'a' O C E Yom E U O L d as ^dd dNL,aM0. F qA Sy. QT dOA ` -♦ N A. ppII w c.dY °6`d 1/IL a�YaN ~CC I Va.-�9 N3 dm //4 -z- :c d a"L.Oa d C OIL.N .LGxdM BAI y, 0.w1 �7�V�r/ Y ..� UN� Ly4H SAP oNt.CN M c cO qy h�I G :Oq is d C o Lq Vi ] a XY C.yk. �aoni cpG4C •. .x H.:i3y a L` 9 d °b 9 TAO x C+c�r�pC ~, t. G= v R C L Y Y O N s=iYY �y �yyq = L � Odf b W H A YMV V G V g L. d .•� 9t�0 y C u Q w Iti F N it d a• q� p b ^..D 4 V LO, ticcb F� •j.. C R 0.M. ,,GG�d OL 6 i- M a Y h w +�• O atL m�N C: A ul S 7� �.I L fi "" �FG_�T � A `� .. ^^ N4 .CQ u •�O 'd 'N: L�r' C UOFL �6t O.,S y� oA C�F�G 0q0 Nr Lpn, q �cuwdi zII OC ^# rU V'�I6 �L_L AF OA. EE� ty N =.. 0. c CXT t,•=.,6 ftp1 L. ny A >~ 0.` 0.0 :0.GMN 6. % d „grtffL ja M �W. I.O•• Hp ..°� . G Ar 5. wed. tC N V N dOLgULyN D wy WZ y.� 6M O �cra a.dK,q gr.0 apr`�. x T Et�YYY O. TO Yvt.a ..Qk y.H cN d wal Vq ON +a”" 0 A qy CGg6 $ q sa�.l Uc Q1- N- cam N... c.yryry MyCL CC pN V.Y ti c 9 cCY.0 R. >Hi �BW �a L C C NV .7 v N g C O Q G _ `tT dt. G y� r.. 11th ^ot �LLi N 0.ik 4.N p L A D Gw MGp LwEW pC i 4 L ~� _ CLh GDpp4Z Ud qyw Y G��CQNa 3j, Am Lam.: q! }NqyY`•�C :F, -5 �C O1`GC qb1� L NLO 'TIrV y.L..a ANC 0400 N. L L � d Y Ate. VZ �^ O�w.q ` T�p >f1w.� ErGr.=9 .15 a plQn f •� --.-s G° X-9 n p 2 t .' .+ u `OL q ° q G dlw uv- Q q6 Qdq V o x A c n°t,sa. a C� fiAd L ,G b -.-I- �Oa A ^ � Q gJd4 O. VC O�.:L N 9w W �C N uO dt tA GOM. °r X yRD .+ � _ .. L 'Y T ..G� +� Gro ' Zf ro r•..^ u. by G Ad p 4, r c ► d 0 i µw�pywZ N Silly °t 01 L M G d1 G, y L • � M ` p = p � L., � (,i 0.C. Ltltilll. QS Y Z ay O �sW+II. Udy L'N^LO LL DQ R d'•OL C�gxC V +t L AO'y.W 6L C RY t - Y tEq •KOq W LSL "n`L UA Ya+L 46CL �ON'rq 4R S a'L0. E y d -Y GE O.d L 1 %il�v iS t++C+l 40+ yuLr � W A +•Y. eft Yo dLti 4++A > ipN 1-•: IS NI CG1 �t1 O SNG.q Itt .Y x06F N�nN qN <Nr SNO .rM� 1 - H =co b "• T byGg 1.3.a -e yY 9 qr Q. d4 '�u+w 4 dm .'.. w L 0%`9 bCcO_ CR q o Q "u tt q. �� b W V O 4UY£G nL. ^. 96 u GnNw� a�b 6ww1 i euoa O O n V ft`s catty q ~ tN F� - Sp4 q y Cam N4N a Uw %O 4o u0 CNw. G Ob ` 1- C��NOIC.Va Q - N +Y,�O.w L r OBt C. Ku .9 a: 6P a 5.��`^ONd PV IIa .•+. �G m.�ju a m� Eq L N i'v rn pq ti. M�� raaa .G �Y� .1 J ...0 + C aate: .. Oaq ^^a0 '.. �3{4:6A .IC. N 6rC. •�i4r S%Ct aar .. �VU+(f r�N,u•{�. eGe L jS p C,• �° Via 6W _ - r )? 4i°V°- ♦:.y�y1Y¢ w.. u} fCi. Y.Oy ER M C ^.aye y >r^�0. vN rd a.�d U CT 4^ �q Y M Or 44w.W S ^xO Nf+ LV N�4,1N uUOiO�LV Omd:m �Y n ryr Vg�G Ta'v+ ~NyiN. .T�G.g4 A LV..'E d a+°+ 6rgC O�'. Y Lam. ^p y, »..pdNC �a yt N6ppY OIN C O+�YL N+ NO14iW1 -0. �GIIlF@.?n (O( L�pYY.G N N CLOU4../ O.00 WNP YL.YV6 ' S6: � b Y, ♦ N1 Nl� Y' G + n1 N Rl � ��.y({(• - N1 2 pro. y N <C gm uC WN ".N. n Yr O 4U 1U d G b�Mn f ¢u6 d OtC Y N� 19 93 v aL°- O } O L u L@ O 0 atop L � 'G O V�N as � rny� q- L O: Nip 6p. Ov+.O, 4bCL O 4VC sY�n' G G OQQgQ `. V 91 V: t� at, 0.y d- Oyg_ t. 2U E Q ^� C i W D .q C ym O�GOq y0� >T t.4... q O`y .}.�. t YaY N �Nb G6 9r°. c °vim A NAa; 4, ;a�c qu.4�LO q oin c .. gppa i4 Nsa' °i G nY R N W�� J1L�YL 10<CVpp Nfi� }G g0 sw— V' }F.O@� +44 a0 u=Y �O GJ I.J PV♦O b YCA. G�r �G9 UO uuC 4Y G�I{4 �[u•.L4 n° °94� .MJJ... J: � • (i0 N��F +�44.M °�> 11( L -. {� ``G1 3@^ LC �. OgqtCl X66 aw.� i. Ct gpO,.f{�n5 LY4C: 44 �6'f♦K 1... 1 �.( �{ wLry. LO Nay.. i as3 ou v F.Q uaw rarE7t aYr++u ff@..Fe;G°u IK f'. n. i' G[.�m4 ILW »a F-»q, A �p 1 f l C L °a o GGC ~. •uau. ai5A t5.Zrp r°, v u 9nrO a A .°,' �°..a?YecAe� O= Lu _ 'NL Aj o rn•pC ci r fir... `. Y yyQ. -+0o tYgx CC 3.E �Q R mss: pfd u�i °c >r.�N qq. �Z `'$� 1r°O O C V °L ` � V a° V 6 Aqy d 6 ^ W `..• x 6 9 L by p. q moo. L o S: osrar r y ♦ad ^u Ed ° 2 q L GN p .. a°a ..n ° uYo t', W L Nx oL �� q� Gam. vR tj aco _ W4 ^�� .� pq - �: • 0�G ad ApOC�YM ��y LZ •tl. pA YC �jN 04 ✓ blL O °qq� d�C 9L Casa x ''1 yy-y,:', RI NN mEpCU{� Ni�ag: u qII y �- dNH d.•W C N i 6 V 1 111 d alY�iigV OI� C w••. C. p�C�°'6 LT M• a ° p � %Y 4i 4.O�d V. `•�II�GA >�A4 .O LQ� a+d+� -,n tea - u. c �G•�tla�K.. °N.G A' Lint y. =� zuFia $; qq pL.: n l�. A R' SS °�' y q�i!O , Gqp �9 � 'L•yu � q yE. V b N n.3+ R Z uo-LLx^ ``o•'.°n. L.��L nN VE O CQ °b N d V u 4 '•'f La q x44 D w •C y k e L R. R h d 4A V � E C x C 1 X g a ° .0 VA L E 4. d .k- •yam nS Gq QGq .= M. 9�pq p� ^. C4wVAQ Eq Ir a°°9 �o _v °°. yo un z co pw »q. Ftq >O Cpl 'r "oaoa- -.i v --T= u tl �d..yuL�c- tau °w. cab4 d grB we mO,fC �,C V N SyS;'. CgwO. Na3RdV V. 2 Y O1a m 0•s•E�C, tia0.0. ;: 4ouu Cf .alq y O µ.qt ,,GCc�n A a'-' V •,' Y > G s cb W O 4S O� �. 9 t �O O- b � Vy i•'' C6- �rN C Cyy yY � U A 9 'N V � y Y uv • . y 1 9..pN i Y �- �qEEN n+N Aq LvAi L N O o. Ny Y 6y sync 3 j L+ L a O q N d V E� 0. QNr O. O L Co O�y�,1 p R 'y 9q y q t V d 9 3 yyy O E. r A^ y T .O _. =eLUn 9 NL 'a C .ply R. N• ib GA lu y u� CC vAO OA bE E uu � CL 99 WNLO~ y,_ CN - ^ CCV 4cbL6'.p E 6 C A M CT aCwN '� ^' y aOY � Aa r C S u � c,pa yy°• Oy = m o. A. y uyi u al OL d A v y V AN H N Lr V T. 'Y _ =no zc ct iy °aL'^ '°.'. �.°•, � .c. o.YC� u wvo a _ `Bi AL A O 9 GU y L L V S O u C i O .cu a y' y �I >4 �1 �1 �... -/,1 1 N � I t7 ! <� - I� 1 Yi 1 �D 1 l i W O 4S O� UW 40 O: Vl...i # L C6- x Wy > C� Y uv N 1 ¢.o O: # L `y C :Y > Y o. sync z .oc� c ural 6 V• �. Cny 0. QNr O. O L Co O�y�,1 p R 'y 9q y q t V d B 3 yyy O E. r A^ y T q' A Y a19 +.'� E .•1 i LL C 2L *9;5 *9;5 yYa.. 2-2 99 2L y d Y 6 C A M C a LNN � CC tl R.V Y Mrn E � � dC ri. V N Lr V T. 'Y S 6NU: VI LGWNo O tlrrY n N oY A- O WQ O Z du 3 n N Pr^ Q CL u N I Wesy' +aNC nu rrti OLCl, 4 Fi p.rLi �c 4 N 1.t:Qq - �. >f9 C•OiY C = M " O w CC w O. 4 +�. •� � � - wP CY � N LN '/L} E� V�d w V Y ` � r L A•N. � Y• � SCEE � q t002� POL.` a ''dA{�.A Yrd4� Wit. da�G OV � a� O • P LL W N 4b aCi�G ... _ a b. 1 N d CL V Aw.N Vq o �'. d P @ C@ aCY a L V N 4 9 Gip yi !� LW vLP shu rd.0 TV �aSa C^ .V Y ✓M tt M G« S'^ pp ^ G O IO C . �W ✓r. O� S2N. ^2 .N Lys E'` {d.YrV aw Pte.. \�� *cT ai Gw. Tq. M� L.N LL N- r� titYW L na . ;� i. LG�d j^ WOI Y'if � � aL� � +CY ' U.'11 d. ^O= N Fv- 'L' P.•Y„ OwVaw d� it q w[•� �3 O� O ^hai.L.N 01d-Y N•'Y G BY tL ¢C6 LL d> 1�". ,.l — - CITY OF RANCEI - UCAMONGA �ycAM STAFF REPORT o Q F 2 � DATE: Apri i 24,, 1985 1977 , TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FRftr Rick Gomez, City Planner , Y. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON CERTA IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EX ANS I. BACkG As you are aware, a number of Conditional Use Permits v' were granted in the past for "temporary" uses or temporary structures. These include temporary (modular)_ banksy temporary 1' trailers and churches located within industrial parks. A list of previously approved Conditional Use Pewit's is attached for your review and information. The purpose of this report is to N date the Commission on the status of these CUP's and to rece. the F Commissi'on's palicyk;directicn regarding their continuance. II. ANALYSIS: Of the fifteen CUP's approved for temporary uses , or strucures, only, six require immediate direction from the Commission because of upcomt'hgexpirations: Expiration Date CUP 82 -11 L;06' of God Lutheran ehurch:: 05/21/85 CUP 82 -06 t.oursquare Gospel Church 06/09185 . CUP 82 -07 Church of the,Foothills 05/26/85 tf; CUP 82 -23 Alta. Loma Church of Christ 10/13/85 CUP 82-24 Empire Bank 05/12/85 CUP 83 -11 Data Design 07127/85 The temporary churches should be distinguished from the temporary bank and trailer approved in the two latter cases. The CUP`s for the churches were approved on the basis that newer churches in Rancho Cucamonga were• an "incubator use" that require a temporary location to develop without the high cost of permanent church facilities. , -, The churches are all located within existing industrial buildings. Once a congregation reached an adequate size that could support and finance new facilities, it was understood that the church would apply for approval of permanent facilities. dal .. 0 !` ITEM K U PLANNING COMMISSION .STArf REPORT Conditional Use Permit Expirations April '24, 1985 Page 2 1\ This concept was similarly applied to businesses,y,, such as barks, which needed temporary facilities to establish a' business operation. However, there is one .,°vortant distihctiun -- these temporary bank facilities or office t, °hers were,- V6ated on vacant. land. Therefore, the Planning Commission was greatly concerned with the duration and appearance of,, these temporary structxire r:; ` For example, the Empire 4nk was required to upgrade the modula with architectural ire�nt and,:- landscaping, and required o F' Wallation of .street imp��ol)ements. The temporary offlae i-rai',ers proved for Data Design were also condition'.ld to require )ristallation of street improvements, j To ensure that 'temporary" structures ,did not become permanent fixtures in the community, the Mantling Commission's policy; is to require permanent Wilding plans to be s itted within a''specified time period. Empire Bank was required t submit nermAnent plans by May 12, 1984. Data Design wasp, requij ed to have" a permanent •building completed and install street ? rovements by July 27, J 1985. In both ^ases, no ermanant cpns l^uction or submittal' of permanent plans has occurred to date. 111. OPTIONS: The Development Code spes:ifiies /a two year approval pariod wit t e possibility of tw'l twelve - month, extensions. The maximum V7 time period of approval, iheluding extensions, is , four years � from the or7 inal a rova dal te; pursuant to 5ection 17.02.100- � J Extensionn may be granted with a finding that there has been no significant changes U the Land Use Element Development C,odp, or character of the area that would cause iU project to become- inconsistent or non - conforming. To date, no time extensions have \ been requested from any of these CUP applicants. The Commission should consider the following options for each- • -- - -- Conditional Use Permit: A. Grant a time extension (pursuant to written request ), or B. Grant a conditional time extension (requires new public hearing to add or modify conditions), or C. No action (denial of time extension request). L k 1 I.Rlillj4 \q YV4'N'11JJ � 1 :f\LI'VI�1 Conditional,_, it IR Ef xpirations April 24, t'r Page ,i. 3 / IV. RECOMMENDATION The Planning : Commission should' review the -inrormat on provided and give ,taff appropriate direction regArding potential time extension requests. If the Commission feels extensions may be ap(3ropriate, then requesis would be scheduled for the Comm n'a consideration R p submitted, �—' ............................ , i t t omen ' RG: DC; ns Attachments;, Tickler File a , f _N i In R�Z k••.SMMiZAp d 0: x0 2 s 0'% CL 01 fai , A 3 CH C W .� Ni^RWh H�7 2 iC QtC '.. a kNF. d'~`\ ZWF..12 t7U D 5. W0_'�'5 6 [0WFZ4/111N N M N U! N N pT' Na 'G1 Z F -•d Z i LT f+ 4Y ? V IY 1"' F I �r, o � �¢N1Yl+ag! v Lr W •.:W� v U. n WaoL aU W £ a dN ((N.7 to r1 ]J N p bai ��£y Q d Q 1G8tl 6 pdj - a' UkZW IM 96 U... [j<^jF Q U. }'WOGS Wi]C C C UK • 1W a ri3A k 11T .! IF Di d Al h W Y W C7 co a lai XQ ua .aa N 1 S N. i na to 2 ri Z. 22 It 10 IN • a <. a .a N .di, N m M M go iA IA t0 no f 4 a m 0 t0 1 1 n is F e l l 'T* t h Y c: t 1 Ct h YI R 'Q Q N N h vrai 'ih r0•f U N. .-1 .a•1 ; S � a a - tV 1� ." 0+ M 1A - lQ 3-3 M" nH s a a °. ' esr LW,T W t0 W I E F �( a a KFa Z F H ID 3+. a p W t7 U a .. , am ca U a a 2 t17 W O F .311 U x" Z m FT Y ..3 Cq 11 .4 a - a 212 .1 v1 O s W 0.3 ta7W W Q F r- •• -�J. ¢ Fs1 t+ W ff «i .d 2 :Ut V N 0 a2 dm4 qN .- 2 H3 N W 'MW Wm F W .1F U'T+ 15.31 m ip \\ a ID .Y >... D 7! 3 W i•+ tl1 2 i." ID W a•a 3 � N m (IT y'L qT t+t N aN k3L L7 O Kp O 0 A L' D NW QF Mri L7 S E 5.5 7 2 ai••TxD:E � 'it 6q K7 Z CU U aSDa6N w irr DW 46 DW DO:. GY'C of IA wX aN. ttkiC� Orl xs. Q xU �S 3.0 Q Ka N W aT 56. 1 a�FaO U GTh N Ua D E ,3 .7 E Q 0 V 5 2 N .1' .a s1 ri ttt m u5 tl. ¢ a1 .a 0 v ri lY 3A - �1 aOTU aEYi Ewe b a0 Xh IC 0 NN r1� b:0 ��4 in p, . a 370 k.W.1 dM'�ri Ora SO Sri k1 A FPM 14h a w.h C•E3 tAq- tZa [9 E1hT1.. aR.,.$Fa0 .iA UfT' wra it rr UN H10 71W.�aQ F+'•d 3P_..ua a it _•' - p A Si N N at p K Q SAS V @ Q k F M° r4rJ 'rA 6 S S It. 2 q }N t - 'M G . W Q S U < m .. HtD aHQ fi . 'tD S 'iS t w lF y r N M k R. C a zZ a m nc ,.1 N W + LT Q a i d W 7L N n c J a ra a > > a x p IM uT a M M 10 x k a O .i .a �.' O Q N N rf r'1 G 0 .1 3Y It O - dM -,y N YV 3at N 3n' M r tC r V` a F+ ` W W d ! aQ 4T m C2 90 :m go Q. +Q Q Ci ; 7[ a x a a'. 17� 0. D iL S � D 0. S iL & �, 1 «'$ v t6 (u LT "'"cF Li LS ci U U i7... u U U V Q r Or( NM riA KO N 10@, 0e N:%Tln -ON Qt:ti Om r4M Tin* h: a�0+13VM vin .6r, CT.T0 a .[Nt?C'i'T*Qh C•~.a,- [rtrt.a rt .•1�. -r.y ittN NJ.Nt- 1C:Nf.Fr'P1M : 1 1 kT ` ` T n a A�. B S� p W Z ca U U`{� ~ ~• Q Bp.,.,. S p W Q. a u «hi 5 5S 7 7 p p1 Wi nHOn E E D DS n u Ta i DWFr N N l/1 4 4D+M w T in 1 \V't p 10 3f4 >a 3iI X 8= p p�yT R R c6 M p. w 1 p`. q q \ ! K I IY.Q O M p rW1^ f w L7U U U'✓ Q Q 32. M N N N N_- N Nv.'RO k k N N a F ar,,q Z ZO 4 4. Z Z¢R>.M DOLT i i3 1 15W.1 o 0 0..SC N..1W^' W W W W = CITY OF RANCHO CTJC&V � � C MEM®RAINDU April 10, 1985 >^ dZ L9,. T0: and iembers of City Council FROM- Advisory, 1b— ssion Members BY- Robert A. Rizzo 4Assistant to City Manager „ SOJECT: Land Use 4ecommendat_,orns by Cdviaory Commission The Advisory Commission ::w lts March 28, 1985, meeting recommended that the fallowing information 06 Forwarded to the City Council and Planning Commission for consideration. } The Advisory Commissioninds and recommends as ,follows ,his City has long desired to mainti a a rurel env^iror"Vat to the maximum extent feesible. This City has allowed the construction of lari� amok of high density dwellings during the past liwo years. There are many more high density duelling projects approved or awaiting approval. Too many high density dwelling projects are inconsistent with the wishes of : -`:ne eitizenr ar t1,t+�' rtr,r a..4 a_4 ,--4— resources and produca,�3erious consequences of crowding.. w, Swift and certain limit.1 _must be placed on the , ,rolifw^�atiT+ of high density dveV i6 projects. ( ff`` Therefore, it is hereby RESOLY0 that the Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council and Planning Commission that the gend=al plan and zoning ordinances of this City be amended to eff�3t a change in allowable density ranges along tae following gu�deltnes-. " ... Aril 10 1985 2 _ P : Lanc�.�pse Racommeaday3on�p E' � SIZE SIZE i PRO MED VL no change no change < , F I. no change - atrg e no Ch H 8 -14 -9 t3H 11t_24 10 -13 24 -30 14 -18 I 19 or more CUP RESOLVED futsther. that-- any imbalance this creates in the general and aoni -as plans should be adjusted by commercial And industrial, changes. RESOLVED further that the category "I" represonts, Inte6!e development, that' it be permitted on no more than 1'10 * A% of* the residentially zoned laird and that it be oontroll+ fJby conditional use permit standards which demand amelioration of all effects of high density to a degree that they have no +" greater Oppact on `nde resources and adverse affects of crowding Shan. would -one dwel�ng unit to the acme. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matters please feel free to contact me. BAR -.mk i i Qt Lit, c. �ti.W. "anti :4 �'3n^2'a.. ._.r zb.. ;31':.: _. ,�.. „. ... _ (k . . CITY OF RaNCA0 CVCAIv &GA ti STAPP REPORT O I977 DATE: A'pri'l 24, 1985 T0: Chairman and.MGmbgrs of the Planning Com ss ;orr FROM:.. ; Rick Gomez, City Planner BY; o K*,autV, Senior Planner SUBJECT; Li�„ND UI E REC0MENDA!lC!NS By �ibVIC�►R.Y COMMISSION Recently, the City Citizens A&-ilsor, CoMiSsion submitted a ,rrrsolution to bath the Planning Commission a d the City Council, •�,elative to re.onsidera % ion of the residential categories of the City's General Plan, Briefly, the attached Resolution recommends substantial across - from Lod reductions in" from in all" residential land use categories from 3,bw- �feditat� and hi9he \Z 7 Since the recomm elation\ has far -reachi" implications. affecting not only the City's ,feral lan but also zoning the llevela; ent Code, Previously approved plarn�d communities ande`lated agreements: the City's Capital ,lmproveme� Projt4-, and numerous other development related issues, any decisQ ?ns on tie subject wilt involve major City policy questions. At tha April 17, 1985 meeting, the City Council refered the Advisory Commission request tt the Pl ning Commission for r:?view and recommendation with Council r w- >, -W of the issues schedu? for May la, 1985+ ^u, It is Staff'; intention to with several basic alternatives addressing the issues' rased by the Advisory Commission far the next Planning Comm -,sion seetina.., Though no ?,tion i is necessary tonight, the Commisslon 64 wish to discuss the propo,aal and provide Staff with some very .general �tirectdnn. Respectfully submitted, `�