The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/02/26 - Agenda Packet -,~" '-/" r- ':' , ,,, \ · 'f. CITY OE t- RANCHO CUCA~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 26, 1992 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette __ Commissioner Melcher III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes January 22, 1992 Adjourned Meeting of January 29, 1992 V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1991.) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1991.) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1991.) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF - ROCKFIELD - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the preservation and transplanting of 22 olive trees (Olea europa) along the western slope of the flood control o levy adjacent to the Community Trail for a previously approved Tract Map consisting of 154 single family lots on 67.8 acres of land and for a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 84 single family lots within the tract, located in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Summit Avenue and San Sevaine Road - APN: 226-111-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map as described below: 1. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 5.71 acres of land located in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek - APN: 207-211-18 through 21, 32, and 34. B. For 1.84 acres of land located in Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN: 208-091-36, 56, and 57, and 227-091-72. C. For 13.12 acres of land located in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: Portion of 208-321-24. D. For 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 207-591-21 through 35. E. For 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 37, and 38. F. For 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-262-01 through 05, 38, and 39. G. For 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-01 and 31. H. For 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36.. I. For 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-291-01 through 03, 05 through 07 and 208-311-03, 04, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 through 27. 2. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for the following subarea: J. For 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will also consider including this property in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-331-24 through 26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUC_____~ONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 5.71 acres of land located in Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek - APN: 207-211- 18 through 21, 32, and 34. B. For 1.84 acres of land located in Subarea 2 of the Specific Plan on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN: 208-091- 36, 56, and 57 and 227-091-72. C. For 13.12 acres of land located in Subarea 3 of the Specific Plan on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: Portion of 208-321- 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Development Districts map as described below: 1. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 207-591-21 through 35. B. For 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 37, and 38. C. For 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-262-01 through 05, 38, and 39. D. For 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-01 and 31. E. For 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36. F. For 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-291-01 through 03, 05 through 07 and 208-311-03, 04, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 through 27. 2. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for the following subarea: G. For 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will also consider including this property in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-331-24 through 26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. H. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - A request to modify the hours of operation and to expand the permitted uses within an existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial use located within the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-262-28. (TO BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 25, 1992.) VII. New Business I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of a 131,451 square foot retail building (Wal-Mart) within a conceptually approved 60-acre commercial retail center within the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. VIII. Director's Reports J. LETTER FROM LARRY YOUNG REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 398, CAR WASHES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (Continued from January 22, 1992.) K. STREET TREES - Review of street tree selection, planting, and placement criteria. L. USE DETERMINATION 92-01 - FORMA - A request to determine if Medical Industrial Clinic fits into the use category of Business Support Services. M. LETTER FROM CRAIG SMITH RECEIVED FEBRUARY 10, 1992 - REQUEST FOR COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MINI- STORAGE FACILITIES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IX. Commission Business X. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. XI. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. __F/2.i C~,T'~' ~Y F,:..AT,;:".irIQ" OlViStOi~ FEB 14 199Z ENDANGERED IIABtTATS LEAGUE Dedicated to the protection of Coastal Sage Scrub and other threatened ecosystems Dan Silver, Coordinator~ ' 14Z~ N. Sweetzer Ave. #401, Los Angeles, CA 90069 Phone: (213) 654-1456(H); (213) 289-114l(W) ' FAX: (213) 657-1319 . February 11, 199r2 Brad Butler and Miki Bratt Planning Dept., City if Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho cucamonga, CA 91701 Dear Planners Bul]er and Bratt: The Fadangered Habitats L_~__gue is a coalition of over 30 southern California conservation pups dedicated to constructive land use solutions. We are in full support of San Bernardino Sage Friends' prop to preserve Alluvial Fan Coastal and Riversidian Sage Scrub Communities in the jurisdictions of Etiwanda, Rancho Cucarnonga, Fontant, and San Bernardino County. It time that concerted and coordinated efforts be made to conserve this habitat and its many dtr~tened species. It is insufficient for piecemeal planning and development to continue. The cumulative impacts of such an approach will result in unmitigab]e damage to the ecosystem. We thus urge the County, and above-named Cities in their spheres of influence, to amend and adopt .OlZe. n Space and Resom'ce ConseBration Planning in p]ar~ of Residential and Aggregate 1V[ining pmvLmons. Regarding the City of Rancbo Cucamonga's Etiwanda North specific plan, ~ Plan amendments for zoning hold1 of the noFthenl utility corridors should designate this region as ResoulT~ Conservation. Furth~ use of these Ftl'cels and w;ltel'w;ys shOLLld be for conservation only. Any further channelization of stream beds of Day Canyon, Etiwanda and San $¢valne Washes would seve:'ely degrade and no longer sustain the riparian habitat and the 3308 acres of alluvial sage scrub vegetation of the washes now remaining. The 11 acre peat bog, situated in Day Canyon and within the Etiwanda North specific plan, is a unique natural resource and treasure foF southern California. ]~very measure must be taken to preserve its pristine condition. We recommend that the areas south of the northan utility corridor be designated in the General Flan predominantly as Open Space, with emphasis on maintainance of wildlife corridors and substancial nahxral open slice. No development should occur north or on top of water recharge basins. It is our undersanding that biological surveys for these areas are frequendy inadequate or even non-existent. We urge yon to require the responsible agencies to obtain new in depth surveyswhich compl with the guidelines set forth Scientific Review Panel on coastal sage scrub in Governor ~,;son's Natural Communities (NCCP) The Planning County and Cities should also seek enrollment in the NCC'P pr0Fam in order to lessen the impacts of endangered species listings for coastal sage scrub species. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Silver ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE MEMBERS .aguna Hills Audubon Society ~alomar Audubon Society ~an Diego Audubon Society .os Angeles Audubon Society 3uena Vista Audubon Society ~omona Valley Audubon Society ~alos Verdes Peninsula Audubon Society ~asadena Audubon Society ;ea and Sage Audubon Society Dorado Audubon Society ;ierra Club San Diego Chapter ;ierra Club Angeles Chapter -'riends of Penasquitos Canyon ;horeline Study Center ;adsbad Arboretum Foundation ,~ottonwood Creek Conservancy -'cology Center of Southern California :riends of the Hills (UC Irvine) )efenders of Wildlife :)range County Fund for Environmental Defense .aguna Canyon Conservancy vlountain Defense League ;ave Our Coastline 2000 .aguna Greenbelt, Inc. -'riends of Batiquitos Lagoon -'riends of the Tecate Cypress ;an Diego Biodiversity Project {ural Canyons Conservation Fund -'riends of the Santa Ana River Fri County Conservation League .os Alamos Neighborhood Association .3alifornia Native Plant Society .3ommittee for the Environment (Orange County Bar Assoc.) of Rancho Cucamonga DATE: February 26, 1992 Subject: Status Report for Sphere Projects TO: Distribution List (see p.3) FROM: Advanced Planning Etiwallda North Page 1 Gross Lot 8ise Project Applicant Acres DU's Density Average/ Status / Lead Planner Name ~ma~d aWfulmUm [1] +/- 1.49 Varies Spect~cPlangO-ol: Draft Flnal EIR and revised ETIWANDA dratt Specific Plan available 9/5/91; Planning City 6840 3613 2112 per area Commlwston heartng g/ll continued to 10/9: 11/ NORTH S ~ Re,. 13, 12/11/91,1/8, 1/22 and 2/26/92. City peC C SPECIFIC Plan Acres Council hearing 3/18/92 {tentative). PLAN AREA Henderson/Bratt [2*] University of County Referral 88 - 06: Project approv~d BOS Caltf./Caryn 426 1238 3.01 7,200 6/24/91; City lawsuit fled for CEQA inadequacy Tracts Includes UIllverstty 14422, School 410.87 sq ft mirl. 7/24 {settlement negotiations in progress) Crest 14423, Park Re,. 14493-98, Corn Acres [Stangl] Bratt 14605-14612 [3*] Landmark 10,890 County Referral S0 - 03: Landmark requests Land 761 620 2.34 sq ft avg. time to find financing under new Federal Savings and Loan regulations; EIR contract approval on Oak' Devlpmt. includes 325 10,000 bold. Application revised 2/19/92; Next Co. StlHllIllt Co. Park, Re,. Sq ft Illill. DRC 3/2/92. Course Acres [Fahie] Bmtt [4*] Etiwanda 172 418 4.54 7,000 County Referral 90 - 0'2: Request to County to amend General Plan from flood control to Heights 91.9 Sq i~ residential development. EIR required. County Sail Dev. Corp./ IIl111. Rcs. staff recommends denial; City staff concurs Sevaine Cheng Acres [Stafford] Bratt [5'1 Chang 11.76 40 4.35 10,000 County Referral 90 - 03: APPLICATION WITH- Min. DRAWN. [6*] Etlwanda 157.5 129 3.93 not COunty Referral 90-07: Application for County No Heights 40 avail, General Plan Amendment, etc. submitted 9/6/91; EIR requix~d; Cmmty DevelopmentRevlew Committee 11/ Title Dev. Corp. / Re,. 9h Applic~t appealing Cheng Acres Committee 12/91. DRC Continued. [Fable] Bmtt [7*] Tracy Devel. 211.7 553 Not Not CR 91-15: Pre-appllcation conf, County DRC CO. Available Available 12/2; 1(1% Density bonus requested Zm Required County Referral 90-06: Consortlure/Co. plan. [8] Land ~ 6261 3595 2.29 oarie$ Applicants negotiating withdrawal of application. Count) Con, often 1569.6 per area term~ SIR c~atrsct. llm Johnson selected West Valley Foothl!l's area msnsgcr. Draft fiscal impact report Spet'/fiC ReS. including infrastructure phasing plan to be completed. Plan Acres [Johnson/Fable] Bratt I2'! through 17'1 *Number refers to map key, see attached Note: Items 2-7 included in Etlwanda North Specific Plan; City Plan includes annexed areas //~ /~, C Febnaary 26, 1992 Stares Repon City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: Status Report for Sphere Projects Da~e: February 26, 1992 Completed Annexations ENSP Area Page 3 Gross Lot Size F roject Applicant Acres DU's Density Average/ Status / Lead Planner Name Estimated Res. Acres Minimum [A*] Caryn/ LAFCO Certification ~.tiwanda Standard January 30, 1989 Hig!dands Tracts Pacific 303 546 2.0 Development Agreement (13!i64/13565) et. al. Ord 379, Adopted 12/7/88 Nissen LAFCO Certification [B*] Watt SePtemb~ 21, 1988 , Tr ~ct 13527 Inland 96 252 2.6 Development Agreement Ord 365, Adopted 8/3/88 Empire Nissen LAFCO Certification [C*] January 30, 1989 T~tct 14139 Ahmanson 53 131 2.25 Development Agreement Ord 377, Adopted 12/7/88 · Nissen Watt LAFCO Certification [D*] Inland 53 110 2.26 Novem!~r 14, 1989 Tntct 13812 Grahn Empire Blackman/ LAFCO Certification [E*] Homestead/ 25 78 3.12 January 5, 1990 Development Agreement Trltct 13835 Remington Ord 400, Adopted 10/18/89 Nissen Annexed Area Eawanda Nm 530 1117 2,45 Subtotals (avorox.) Annex #1 Caryn Caryn/ LAFCO Cen 4/5/85 [ 'lanned K & B 248 946 3.99 per Agree 2/20/85 Co ramunity Matnu~ Ord 248 Adopted 2/20/85 Amended Ord 288 2/5/86 Annexed Area 778 2063 Total Distd bution: City Council Joe Schullz [County Planning Staff] Planning Commission Karen Emery (714) 387-4165 Jack Lain Joe O~liel JerW Fulwood Paul Rougeau Supvr. Jon IMPels Gretchen Stangl Rick Gomez Betty Millet Tim Johnson Carrio Hyke Brad Buller Ingrid Blair ha Petokis Kathleen Brown Laura Bonaccorsi Pat McGuckian Lew Neeb City Planning Staff Charles Fahic (714) 989-1861 Status R5po~ for Sphere Projects *Letter refers to map key, see attachcc J City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: Status Report for Sphere Projects Date: February 26, 1992 Alta Lorna North Page 2 Gross Lot Size Project Applicant Acres DU's Density Average/ Status / Lead Planner Name Estimated Res. Acres Minimum [a*] 794 CR 90-09 Transportation Plan Snow Drop County (Section Approved CBOS Road 14) [Olsen] Henderson/Bratt [b*] To Be Not Not CR 91-07 RFP sent out Deer Creek County Unknown Determined Available Available Golf Course [rim Johnson] Henderson/Brat! [C*] CR 91-13 Presentation to Park Deer Creek/ and Recreation Commission DayCreek Not Not Regional Park County Unknown None Applicable Applicable Plan (Formerly Chaffey Regional Park) [rim Johnson] Tarry Smith/Bratt [d*] 5 CR 9-10 Denied w/o prejudice Not Not 8/30/91 LAL (Section 3 Applicable Ad~plicable Parcel Map 14) [Stangi] Bratt CR 91-06 Application for PDP, [e*] 26.26 M/nimum FDP, and tentative tract 15157; Gomes (Section 24 1.69 24,000 next Co. DRC 3/2/92 14) square feet [Hyke] Bratt Application for aggregate mining. [f] Norm 4~5 0 0 N/A County reviewing conditions for 4th Street Johnson building permit. Issuance Rock Crusher expected by 4/1/92 Status Report for Sl~en l>n>jects '. :. ,,,., ;';.. "" . ...... !!!}}~:......~*:atiSiiS(' )a[!;:" ;';'; ;;:.;.':"'_'S:: ' _.,._ ... .. .,.. .. :---.. . ., .Y r:~,=, ~,=~ sAs=.,,.! ' ~ I .. .-.,.-,.,,.__ AR lOW! 4 u} ua ---, i m I O __"J 8TH ~, ...... . p ¢ Q _..j 0 m 13 \ .... ,Z,. "~ )"" ~ 7TH t ~ \ 6TH ~ " m~ VITH - ~ :I: · NDI SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 ETIWANDA NORTH ALTALOMANORTH · SNOW DROP ROAD 2 UNIVERSITY OF CAI-n~C)RN[A/CARYN b DEER CREF.,K CHDLF COURSE 3 LANDMARK DEVLPMT. CO. c D~k'R/DAY C~!:m~K REGIONAL PAPJ< 4 ~ SAN SEVAIN~ d LAC PARCEL MAP 5 CHANG · 6 CHENG I-I~3-~IDE f '4th STREET ROCK CRUSHER 7 TRACY DEVEL CO. COMPLETED ANNEXATIONS: A = CARYN, B - WATT INLAND, C=~SON, D=WA'IT]NLANDF, JVIP[RE, EXLST~G crrY SPHERE OF ~mLU~NCS E = BLACKMAN/HOMESTEAD/REMINGTON ITEM: STATUS FOR SPHERE 'CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: VICINITY MAP PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT: "A" SCALE: NONE he Caryn Development Company 34 Executive ParR, Suite 155, kvine, California 92714 Office (714) 863-9001 FAX (714) 863-0199 February 26, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Re: Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission; The Caryn Company, University of California and Etiwanda Highlands LTD, feel that it is inappropriate to proceed with the Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan being proposed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at this time. As you are aware, th'e CEO A lawsuit has been signed by the City and all the Real Parties in interest and is awaiting County signature. With the University/Crest litigation now resolved, the inconsistencies between this approved project and the City's draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan remain. We have highlighted these issues in the past to the Planning Commission in letters from (a). Land Plan Design Group dated June 26, 1991 and October 7, 1991 and (b). Hamilton and Samuels dated December 31, 1991 and Janua~ 8, 1992 (see attached letters). In addition, this draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan has no planning impact on this specific plan area since this area is in the County of San Bernardino and is administered by the West Valley Foothills Plan. We question the rational of proceeding with a plan that has no effect on the identified planning area. We request that the Planning Commission send the plan back to Staff in light of the University/Crest CEQA settlement and work with the County of San Bernardino Staff to eliminate the present inconsistencies as a result of the approved University/Crest project. David DiIono Caryn Company cc: Supervisor Jon MikeIs Mr. Timothy L. Johnson Mr. Pat McGukian Mr. Chris F. Pauls Ms. Betty McNay Ms. Deborah Elliott-Fisk PAUL Iqf. HAMILTON H=,e-~'r N. BAHU=LS MAWIN ,J, Lie WILLIAM L. PHILIP W. ,,,. , ,.. ,, .' c, o. ,,,,,,o','~,.,.',=,,-,. 03002. 015 I(AIqlN L,, · rm"D M. PU~'C, tmLL MAIIIK S, MAGIC ~i. JI:iNAT¼Ak3 I. ~ANe" ~YNTHIA R, MAHER Via Teleconier (714) 987-6499 CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 "' Re: Draft'Etiwanda North Specific_Plan Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of our client, the Caryn Co. ("Caryn"), we have reviewed the January 8, 1992 Staff Report prepared for the Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan and related approvals. caryn concurs that it is appropriate to continue consideration of these items until conclusion of negotiations to resolve the litigation filed by the City against the University/Crest Project. However, Caryn disagrees with the statement that all documents necessary for decision-making have been prepared due to the inconsistency between the draft Specific Plan and the University/crest Project. As previously stated, Caryn believes that any Specific Plan for the Etiwanda North area must incorporate the University/Crest Project as approved. In its current form, the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan proposes uses and densities for the University/Crest property which are inconsistent with those approved by the County of San Bernardinc. Once the litigation is resolved, these inconsistencies will become even more apparent. However, even now, the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan coul~ not be implemented without significant revisions to the approved University/Crest Project, which revisions are outside the Jurisdiction of the City. caryn believes that the status of University/Crest as an approved project will make it very difficult for the City to adopt the Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan until these inconsistencies are both acknowledged and resolved. As we are sure the Commimsion appreciates, adequate environmental review must include consideration of the cumulative impacts of pending and approved projects. Failure to consider the impacts of the Planning Commission Januar~ 8, 1992 Page 2 University/Crest Project as actually approved would constitute a ~ignificant legal deficiency in the environmental documentation. Caryn is prepared to appear at the hearing on the Draft =tiwanda North Specific Plan to discuss these inconsistencies and other legal, financial and practical problems with the Plan. However, due the possible settlement oZ the litigation, we wished to advise the Commission promptly of Caryn~s continued concerns about the inconsistencies between the Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the approved University/Crest Project. Caryl~ will request the commiesion to defer any action on the Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan until these inconsistencies are addressed and resolved. Carynwould be pleased to meet with the Commission,or the Staf~ to discuss these concerns. Very truly yours, DMR: feb cc: Supervisor Jon Mikels Mr. Timothy L. Johnson Xr. Joseph N. DiIorio Xr. chris F. Pauls Ralph D. Hanson, Esq. Paul F. Xordy, Esg. HA/W_ILTON ~ ~,~r.:~ o. ~o~r~z.u= 03002. 021 ...,. ~. :o.=...o De~r 31, 1991 ~A~K I. ADAMt ~ONAVNAN B. Mayor Dennis Stout and Members of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Rat Ackno~ledqe~ent of Plan. Inconsistency Dear Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council: On behalf of our client, the Caryn Co., we look forward to settlement of the litigatfon brought by the City of Ranoho Cucamonga ("City"} against the University/Crest Project (.Project"). Although we are convinced that the Project approvals were properly granted, it is obviously in the best interests of all to resolve this matter now. The Caryn Co. has already been substantially harmed by'both the legal and financial ' costs and the six month delay, and continued litigation would only compound its damages. Although it has agreed to settlement of this litigation for the reasons set forth above, the Caryn Co. is deeply troubled by the conflict between the approved University/Crest Project and the City~s draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, as well as other plans approved or under consideration by the City. The Caryn Co. would not want its execution of the settlement agreement to be construed in any way as acceptance o= the Cityls plans ~or the University/Crest Project or agreement that the inconsistencies are minor or otherwise harmless. In fact, the Caryn Co. objects strenuously to adoption of the draft ~tiwanda North Specific Plan as it applies to the University/Crest Project and believes that .the draft Plan suffers from numerous legal and factual deficiencies. The Caryn Co. has already detailed many of its objections to the proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Without repeating these objections here, Caryn wants to avoid any possible misunderstanding about the effect of the proposed settlement. I~ is Caryn's understanding that nothing in the settlement agreement Mayor Dennis Stout and Members of the City December 31, 1991 constitutes concurrence by "~he county of san Bernerdino or any of ~he reel parweiss in interest with any City plan applicable to the project, agreement to cooperate in ~he adoption or implementation of any such plan or acceptance of any inconsistencies between ~he University/Crest Project end its implementing approvals and the draft E~iwande North Specific Plan or en other suuh City plan. It is on the basis of this ~nderstan~ng that the Ceryn Co. will Join in the settlement aeYeement. The Caryn Co. hopes that settlement of this litigBtion will allow a fuller and more productive working relationship among the parties in the future. It would be Caryn's preference to t t cooperate with the City in dsveloping pIans which are consis en with the University/Crest project and applicable stmtutor . requirements. However., until such cooperation can be achieved, it is important that agreement on settlement of the litige~ion be clearly distinguished from agreement on other planning iBs~es. Very truly 3fours# Deborah M. Resenthal DMR:reb Supervisor Jon Mr. joseph N. DiIorio Mr. Chris F. Pauls . Mr. Roger Samuelson Ms. Betty MoNay Mr. David Valentine DESIGN GROUP 0 C r - 9 lggt October 7, 1991 Chairman Larry McNiel & Members or the Pietuning Commission CA:) Mr. Brad Butler, City Planner CITY OF P, ANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box Rancho C'ucamonga, CA 91729 to City Etiwanda North Draft Spedtic Plan Job No,: NES 876.6 RE: Response & (Draft) Final EIR Dear Chairman McNieh, The Caryn Company, University of California, and Ettwanda Highlands LTD. continue to believe it is inappropriate to act on this project while the City and owners of the University Crest project, which is located within the boundaries of Etiwanda North, remain engaged in good faith settlement negotiations on the City's CEQA lawsuit, For reasons stated previously in our letter of August 14, 1991, we again urge the Planning Commission defer any further consideration of the Ettwanda North Specific Plan until after the mandatc heating in the City's lawsuit or until negotiations have been terminated, whichever is latter of the two. Please refer to our earlier letter on the draft Specific Plan and EIR dated June 26, 1991. In this letter we commented on several significant items which should have been responded to by City staff and the City EIR consultant. As we reviewed the draft Final EIR including the Response to Comments. we found the majority of our concerns had not bccn adequately responded to. In most ' c~cs, although answers were given, they were either partial answers or not at' all applicable to the identified concern. We therefore find the Final EIR still lnadquate and are resubmining our earlier ... letter in hope that we can anticipate a proper response from staff', In addition, ~/e 'request clarification of the Ctty's current position with respect to park requirements. ;.-'It appears the Plan is still requiring 5 acres of improved park per I000 population. V~.rl'tat remains unclear In the revision of the documents is whether a portion of the 5 ac./1000 pop. "'Ts sillowed to be encumbered park. We would appreciate any assistance staff can give us in understanding more precisely the parks proposals citywide and of Etiwanda North, Wc appreciate the opportunity to comment and rescrve the right to do so aB"aln at a later date. e ' O , , cc: Joc Dilorio Deborah Rosenthai chron LAND.PLAN · DESIGN GROUP '::- Planning/Land~apc Architecture June 26, 1991 Mr. Larry Henderson, Senior Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Response to City Etiwanda North Specific Plan/EIR Job No.: NES 876.5 Dear Larry: As you are aware, Land Plan Design Group is preparing the Etiwanda North Specific Plan within the County of San Bernardino. The comments that follow are prepared from our perspective as land planners familiar with the area. They are intended to be professional observations, not political statements. The EIR has admirable goals but is inaccurate in many of its statements, particularly as related to land use, biological resources, parks and open space uses. It also does not address fiscal impacts which, when completed, could prove that the proposed development would be riseally unsound and unworkable. The City is currently revising its General Plan for this Specific Plan. The revisions to the General Plan must justify the proposed changes as well as the financial effects of the change. The City has indicated it would like to annex the property. As you are aware a majority of landowners within Etiwanda North must vote in favor ofan annexation in order for the annexation to occur. The City Staff report, which became available only last week includes many proposed changes to the draft Speci~c Plan. Changes to land use designations within multiple ownerships, among other important areas of the plan are being recommended. If the City is desirous of an annexation, it would be appropriate to permit adequate time for the landowners/voters to become involved in a discussion of these changes. The comments that follow have been organized in the same format as Table 1 - I, page I - 5 ofthe 'summary text withinthe EIR. LAND USE The proposed plan would allow for the development 0[3613 dwelling units on 68 14 acres. This converts to an overall gross density of approximately one-half dwelling unit per acre. by far the f-l".! Pl,l.',~ I)r,x,~, .qtHh! A. l lt:;hn. t:;dih~rnia 9:~61'~0 - (; 1-1} ,q3:'-.1300 · FAX: (714) 832-2025 Mr. Larry Henderson Job No.: NES 876.5 June 26, 1991 Page 2 lowest density of.any large project currently approved or under consideration by the City. Even with this low density, the EIR proposes preservation and/or acquisition of 4I 12 acres or nearly 60% ofthe total land area within the project boundaries. While it is a laudable g6al to try to obtain and preserve open space for the City, it cannot be accomplished without some mechanism for public acquisition of the large parcels of privately owned property within the preservation areas. It cannot be accomplished simply through the imposition of conditions of approval which require mitigation far in excess of the impacts of development. Preservation orepen Space: The EIR attempts to justify the proposed "preservation" of 4112 acres of land on two grounds: (I) as mitigation for the claimed loss of"open space" and (2) as mitigation for the "depletion of regional wildlife and habitats." Neither of these two asserted impacts justifies the proposed requirement that nearly 60% of the total land area in the Specific Plan be preserved. First, the EIR erroneously classifies all of the undeveloped property within the Specific Plan as "open space," despite ,its designation as residential on the City's General Plan. Under Section 65560 of the California Government Code, "open space land" is defined exclusively as an unimproved parcel which is "devoted to an open-space use as defined in this section, and which is designated on a local, regional or state open-space plan" as open space for one of four limited purposes. In this case, the City and County General Plans have both shown most of the property within the Specific Plan as suitable and intended for residential development for more than I0 years. It is improper to identify the entire area as an "existing open space land use" for the purpose of evaluating project impacts. Second, the EIR both overstates the impacts of the residential development and proposes to require grossly excessive mitigations. For instance, the EIR states that it is necessary to "preserve in perpetuity 4112 acres in Day Creek and San Sevaine" as mitigation for development of the residential areas. The EIR further states that "development regulations that preclude development in San Sevaine, Etiwanda and Day Creek, and other open space areas shall be adopted." As noted above, the bulk of the proposed residential development will not occur in areas which meet the statutory definition of "open space land." Further, there is no factual basis for requiring the developer of land designated as residential to acquire or otherwise provide for the "perpetual" preservation of more than I-If2 times the area proposed to be developed. This requirement is obviously nothing more than a predetermined "toll" which the City intends to impose on future residential development, regardless of the actual environmental impact or any "nexus" to the proposed condition of approval. In addition, the City fails to identify the "other open space areas" which are proposed for preservation or to consider an equitable financing mechanism for acquisition of privately owned property such as San Sevaine Creek or those portions of Day and Etiwanda Creeks which the San Bemardino County Hood Control District may deem eligible for development. Hillside Residential Land Use: The Specific Plan identifies a combination Hillside Residential - HR (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Hillside Residential Estate - HRE (up to I dwelling unit per acre) land uses above the LADWP right-of-way corridor. The current City Staff report recommends that the HR land uses be changed to HRE uses east of Etiwanda Creek, stating this is "closer to the designation of the County General Plan." Mr. Larry Henderson Job No.: NES 876.5 June 26, 199I Page 3 It is reasonable to consider an allowance of I dwelling unit per gross acre: for these areas. However, it is incorrect to state that this is "closer to the ... County General Plan." The County General Plan permits 1 unit per acre over the entire site, the City proposal is based upon "net buildable acres" and would generally reduce the allowable dwellings far below the County, by 50% or more. If the revised designation by staff is accepted and densities are further reduced, will the City revise the EIR and various technical studies and mitigations to reflect reductions in traffic and other related impacts both on and off-site? Developments West of Da~,, Creek Wash Levee: The staff report recommends elimination of residential use west of the Day Creek levee. Should this change occur, a reduction of 244 dwelling units would result to the Specific Plan and in-tum a reduction in traffic and other related impacts on and off-site. This would impact the mitigations proposed throughout the Specific Plan and EIR. These corrections should be made prior to City Council review and approval. Hillside Development Ordinance: In previous correspondence we have identified internal conflicts within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Hillside Development Ordinance which render it incapable of being properly implemented. The proposed Land Use mitigation which incorporates the Hillside Development Ordinance is therefore subject to this objection. Quimb¥ Act Requirements: The project will be "required" to provide a total of 62 acres of park land or 5 acres per I000 population. The City currently requires 3 acres of park per 1000 residents in accordance with the Quimby Act. City Staff has proposed a "recalculated" requirement of 4.69 acres per 1000 population based on a "new" City study. We have received no documentation in support of the higher requirement, despite numerous requests. City Staff has also failed to indicate whether the higher requirement will be adopted by the City Council as a City-wide requirement. Also, if the total dwelling units is reduced based on staffs recommendations on the Hillside areas and areas west of Day Creek levee, the total park acres requirement should'be revised. COMMERCIAL LAND USE LOCATIONS: With regard to the City's location of commercial uses at the intersection of Route 30 and Day Creek Blvd., the City has previously rejected a similar proposal at Miiliken Avenue and Route 30. On the grounds of access from Milliken and inconsistency with the City General Plan. This proposal would appear to have many of the same problems. Also, the proposed location of the commercial areas along the freeway instead of intemai to the Community seems to go against a City policy of creating "Hubs" at major city intersections. The location of the commercial site at Summit/Banyan, across from the park and school sites seems to " · be more consistent with the Hub concept. This Hub site also would reduce, rather than encourage, traffic through Vintage Drive within the Vintage Highlands community. A second commercial site is shown on Wilson Avenue, along Wardman Bullock Road (on Flood Control District Property). This location seems to be in conflict with City Policy for minimum spacing between comnmrcial centers as noted in the Etiwanda Specific Plan (Section 3.52 and 3.53. 100). The Etiwanda Specific Plan currently identifies a commercial site only one half mile from this site. Mr. Larry Henderson Job No.: NES 876.5 June 26, 1991 Page 4 EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT: Equestrian Issues: The land use section also indicates the project falls within the City's equestrian overlay district. The mitigation for lots less that 20,000 square feet requires landowners/developers contribute to "a minimum 25 acre equestrian site and equestrian boarding facilities". It is our understanding that the equestrian overlay district is identified within current City boundaries and does not extend to the project area. However, even if the overlay area did cover the project area, it would be inequitable to require this project alone participate in the 25 acre facility. Other areas such as the Etiwanda Specific Plan south of the project have equestrian overlay designations with lots less than 20,000 square feet, yet are not required to contribute to this facility. If the City is requiring a 25 acre equestrian facility, it must prepare an equitable solution City-wide. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES In addition to the general requirement that 4112 acres of the Specific Plan be preserved "in perpetuity," the EIR specifically identifies approximately 2972 acres of mitigation which must be provided by the "applicants for development." The following is a summary of mitigation and associated acres that are required to be fulfilled by the "applicants for development". REQUIRED ITEM ACRES 1 ...."Preserve mountainous open space within the San Bemardino ' 915 National Forest (includes 365 acres in upper Day Creek and 239 acres in upper Etiwanda Canyon." 2 ...."Preserve the steep slopes, chaparral, riparian corridors, and +750* wildlife habitat in the hillsides adjoining the National Forest". (*The total acres are not identified in the EIR, our estimate is _+750 acres) 3 ...."Preserve 19 1 acres of Natural Open Space, riparian corridors, 19 1 and wildlife habitat within San Sevaine Wash". 4 ...."Preserve 270 acres of Natural Open Space, dparian corridors, 270 and wildlife habitat within Etiwanda Wash, north of Wilson". 5 ...."Preserve Natural Open Space, walnut woodland, riparian +6 corridors and wildlife habitat below Wilson (100' width minimum) .. to facilitate the movement ofsmall mammals. (Note: This is an off- site requirement)". Mr. Larry Henderson .lob No.: NES 876.5 June 26, 1991 Page 5 6 ...."Preserve 700 acres of natural open space and wildlife habitat in 700 Day Creek Wash and spreading grounds, including the 200 acres set aside as a mitigation area for the Day Creek Water Project". 7 ...."Retain 140 acres of riparian habitat as undeveloped and shall 140 restore 3 acres of riparian habitat on the site. Total Acres 2,972 The EIR attempts to justify this large amount of rnitigation by claiming that the project will (a) remove 2500 acres of "natural open space," diminish on-site wildlife density and diversity, · fragment the remaining habitats and interrupt wildlife habitats on the project site; (b) remove approximately 1900 acres of alluvial fan scrub in Etiwanda, Day Creek and San Sevaine flood plains; and (c) cause thelloss of 3 acres of fipafian woodland. All of these impacts are overstated in the EIR and the proposed mitigation far exceeds any "nexus-based" requirements. "Natural Open Space" Removal: As noted above, the Etiwanda North Development does not meet the statutory definition of "open space land" and is not so identified on the City or County General Plans. It is self-evident that all first-time development converts undeveloped land to a developed condition. This does not constitute a" loss of open space" when it is consistent with the City's existing General Plan. We also note that the,' City has never previously required mitigation from any other project on the basis of open space displacement. Is the City intending to require mitigation o fall land converted from undeveloped to developed condition City-wide? Alluvial Fan Scrub: It is erroneous to attribute the loss of 1900 acres of alluvial fan scrub to this project. Significant losses of alluvial fan scrub within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan are demonstrably the result of the Day Creek Water Project, which has already mitigated for all habitat losses within the Day Creek Watershed or approximately 2500 acres within the project boundaries. This mitigation was found to be adequate through the CEQA review process for the entire Day Creek System. Similar to Day Creek, the Etiwanda Creek project is responsible for most of the remaining impacts on alluvial fan scrub habitat due to its concentration of flood flows away from areas previously subject to flooding and into levees and channels. Even without the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, impacts on the improvements are required to protect existing housing within downstream flood areas within the City ofRancho Cueamonga. It is unlawful to require new development to mitigate for impacts caused by a flood control program largely designed to protect existing residents. RIPARIAN WOODLAND The EIR lists a 'total of 3 acres of impacted riparian habitat. It nonetheless proposes that the applicants both restore the impacted acres and "retain 140 acres of ripa~an habitat." If the habitat is restored, there is no possible justification for requiring a permanent set-aside of an area nearly 50 times as large for additional "mitigation." Mr. Larry Henderson Job No.: NES 876.5 June 26, 1991 Page 6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The City Traffic Model has been a useful tool to evaluate the City-wide traffic needs and mitigations. It should be noted the impacts created by Etiwanda Noah contribute a small fraction of the off-site impacts to the City circulation system. The statement that "implementation of mitigation measures would mitigate project-specific and the project's contribution to traffic impacts to a level less than significant except at Day Creek/Baseline, Milliken/Foothill, Rochester/Foothill and Day Creek/Foothill", should be clarified to indicate that the Etiwanda North incremental addition to the total traffic of each intersection is generally 2% to 3%. If the City reduces the total project dwelling units as recommended in the Staff report this number would be less. AIR QUALITY The mitigation states that "future applicants for development shall establish a Transportation Management Association (TMA) to coordinate and implement a transportation management program to reduce employee vehicle trips". The controlling entity for this effort in the County is SANBAG. Does this condition match this controlling agency's requirements? Another condition requires residential units "not be constructed within 600 feet of the operations of the Day Creek Sand & Gravel Mine..." The Gravel Mine is not shown in the City land use plan and has not been discussed elsewhere in the EIR - i.e., traffic section, etc. How is this issue being addressed throughout the EIR? NOISE The mitigation measures for proposed projects seems highly unusual 'compared to standards applied to current and proposed City projects. For example, the mitigation measure requires perimeter walls varying 140' to 178' feet from the centerline of Wilson Avenue between Milliken and Cherry Avenue. In effect, this creates a fight-of-way area of 280' to 356', about 4 times the standard 80' to 100' fight-of-way? Is the City planning this same approach City-wide? SOLID WASTE As mitigation for impacts on solid waste, the EIR states that "the applicants for development shall implement a separation and recycling program to decrease the amount of potential generation of solid waste." It might be appropriate to require all new development, including the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, to participate, through runring and possible one-time construction requirements, in a public waste-separation and recycling program. It is wholly inappropriate to require a group of individual private property owners to establish, at their own expense, a solid waste 'reduction program without any assurances that the City will cooperate or even make it possible to implement. Without the participation of the City and other projects, it would be impossible for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to take advantage of the economies of scale available to a public solid waste management program or to ensure the effectiveness of the program. a Mr. Larry Hendemon Job No.: NES 876.5 June 26, 1991 Page 7 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project. Please feel free to call should I be able to answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours. · Principal Joe DiIorio COlT chron San Bernardino Sage Friends 1382 Wesley Avenue Pasadena, CA 91104 (818) 398-4962 Commissioners Chitiea February 26, 1992 Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette Rancho Cucamonga City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA RE: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B- City of Rancho Cucamonga Envirnonmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01- City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B- City of Rancho Cucamonga INTRODUCTION San Bernardino Sage Friends is a Grassroots Conservation Group with several hundred individual supporters as well as endorsements by the Endangered Habitats League (a coaltion of over 30 conservation organizations), the Green Party of California, The Gabriellino Nation, The Gabriellino Tribal Council, and the John Muir Center for Regional Studies. We are a member of the advisory committee of the Resources Agency of California "Natural Communities Conservation Planning on Coastal Sage Scrub" that was enacted by AB 2172. We would like to furnish these comments and recommendations in opposition to the presently proposed Specific Plan and General Plan for the record. We recommend that all land immediately north of the northern utility corridors be zoned as Resource Conservation (RC) and that all areas south of the northern utility corridors be zoned as Natural Open Space (Natural OS) to exclude agricultural, and urban developments on top of, or north of, the Water Recharge Basins and Riparian Habitat. We recommend that the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino develop a comprehensive "Habitat Conservation Plan" and until that time place an Interim Control Ordinance on the "Etiwanda NSP" project site, prohibiting removal and Grading of Coastal Sage Scrub and its related communities. This is to include all proposed developments in the Rancho Cucamonga, incorporated city limits, Alta Loma, Cucamonga and Etiwanda. 2 We recommend and encourage The City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County to become active participants in the State of California NCCP program on coastal sage scrub. The "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" Final Draft EIR has not mitigated Biological Impacts to a level that is less than significant. Current Studies estimate that there is less than 5% left of coastal sage scrub in California. This is a extremely significant amount of Natural Resources that has been destroyed. Not only does the Coastal Sage Scrub of Northern Etiwanda support biological life, it supports cultural and spiritual life. Within the past 4 months the City of Rancho Cucamonga has approved Grading Permits to Developers who in turn have removed approx. 150 acres of coastal sage scrub. According to the Memorandum of Understanding by and between the California State Department of Fish & Game and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service regarding coastal sage scrub NCCP in southern California, December 4, 1992: "2. There are 13 species of animals and plants associated with CSS that are on either State or Federal lists of endangered, threatened, or rare species". " 3. The USFWS has proposed the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) for Federal listing as an Endangered Species". According to Atwood's Status Review on the California gnatcatcher, there have been sightings historically and currently in wash basins of the Alluvial fan, coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino County. According to a letter by the U.S. Forest Service, of the San Bernardino National Forest, dated September 27, 1991, by Cindy L. Oswald for Elliott L. Graham to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning the impacts of the proposed Damming & Debris basins of the San Sevain Wash and Etiwanda Creek..."California gnatcatchers are currently being considered by the USFWS for listing as an endangered species. The species was found in 1991 near the confluence of Cajon wash & Lytle Creek in similar habitat; a survey for the gnatcatcher in the project area is recommended". 3 SUMMARY San Bernardino Sage Friends opposses the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" based on these facts: 1. ENSP Final Draft EIR fails to mitigate Natural Resources/Biology to a level less than significant. 2. ENSP Biological surveys are minimal and inadequate, based on the fact that the City of Rancho Cucamonga & the County of San Bernardino have not funded an in-depth Biological Survey that is presently being requested by the State of California's "Natural Communities Conservation Planning on Coastal Sage Scrub/Scientific Review Panel" guidelines under AB 2172. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and County of San Bernardino do not have a comprehensive "Habitat Conservation Plan". 4. Loss of Habitat and Natural Resources (see page 2). 5. Non-existent Hydrology Studies of Wetlands (11 Acre Sedge Bog/Fen) or their protection. 6. Development on top of "Water Recharge Basins" does not comply with the "Clean Water Act". 7. Loss of Cultural Resources. 8. Religious Freedom for Native Americans (Destruction of plant species (Salvia apiana), and other species. 9. Increased Taxes. 10. Increased Traffic. 11. Increased air and groundwater pollution. 12. Open pit mining. 13. Increased Flash Flooding. 14. Overcrowded Schools. 15. Increased Crime. Leeona Klippstein, San Bernardino Sage Friends The Resources Agency Dou~la~ P ~.~. beelet Pete Wilson Secretary Governor of California TO: Cities and Counties The Resources Agency, in conjunction with the Department of Fish and Game has undertaken a Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, designed to protect habitat before it becomes so fragmented or degraded as to require listing of species as endangered under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Act. Established in 1991 under new legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Dave Kelley (AB-2172), the goal of this new process is to beth save critical habitat and allow reasonable economic activity and development to continue. Previous experience has shown that listing of a species as threatened and/or endangered can have severe economic consequences, and despite a sometimes difficult regulatory structure, the long-term survival of the species is not assured. I am writing this letter to ask you to join with us in a collaborative planning process designed to implement a pilot habitat planning program for coastal sage scrub which will maximize local involvement and control over species preservation. There is broad agreement that proactive planning for habitat conservation is far better than draconian moratoria, regulatory restrictions and loss of local control which may come after a species is determined to be endangered. This new process requires scientific data and carefully negotiated agreements which will provide permanent protection for sustainable amounts of habitat and viable species' populations. All these efforts are expected to take a year to 18 months to implement. Any significant loss of birds. or negative changes to existing habitat areas, could make this process ineffective, and force the listing of the gnatcatcher, thereby diverting time, energy and resources from this proactive process to a more narrowly focused, defensive one. Your cooperation is vital. The attached enrollment form outlines the commitments we hope you will make to this unique program. It defines the planning commitment you can take in your jurisdiction to help protect against coastal sage scrub loss or degradation. Please review them with you staff. Feel free to call Susan Cochrane or Larry Eng, (916) 324-8348 for further in.formation. If I can be of any assistance in the meantime, please let me know. The Resources Building Sacramento. CA 95814 t9161 653-5656 FAX (916~ 653-8102 California Coastal Commission · California Tahoe Consen,'ancy · Colorado River Board of California Ener~' Resources. Conservation ,~ Development Commission · San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission State Coastal Consen:ancy · State Lands Commission · State Reclamation Board printed on rt~/cled paper We ask that you "enroll" your jurisdiction within the next 8 weeks. Your quick response and cooperation will help ensure the success of this effort. Please keep us advised on your progress, so we can give your city adequate recognition and credit for your accomplishments. I look forward to working with you on this exciting new program. Sincerely, Carol G. Whiteside Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations ENROLLMENT FORM Natural Community Conservation Planning/ Coastal Sage Scrub I (we) wish to enroll in the Natural Community Conservation Planning process for coastal sage scrub habitat. 1. Name of property owner or governmental agency. 2. Contact person (name, address, telephone, fax). 3. Description of property to be enrolled. Give general location and attach a map or more detailed description. Please list total acreage if known. 4. Describe any biological field studies conducted on the property within the past five years related to the NCCP prog. ram for coastal sage scrub habitat. If you have not al- ready done so, please send copms of any such studies to the Scientific Review Panel. 5. Describe any plans you have to conduct biological field studies on the property in 1992 with regard to coastal sage scrub. 6. If this enrollment involves joint efforts by you and other prop?try owners or agencies in your area, please describe the joint plans and the participants m them. (If you would be willing to join in such efforts and would like to be included in any in your areas, please indicate this.) Authorized Signatures: Landowner or Land Management agency California Department of Fish & Game Date Date cc: The Resources Agency This entire agreement consists of pages 1-3. -I- (updated 2/26/92) NATURAL CON[MUNTrY CONSERVATION PLANNING/ COASTAL SAGE SCRUB Enrollment Agreement for Landowners and Land Management Agencies The Natural Community Conservation Planning/Coastal Sage Scrub project is a voluntary program and a collaborative effort with local government and landowners sponsored by the California Resources Agency and its Department of Fish and Game with the cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The NCCP/CSS will focus primarily on coastal sage scrub habitat and three indicator species within it. The NCCP goal is to conserve long-term viable populations of the State's native animal and plant species, and their habitats, in landscape units large enough to ensure their continued existence while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth, as set forth in Section 2800 et. seq. of the California Fish and Game Code.- Landowners or land-management agencies enrolling in the NCCP/CSS process agree that: 1. No activity on the enrolled property that would cause disturbance of the coastal sage scrub vegetation will occur during the planning period other than actions mandated for public safety by a government agency having jurisdiction to impose such requirements. 2. Landowners and land-management agencies will survey their enrollment land, or cooperate in joint surveys, using guidelines approved by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), unless the property has already been exempted by the Department of Fish and Game, and will deliver survey data to the SRP by the SRP's deadline dates and in SRP- approved formats. 3. Landowners and land-management agencies will join in a collaborative planning process that will lead to preparation of guidelines and standards required by Sections 2800 et. seq. of the California Fish and Game Cede and in addition will fully comply with regulatory controls of the CEQA/EIR process in present state law. The purpose of the planning guidelines is to achieve the following objectives: a. Reconcile potential conflicts between the conservation of coastal sage scrub habitat, as defined on the basis of surveys of indicator species, and planned development or other actions that could impair long-term habitat functions. -2- Cupdated 2/26/92) b. Help coordinate the NCCP program with provisions of federal and state law, such as critical habitat, habitat conservation, and recovery plan requirements, as applicable. c. Provide for the review of NCCP plans pursuant to the program EIR provisions of CEQA to define programmatic impact assessment, alternatives analysis, and mitigation measures for future individual projects or actions within the NCCP plan area with regard to potential impacts on coastal sage habitat and associated species. d. Provide assurance against additional mitigation requirements being imposed for the indicator species except upon a showing of significant unforeseen cir- cumstances. e. Establish procedures for incidental take permits to become applicable if any in- dicator species designated in the NCCP later becomes a candidate species or a listed species. f. Conserve long-term viable coastal sage scrub habitat and its indicator species, in landscape units large enough to ensure their continued existence. g. Establish procedures for coordinating public and private NCCP/CSS efforts, plan preparation and review, and set dates for completion of each phase of the program. 4. The collaborative planning period begins on May 1, 1992, for properties enrolled prior to that date, and on the date of enrollment for later properties. The planning period ter- minates on October 31, 1993 or upon approval of an NCCP, whichever is earlier. The Department of Fish and Game will define and pursue implementation of the NCCP/CSS program expeditiously, including the formulation of process guidelines and subregions as early as possible. 5. Any enrollee may terminate its obligations under this agreement thirty days after Department approval of any of the guidelines described in paragraph 3. The Depart- ment may terminate its obligation with any enrollee who fails to comply with the provi- sions of this enrollment process. -3- (updated 2/26/92) Gabrielino Tribal Council 133 Brooks Ave. Claremont CA 91711 (714)625-7983 Feb. 26, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette Rancho Cucamonga City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA Summary; The Gabrielino Tribal Council of Southern California opposes the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We believe this plan must be opposed in order to ensure the survival of the California Gnatcather, the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in which it lives and our Cultural Heritage and Religious Freedom. My name is Stacy Thompson and I am here to represent the Gabrielino Tribal Council and the concerns of the Gabrielino People. I would like to state that the Gabrielino People oppose the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" which would prezone approximately 7,000 acres of Alluvial Fan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat for residential development. This type of Sage Scrub Habitat is the prefered habitat of the California Gnatcather which is currently up for listing as an endangered species. The Gabrielino Tribal Council has formally requested an EmergenCy Listing of the California Gnatcatcher as an endangered species.The Gnatcatcher is only one small bird that may seem insignifigant to many people, but as we are now finding out every one of the species on this planet affect the species around them ,even people. In order to save this species we must save the habitat in which it lives.The Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in which the Gnatcatcher lives also contains many other species of both plants and animals, 39 of which are Federally recognized candidate species for endangered species listing.These are now all threatened by development. Only 5% of the original California Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat remains, and it can be found nowhere else in the world. The city of Rancho Cucamonga has the last signifigant stand of Alluvial Fan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in San Bernardino County. My people ,the Gabrielino people are now in the same position as the California Gnatcather and it's Sage Scrub Habitat. We were once the most numerous of any of the Indian people on this continent, now we are only a few. Since 1900 the experts, the anthropologists, have called us an extinct people. We are not , but we are an endangered people. We , like the Gnatcatcher must have the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat to survive. I am speaking now of Cultural and Spiritual Survival. The Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in which the Gnatcatcher lives contains many medicinal and edible plants that my people have used for thousands of years.The one of greatest concern is the White Sage(salvia apiana), which is concidered sacred to us and has been used for many types of religious ceremonies by many Native Americans from all over the country, not Just the Gabrielino. My people once ranged from Malibu to Laguna, and from the Islands off our coast to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. We lived in the area that you now call Rancho Cucamonga. In fact the name Cucamonga was a Gabrielino word. We occupied and used the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitats in all of this area for subsistance living and for spiritual renewal. It was and still is our church . We go there to pray and to gather the White Sage with prayers and offerings. Then we use this sacred plant to purify ourselves and we use it to carry our prayers to the Creator. When we did this in the past the Gnatcatcher was always there, now the bird is not always there and our church is not the same. Each time we lose another species our church becomes a little more empty. So you see when we come here to debate whether to approve the development of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the " Etiwanda North Specific Plan", you must remember all of the endangered species which need this place to survive, including the original people.The Gabrielino are not being asked to simply let one species become extinct or one tract of land to be taken in the name of progress and development. We,the indigenous people of this land, are being asked to let a part of ourselves die out and become extinct. We are being asked to give up our beliefs , our church and our religion. We have already been forced to give up so much of what was once here for all to share that we cannot stand by and let what is left of our cultural heritage, our identities be destroyed. We must not allow the Gnatcatcher, the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat or my people to disappear. Extinction Is forever and this includes people as well as birds and plants.The development of North Etiwanda must not be approved in order to protect the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat and all of the species found there. I formally request that this statement be added into the Environmental Impact Report for the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan". Stacy ~ompson The Gabrielino Tribal Council Shiela Cochran Etiwanda Resident (714) 899-0431 My concerns for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan are as follows: The ENSP has a proposed increase in taxes of $222,820,000 for capital improvements in which only 10% will be paid by the new residents. In 1986 property taxes were from $600-$800~"~~ our neighborhood. Now in 1992 they are from $1,200-1,400 per year. For some of our neighbors there has been an increase of $50 in monthly house payments due to the recent increases. If the ENSP goes through, the increases in taxes will put a burden large enough to force some of our neighbors to sell their homes. We already have homes up for sale due to people losing their jobs. In my neighborhood alone, we have homes that have been standing empty from 9 mos.-lyr. Now you are attempting to increase that burden by wanting to substantially increase taxes again. The completion of the Foothill Fwy is at least another 10 years in the future. With the increase in traffic +~ our streets will become even more congested. During morning and afternoon rush-hours Foothill is virtually at a standstill. Stated on TBS this past weekend was that the average automobile produces five tons of carbon monoxide~ ~That car exhaust triples when the car is slowed to 35 - 10 mph. If Rancho Cucamonga has approx. 115,000 residents and divide that by a conservative ndmberCfami!y)of 4; then multiply that by 1.5 cars owned per family. You come up with 43,125 cars producing 215,625 tons of carbon monoxide each year. This is just for Rancho Cucamonga residents, not to mention what we receive from L.A. and other surrounding cities. Our health has been affected by the smog we already inhale. Many of our children suffer from upper/lower respiratory problems. And finally, every community should have open space--a viable, unfragmented habitat. To either just enjoy the scenery or to explore and learn with your children. Sigurd Olsen, a naturalist, once said, "Everyone is looking for their spot of "Blue". Without that spot of "Blue" a person has no direction. Let's leave a spot of "Blue" for future generations~ /4,,d'.c February, 26, 92 public hearing Rancho Cucamonga First of all I want to express that I'~ ' against the Rancho Cucamonga '~tiwanda North Specific Plan" I would like to state, that I am truly concerned. For if we continue ON as we are doing, we will have nothing left of the natural, Pristine beauty! that we still have right in our own back yards. I have a concern as well for future generationsto come , What will we have left them? A legacy of '~AN -~ADE" lakes, parks, and golfcourses, and more New homes. Or a natural habitat, that houses many endangered and Threatened species. As far as I'm concerned their has not been enough studies Done in this area. For instance (Bio~iveresty). Something We are loosing every day~ That we can- not replace. If you want to save species you have to save Eco--Systems. "We stand now where two roads diverge. But unlike the Roads in Robert Frost's familiar poem, they are not Equally fair. The road we have long been traveling is Decptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we l'rogress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road- the one 'less traveled by'_ offers Our last, our only chance to reach a destination that Assures the preservation of our earth.~ Thank You very much, concerned citizen. Cherie Overman Cc~nents (m the Etiwanda North Specific Plan: I appreciate that the city has devised a zoning plan that involves the whole 6,840 acre region, not just pieces of it. Furthermore, I am pleased that the ~SP seeks to preserve the bog and protect its water supply. However, I do not feel that the plan adequately addresses the Cucamonga Fault Zone, which lies roughly between the powerline road and the bog. I realize that the Plan takes into account two fault scarps and designates a 100 foot "fault corridor" around both. But I wish to e~hasize that more than t~o faults exist in this 1/2 mile-wide fault zone, and when dealing with a thrust complex such as the Cucamonga one should consider the whole zone, not just surface expressions. Any plans to build within this hazardous fault zone must seriously weigh the known facts. First, work done by geologists John Matti, Leslie McFadden, John Tinsley, and Doug Norton have found this fault to be significantly active and potentially d~ngerous. In the Geological Society of America Field Guide of 1987, Norton, Matti, and Tinsly state that earthquakes on this section of the fault are estimated to have surface wave magnitudes of 6.5 to 7.2, and have produced vertical displacements of over six feet. This past Monday, Doug Morton informed me that the uplift rate of the fault, (5 r~n/year), classifies it as one of the more active in California. Even without the statistics, the existence of a high, steep mountain face north our city testifies to an active thrust fault. In addition, the above geologists have reached a conclusion that the fault scarps north of Etiwanda did not occur simultaneously (Matti et al., 1982). Rather, during the past, new breaks and scarps have formed in different places within the general 1/2 mile fault zone. This means that there is a possibility of new ruptures occurring in this fault zone. Besides the dangers the fault presents to buildings and lives, the Cucamonga Fault has significant aesthetic and educational values as a natural feature. For example, in 1987 it was ranked by the Cordilleran section of the Geological Society of America as one of the top 100 unique geological features found in the United States. Moreover, Doug Morton claims that these scarps are the best preserved in Southern California. To surround this natural feature with houses would surely result in degrading it. In sm~ery, the Cucanrmga Fault is a unique, natural feature. But it also poses serious hazards to any development north of the utility corridor. The ENSP should .~ze this fact, along with numerous biological considerations,. by prohibiting development north of the utility corridor. Sincerely, 6729 Hermosa Ave Alta Lcma, Ca 91701 References: Matti, J.C., J.C. Tinsley, and D.M. Morton. 1987. The Cuca~onga Fault Zone: Geological Setting and Quaternary History. Recent Reverse Faulting in the Transverse Ranges~ Calif. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1334. p. 179-202. Matti, J.C., J.C. Tinsley, and L.D. McFadden. 1987. Cucamo~ga Fault Zone scarps, Day Canyon alluvial fan, eastern San C~_briel Mountains, southern Californa. Geological Society of America Field Guide--Cordilerran Section. p 199-200. Matti, J.C., J.C. Tinsley, and L.D. McFadden. 1982. Holocene faulting and alluvial stratigraphy within the Cucamonga Fault Zone: a preliminary view. Guidebook: Field trip #12. 78th Meeting, Cordilleran Section, Geological Society of America. p 29-43. Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide---Cordilleran Section, 1987 Cucarnonga fault zone scarps, Day Canyon alluvial fan, eastern San Gabriel Mountains, southern California D. M. Morton, J. C Matti, and J. C Tinsky, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Roa~ Menlo Park, California 94025 Figure I. Map showing geologic relations along the Cucamonga fault zone at the south margin of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains. LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY Avenue, an east-west oriented din power-line service road is The Cucamonga fault zone divides the high eastern San parallel to and just south of the southern fault scarp of the Cuca- Gabriel Mountains from a broad alluvial apron to the south. The tooriga fault zone. Proceeding 0.5 mi (0.8 kin) west from Eti- site is located on the Day Canyon alluvial fan where strands of wanda Avenue on the power-line service road, a dirt road leads the Cucamonga fault zone have produced impressive scarps cross- north up the Day Canyon alluvial fan crossing the southern scarp ing the fan surface (Fig, 1 ). This site is readily ~cc_~essible by taking of the Cucamonga fault zone. This road ends at a locked gate the Baseline Road exit from 1-10 approximately 10 mi (16 kin) about 0.5 mi (0.8 ken) from the power-line road. This point is east of the city of Ontario. Drive 0.25 mi (0.4 kin) west on situated on top of one of the northern scarps of the Cucamonga Baseline Road to Etiwanda Avenue; turn north and go 3 mi fault zone. The U.S. Forest Service buildings, referred to as the (5 kin) to the end of Etiwanda Avenue. At the end of Etiwanda Day Canyon Station, are located south of the locked gate at the 199 200 D. M. Morton and Others top of a 130 ft (40 m) high scarp. The dirt roads can be rough, butrather gentle gradient (14°), which may reflect incomplete degra. are generally easily passable for passenger cars. dation of an initially much steeper scarp. The southernmost scarp paralleling the power-line road on SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE Day Canyon is the most instructive in deducing a sequence of surface-rupturing thrust-faulting events. The age of the alluvial The Cucamonga fault zone is one element of a composite surface cut by this composite scarp is estimated to be 5,000 yrs. frontal fault system, commonly referred to as the Malibu-SierraThe length of this nearly linear scarp is 2.5 mi (4 kin). Topo- Madre-Santa Monica-Cucamonga fault system, or zone, which graphic profiles constructed across the scarp show heights ranging forms the southern boundary of the Transverse Ranges Province from 6.5 to 52 ft (2 to 16 m). The highest part of the scarp is west of the San Jacinto fault. The fault zone is considered to bereadily seen just west of where the road leading to Day Canyon the result of convergence of the Peninsula Ranges to the south,Station crosses the fault scarp. The lowest scarps are best seen on with the Transverse Ranges to the north (Morton and Matti, both sides of East Etiwanda Canyon east of Day Canyon fan. 1987). The minimum convergence rate at Day Canyon is approx- They can be reached by taking the power-line road east from imately 5 mm/yr for the last 13,000 years (Matti and others, Etiwanda Avenue 0.3 to 0.5 mi (0.5 to 0.8 kin). Of particular 1985). Earthquakes producing the scarps are estimated to have interest is the presence of three different height scarps just to the had surface wave magnitudes of M 6.5 to M 7.2, and produced west of the entrenched fanhead of East Etiwanda Canyon. vertical surface displacements of about 6 ft (2 m) with an averageScum heir_his are inter~_eted to have,been recurrence interval of 625 years. The Cucamonga fault zone has atiDIes of 6.6. ft (2 m)-_A trench cut across the southernmost scarp width of 0.5 mi (0.8 km) and has the greatest number of youthfulof the Cucamonga fault on Day Canyon fan exposed a 35° noah fault scarps cutting the alluvial fans flanking the southern margindipping, 6.6 ft (2 m) thick fault zone at essentially the midpoint of of the high San Gabriel Mountains. ~ Day Canyon stluvial,fan the scarp face. The scarps formed from an initially uafaulted contains the greatest assortment of young scarps and the most alluvial fan surface, preserved now as erosional reamants at the detailed Quaternary teetonic record along the Cucamonga fault top of the 52 ft (16 m) high scarp. This surface was subjected to a (Eckis, 1928). series of thrust-faulting events along a realtively thin shear zone. .F_~c__~ event ~ vertieal offset~ cff ahom ~ ft (2_lI1Latlhe SITE INFORMATION suilll2 Erosion between faulting episodes removed segments of the scarp, producing a stepped transverse profile. Each step rep- The Cucamonga fault zone here consists of a series of anus-resents one or possibly more thrust-faulting events. Th~ tamosing, noah-dipping reverse and thrust faults, with an abun-southernmost composite Cucamonga fault scarp appears to re- dance of discontinuous south-facing scarps. Scarps extend cord evidence of eight urthquak~g a 6.6-ft (2-m)_ discontinuously over a distance of 14 mi (22 kin) between San co.~mponent 6f v~rtical"displi~ment with a recurrence inted/ii'0f Antonio Canyon, 8 mi ( 13 kin) west of Day Canyon, and Lyric approximately 625__y_.e,!..rs. If movement on this fault is all dip-slip, Creek, 6 mi (10 kin) to the east (Morton, 1976). the displacement for each event would be approximately 11 ft Of the ten larger alluvuial fans along the Cucamonga fault(3.5 m). ff 6.6 ft (2 m) vertical offsets formed the 131-ft-high zone between San Antonio Canyon and Lyric Creek, all except (40 m) scarp at Day Canyon Station, the recurrence interval for one, the Deer Canyon fan 2 mi (3 ha) west of Day Canyon, have ground-rupturing events is about the same as determined for the entrenched fan heads. Fault scarps cut all ages of alluvium exceptsouthernmost scarp, 650 years. on Deer Canyon fan and the active alluvium coveting the en- A 0.5-mi (0.8-kan) hike up East Etiwanda Canyon above trenched channels. In the area of Day Canyon fan, the older faultsthe power-line road leads to an exposure of mylonitic basement are primarily located in the northern pan of the zone where theythrust over Pleistocene gravels. The fault at this exposure, on the are within mylonitie basement rock or are thrust contacts be- east side of the wash, dips 35° to the noah, which is typical for tween mylonitic basement and Pleistocene alluvium. The upper the dip of the Cucamonga fault. plates of the thrusts commonly show evidence of backward rota- tion. The younger faults are located in the southern pan of theREFERENCES CITED zone where they cut 13,000 yr old and younger alluvium. The oldest and highest scarp on the Day Canyon fan is nearEelre, R., 1928, Alluvial fans ia the Cucamonga district, southern Journal of Geology, v. 36, p. 224-247. the Day Canyon Station where the maximum height is 131 ft Maul, J. c., Morton, D. M., and Cox, B. F., 1985, Distn~oution and ~ (40 m). The scarp is preserved here because it is an isolated relations of fault system, in the vicinity of the Central Transve~ bedrock knoll. The knoll is capped and flanked by alluvium; the southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-365..'~ Steep (36°) scarp face is basement covered by a thin veneer ofMorton, D. M., 1976, Geologic map of the Cucamonga fault zone bet~ee colluvium. The age of the alluvium cupping the knoll is estimatedAntonio Canyon and Lyric Creek, southern Calffomm: U.S. ~ Sumey Open-File Report 76-726, scale 1:24,000. tO be no older than 13,000 years on the basis of soil profile Morton, D. M., and Matti, J. C., 1987, The Cucamong~ halt zone: development. On the west side of the buildings are a lower com- setting and Quaternary histot,y: U.S. Geologncal Survey ~ofe~smr..I- posite scarp 40 ft; (12 m) and a paleo-stream channel with a 1339 (in press). BRUCE FARNSWORTH P H I0 T'0 G R A P H Y February 26, 1992 Coommissioner Chitea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallete .Rancho Cucamonga City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA RE: The planned EIR for the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan" I have reviewed the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and have several concerns about the proposed development. I appreciate this opportunity to offer our comments for your consideration. I am concerned about "the proposed developments in the area and their cumulative impact-on the incredible biological diversity found here at the base of the San Gabriel mountains. Threatened plant communities include'the purest remaining stand of white sage in California and the only Sedge Bog in the region. ~Fine areas of Mountain Mahogany Successtonal Woodland, Riparian communities, and California walnut woodland also exist here. The Sedge Bog below Day canyon, and its surrounding hydrology, must be studied further. Runoff from residential areas, including pesticides, petrochemicals and fertilizers would have significant adverse effects on the bog. I would "refer you to the comments of James des Lauriers, Professor, Chaffey College, Alta Loma, California. The riparian community of Day Canyon are in pristine condition, and must also be preserved. A large coherent preserve would include Alluvial fan sage above the power line easement, the Sedge Bog and surrounding white sage community, the California Walnut and Mountain Mahogany stands, and other valuable areas including San Savaine, East Etiwanda, Day, and Deer canyon washes. Such a preserve would obviate much of the wildlife. loss that comes with habitat fragmentation. Please refer to the documentation of Professor des Lauriers as to the many protected species of plants and animals in the vicinity of the project site. These areas contain excellent habitat for the San Diego Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) and the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). The Horned lizard has been observed, while proper surveys must be conducted for the gnatcatcher. 536 West Whircomb Avenue - Glendora. California 91740 (818) 335-5308 · FAX (818) 852-1004 2 I would request that there be an "Interim Control Ordinance,, put in place immediately to protect these areas from illegal grading activity, etc. There should also be-an amendment to the General Plan which will zone this area as "Natural Open Space" and "Resource Conservation,, areas. Thank you for your consideration: Bruce' Farnsworth, B.S. Zoology CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90- 03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Yontuna, and east of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from January 22, 1992-) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Yontuna, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1992.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1992.) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the subject items on September 11, October 9, November 13, December 11, and December 17, 1991, and January 8 and January 22, 1992, at legal counsel's direction. Please see attached staff reports recommending approval of the subject items. ITEMS A,B,C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R. C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 Attached to this staff report are revised resolutions recommending approval of the subject applications- Please note that each resolution incorporates certain documents as follows: * For the resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Re~ort, the entire Environmental Impact Report is incorporated into the resolution by reference, including Part I, draft EIR, May 1991, and Part II, draft Final EIR, September 11, 1991. Also, Exhibit "A," the Statement of Overriding Considerations, is attached to this resolution. * For the resolution recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-03B, Exhibit "A" is attached, titled "Recommended Consistency Changes to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan (GPA 90-01B)." * For the resolution recommending that the City Council approve Specific Plan 90-01, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, September 5, 1991, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan are incorporated by reference- CONCLUSION: All the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been prepared and made available to the Planning Commission and the public for review- Staff recommends approval of the attached resolutions which recommend Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, approval to amend the General Plan, and approval of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. B~~pe lec~~ City Planner BB:MB/jfs Attachments: Staff Report dated January 22, 1992 Staff Report dated January 8, 1992 Staff Report dated December 11, 1991 Staff Report dated November 13, 1991 Staff Report dated October 9, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 11, 1991 Staff Report dated September 11, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 26, 1991 Staff Report dated June 26, 1991 Resolution Recommending Certification of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment 90-03B Resolution Recommending Approval of Specific Plan 90-01 CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ~:~ + STAFF REPORT : DATE: January 22, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 8, 1992. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 8, 1992. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 8, 1992-) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R.C. January 22, 1992 Page 2 ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance of this item to February 26, 1992, for the purpose of providing additional time for "good faith" negotiations on the City's University/Crest lawsuit. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the subject items at their September 11, October 9, November 13, and December 11, 199~, and January 8, 1992, meetings · The purpose was to provide time for mandatory "good faith" negotiations between the County, the applicants, and the City, a step in the City's lawsuit. The lawsuit was based on adequacy of the California Environmental Quality Act review of the County's University Crest project approval. CONCLUSION: Although all the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been prepared and made available to the Planning Commission and the public for review, staff recommends continuance of the public hearing on the subject items to February 26, ~992. Respe( ~ lanner BB: MB/j fs CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~'i~ ~: i~:i=!i~i:? STAFF REPORT DATE: January 8, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90- 01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmuntal impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest., west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from December 11, 1991-) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from December 11, 1991. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval ot a General Plan Amendment to provide consistencY with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from December 11, 1991-) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R.C. January 8, 1992 Page 2 ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance of this item to January 22, 1992, for the purpose of providing additional time for ."good faith" negotiations on the City's University/Crest lawsuit- BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the subject items at their September 11, October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1991, meetings. The purpose was to provide time for mandatory "good faith" negotiations between the County, the applicants, and the City, a step in the City's lawsuit. The lawsuit was based on adequacy of the California Environmental Quality Act review of the County's University Crest project approval- CONCLUSION: Although all the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan haw~ been prepared and made available to the Planning Commission and the public for review, staff recommends continuance of the public hearing on the subject items to January 22, 1992. Respe y sub 'tted, BB:MB/jfs = CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~:~i~~!~+ STAFF REPORT DATE: December 11, 1991 TO: Chairman and He~er~ of the Plannin9 Co~is~ion FRO~: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, ~ssociate Planner SUBJECT: ~V~RON~ENT~ IMP~ EPO~ FOR SPECXFIC rL~ 90-01 ~ GENE~L PLaN ~END~T 90-0BB - C~TY OF ~NCHO CUC~G~ - ~ public hearin9 to coment on the draft final enviro~ental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan ~en~en~ 90-0BB to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the ~ncho Cucamon9a sphere of influence to provide for 3,61B sinqle family d~ellin9 units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neiqh~rhood co~ercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an e~estrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space 9erierally located nor~ of HiSbland ~venue (State Route B0), sou~ of the S~ Bernardino National Foregt, ~est of the City of Fontann, and east of ~i lliken ~venue · ( Continued f tom Nove~er ~ ~, 199 ~ · ) ~V~RO~T~ ~SESS~T ~D SPECIFIC P~ 90-01 - CITY OF ~NCHO CUC~ON~ - ~ r~e$t to recomend approval of the Et1~anda Nor~ Specific Plan, prezonin~ approximately 6,B40 acres of territory in ~e ~ncho CucamonSa sphere of influence to provide for ~,61~ sin91e family d~ellin9 units on 2,47~ acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neiSh~rhood comerein1 use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an e~estrian center, and preservation of 4,1~2 aare~ of open space qenerally located north of Highland ~venue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, ~est of ~e City of Fontann, and east of Milliken ~venue · ( Continued from Nove~er 11, 199 1 · ) ~V~RON~TAL ~SSESSENT ~D G~E~L PL~ ~D~T 90-OBB - CITY OF ~NCHO CU~~ - ~ fewest to recomend approval of a General Plan ~en~ent to provide consistency wi~ the ~aft E~i~anda North Specific Plan, prezonin9 approximately 6~840 acres of territory in the ~ncho CucamonSa sphere of influence to provide for B,6~B ~in91e family d~ellin9 ~its on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acre~ of neiSh~rhood comercial use, 4 sch~l~, 5 parks, an e~estrian center, and preservation of 4, 112 acres of open space 9erierally located north of Highland ~venue (State Route ~0 )~ south of the San Bernardino National Forest, ~e~t of the City of Fontann, and east of Silliken ~venue- (Continued from Nove~er 11, 199~-) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R-C. December 11, 199 1 Page 2 ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance! of this item to January 8, 1991, for the purpose of providing additional time for "good faith" negotiations on the City ' s University/Crest lawsuit- Correspondence received after preparation of the November 13, 199 1, staff report is attached for your information, as wel]L as staff's response- BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the subject items at their September 11, October 9, and November, 13, 1991, meetings. The purpose was to provide time for mandatory "good faith" negotiations between the County, the applicants, and the City, a step in the City's lawsuit · The lawsuit was based on adequacy of the California Environmental Quality Act review of the County ' s University Crest project approval · CORRESPONDENCE: Additional written correspondence has been received and is attached for your review together with staff discussion · ( See Correspondence dated December 11, 199 1, and attached letters · ) CONCLUSION: Although all the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been prepared and made available to the Planning Commission and the public for review, staff recommends continuance of the public hearing on the subject items to January 8, 1992. City Planner BB:MB/jfs Attachments: Correspondence dated December 11, 199 1 CORRBSPONDBIIC~ December 11, 199 1 Nine letters have been received since preparation of the November 13, 1991, Staff Report (see attached). Staff discussion follows: Dan Konin~, November 10, 1991 Comment Support is stated for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan- Response Comment noted. Comment Concern is expressed regarding feasibility of fire protection in the hillsides- Response Fire hazard is a concern which has been addressed by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the draft Specific Plan as follows: * Preparation of the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan Fire Protection Study, January 1991, by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. * Environmental Mitigation Measure requiring a project level Fire Defense Plan prior to approval of each project. * Two means of access to each project- * The recommendation for General Plan Amendment changing certain territory north of the north Cucamonga Fault from hillside residential to open space- Comment Concern is expressed regarding the viability of the wildlife corridor for Day Creek. Response No housing development is proposed in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which would impair wildlife movement within or north of the Day Creek Spreading Ground- The Specific Plan proposes to retain the existing open space use for the Day Creek Spreading Ground- The Specific Plan also proposes an open space designation west of the Day Creek Channel north of the Spreading Ground. Finally, the Specific Plan proposes an open space designation east and west of the natural Day Creek channel, north of the Day Creek Debris basin. Comment Concern regarding residential development within the Cucamonga Fault zone, Response The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Seismic Study Zone is to ensure that seismic studies are completed prior to approval of an application for development- Applicants for each proposed project must retain a geologist to determine the location of existing seismic faults within the Alquist-Priolo Seismic Study Zone and identify a minimum 50-foot exclusionary setback from said identified faults. Residential construction is not allowed with the setback zone. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires that the resulting minimum 100-foot setback be designated as open space. Comment Support for the acquisition and preservation of open space north of the LADWP utility corridor. Response In response to comments from the California Department of Fish and Game, an environmental mitigation measure (Section 4.5, #30) was added to require that, prior to approval of the first project in the affected area following approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, a study be completed to determine the feasibility of acquisition of the area north of the LADWP utility corridor for a Riversidian Alluvial Fan Scrub Habitat preserve- Jane C. Koninq, November 10, 1991 Ann Mansolino, November 7, 1991 Suzanne C. Elliott, (received November' 12, 1991) Michelle Hutchison, November 11, 1991 .Steven Maas, (received November 12, 1991) Julianne Wallace, (received November 12, 1991) Diana Halfmann, November 7, 1991 Mark Thaler, {received November 12, 1991) This group of letters reflects the letter by Dan Koning in support of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, including concern regarding fire and seismic hazards, as well as support for wildlife habitat preservation. Correspondence - December 11, 1991 Planning Con~nission of Rancho Cucamonga November 10, 1991 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Dear Planning Commission: I am pleased that you carefully examined my previous letter (September 24) and included it on the November 13 Staff Report. However, let it be on the record that I wrote the letter before I even knew the Etiwanda North Specific Plan existed. After studying the the draft of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, I give it my full support. I commend the city for devising a comprehensive zoning plan that takes into account the unique features of the area. Furthermore, I am especially pleased that the Plan preserves the bog and prohibits any development to the north of it. But I feel there are still some issues that need to be addressed: fire danger, wildlife corridors, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone. First, I doubt the feasibility of any fire protection for the houses zoned in the mountainous regions--namely, San Seveine and Henderson Canyons. Mountain chaparral burns incredibly fast and hot because of its high density and the high oil content of manzanita and buckthorn. It should be remembered that the fire of 1988 swept all the way to Day Canyon before it was contained by fire fighters. In addition, the fire of 1970 burned all the way to San Antonio Canyon before fire crews stopped it. Both these fires originated in the same place, Lytle Creek, and most of the firebreaks and fire roads proved useless against these wind-driven infernos. The houses in question stand in the path of these past fires. Moreover, the costly Oakland Fire should teach us a lesson in building houses in the midst of thick vegetation. Second, from observing the accompanying maps of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, I question the viability of the wildlife corridor of Day Creek with a housing tract proposed to the north. This tract will hamper the movement of deer, and increase human confrontation with the coyote, mountain lion, and bear that live in Day Canyon. Third, I must emphasize the hazards of building on top of the Cucamonga Fault Zone. Matti, Mc Fadden, and Tinsley have studied the fault scarps in this region and have reached a general consensus that three earthquake scarps exist north of Etiwanda which have seen a rupture of over 6 feet (29). It appears that Landmark doubts the authenticity of this report. Let me add that this study is probably the most comprehensive to date (the authors still maintain their conclusions). Also, the report is unbiased towards either developers or the environment since the authors wrote it for a GSA (Geological Society of America) field trip. The beautiful, steep face of the San Gabriels north of Rancho Cucamonga owes its existence to a very active thrust fault. In addition to the above, the authors have noticed that the three fault scarps north of Etiwanda did not occur simultaneously (33-39). Rather, during the recent past new breaks ~nd scarps have formed in the general ~/~ mile diameter of the fault zone. With respect to that observation, I do not think that the 50 feet prescribed by the State will be enough for a fault of this nature. In my opinion, the most effective way to avoid the problems of fire danger, earthquakes, and wildlife viability is to limit northward development to the utility corridor.' Unfortunately, land companies already own the land north of the utility corridor. The cost of providing compensation to these companies and the cost of eminent domain to acquire this property as open space will probably spare earthquake and fire ,damage costs and lawsuits in the near future. Most importantly, by leaving the acreage north of the utility corridor free from development, we will preserve the aesthetic beauty and wildlife that Rancho Cucamonga still has to offer. Continue to make Rancho Cucamonga an unique and distinguished community in Southern California by leaving open space for both our wildlife and children. Therefore, with these concerns in mind, ] give my strong approval to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and encourage the city in implementing it. Sincerely, Dan Koning 6729 Hermosa Ave. Alta Loma, CA 91701 Reference: Matti, J.C., J.C. Tinsley, and L.D. McFadden. 1982. Holocene faulting and alluvial stratigraphy within the Cucamonga Fault Zone: a preliminary view. Guidebook: Field trip #12. 78th Annual Meeting, Cordilleran Section, Geological Society of America. p 29-43. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 8 P. 0 .Box 07 Rancho Cucamonga 91729 Dear Planning Commission~ I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga for almost 12 years. During this time my family and I have enjoyed seeing and walking on the alluvial fan of Day Canyon and also hiking in Day Canyon. Therefore, I feel distressed to learn that this area is being considered for massive development. I feel it is essential to the well-being of peoOle in a crowded urban setting to have some nearby open and wild areas. This area supoorts some unique plant and animal life and should be snared from development. PLEASE ADOPT THE NORTH ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN INSTEAD OF THE COUNTY PLAN WHICH FAVORS MORE HOUSES. This will be of benefit not only to the oresent genera- tion but also to those in the future. Sincerely, Jane C. Koning , J CIJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .... .~y--= STAFF REPORT DATE: November 13, 199 1 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bulter, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90- 01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90- 03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from September 11, 199 1. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provi de f or 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,6 13 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991-) ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance of this item to December 11, 1991, for the purpose of providing additional time for "good faith" negotiations on the City's University/Crest lawsuit- Correspondence received after preparation of ~ the October 9, 1991, Staff Report is attached for your information, as well as staff ' s response · PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01, GPA 90-03B, - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 13, 1991 Page 2 BACKGRO~D: The Planning Comission continued the subject item at ~eir October 9 and Septe~er 11, 1991, meetings- The purpose was to provide time for mandatory "good fai~" negotiations between the County, the applicants, and the City, a step in the City's lawsuit- The lawsuit was based on ade~acy of Me California Environmental ~ality Act review of the County's University Crest project approval. CORRESPONDENCE: Additional written correspondence has been received and is attached for your review together with staff discussion. (See Correspondence, November 13, 1991, and attached Letters ~, BB, and CC.) CONCLUSION: Althou~ all the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been prepared and made available to the Planning Co~ission and the public for review, staff recomends ~ntinuance of the public hearing on the subject items to December 11, 1991. Resp ully itt , BB:MB/jfs Attachments: Correspondence of November' 13, 1991 November 13, 1991 Letters AA, BB, CC Three letters have been received since preparation of the October 9, 1991, Staff Report (see attached)- Staff discussion of the aforementioned letters follows: AA. Richard Douglas, Landmark Land Company, September 18, 1991. Comment Draft Final EIR is incomplete- Response The draft Final EIR consists of Part I (draft EIR, May 1991) and Part II (draft Final EIR, September 5, 1991). For consideration of certification, the draft final EIR is complete in all respects required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Upon certification by the City Council, the word "draft" will be dropped, the minutes from Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will be added to Part II, and a new cover will be attached adding "Final" and the date of Certification. Comment The purpose of the plan appears to be to point out alleged deficiencies in other plans- Response In the spirit of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Industrial Specific Plan, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the City Council requested staff to prepare a Specific Plan for the Etiwanda North area- When adopted, the plan will serve several purposes: * The subject plan is a pre-zoning document which together with environmental review is a prerequisite required by the Local Agency Formation Commission to annexation- To date there have been five completed piecemeal annexations in the plan area- (See attached "Status Report for Sphere Projects.") * The subject plan will provide comprehensive development guidelines for the Etiwanda North area. Also, the subject plan will serve to focus staff review and comments on applications routinely referred to the City by the County. In addition to the Consortium's Etiwanda North Specific Plan, there are six development applications within the plan area pending in the County. (See attached "Status Report for Sphere Projects.") * The subject plan provides a clear statement of the City's vision for the Etiwanda North area in the face of intense development pressure- Three of the six pending County applications, including the Landmark application, request amendments to the County's General Plan to increase density allowable in the County- * The subject plan will provide a basis for negotiations with the County for adoption of a joint City-County Etiwanda North Specific Plan- Joint planning for Spheres-of-Influence is a County General Plan Land Use ~Dlicy (Section LU-9). Comment Hydrological studies for the bog are incomplete and inadequate. Response It should be pointed out that CEQA does not require exhaustive study of an impact. In general, a reasonable analysis of an impact is considered adequate- Specific to the bog, as indicated in the "Response to Comments on the draft EIR," the level of environmental discussion identifying the bog is adequate for a program level EIR. Additional hydrological studies would be needed at the project level of development if development is proposed adjoining or north of the bog. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan does not propose residential development adjoining or north of the bog- Dan Konin~, September 24, 1991 Comment Opposes housing tracts in Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. Response The City and County General Plans indicate a mix of open space and very low density residential development in the area under consideration. The goal of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is to identify and preserve open space which can be maintained as wildlife habitat for the long term. Comment Supports preservation of sage habitat.. Response The goal of the City's Plan is to identify and preserve significant areas of alluvial fan scrub habitat. Because alluvial fan scrub habitat requires periodic flooding, only limited areas have a potential for preservation for the long term- In the Specific Plan, identified areas include San Sevaine Wash, Etiwanda Wash, Day Creek Wash, and the area north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault- Correspondence -November 13, 1991 Comment Concern expressed regarding fault rupture hazard. Response Fault rupture is a concern where such ruptures have historically occurred. The plan requires that a minimum 50-foot development setback be identified for all seismic faults and that the resulting 100-foot wide area be dedicated as project open space. North of the LADWP utility corridor, the plan requires that buildable areas be identified, that density be calculated only for buildable areas, and that residential development be limited to hillside and estate residential densities, a maximum of 2 units~ per buildable acre and 1 unit per buildable acre, respectively- Development north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault is discouraged through designation as open space. Comment Concern expressed regarding brush fire hazard. Response Brushfires will be a continuing hazard for the area because of its interface with the National Forest and with slopes too steep for development found above the LADWP utility corridor- Therefore, strict fire defense measures will be required, including the requirement that each applicant for development prepare and implement a fire defense plan. CC. Anita Trevino McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, October 7, 1991 Comment' Requests continuance until after the mandate hearing in the City's lawsuit or until negotiations have been terminated, whichever is later of the two- Response Because a useful purpose was being served, the Planning Commission has continued this matter for eight weeks- Comment Contends that the response to the comment letter by Land Plan Design was not adequate. Response It is noted again that CEQA does not require exhaustive analysis of an impact. In general, a reasonable analysis is considered adequate- No further comment is required other than that provided in the Response to Comments- Correspondence - November 13, 1991 Comment Further clarification is requested regarding the City's parks requirement- Response The General Plan goal is for 5 acres of park per thousand population. the Specific Plan goal is for 5 acres of unencumbered neighborhood park per thousand population- Correspondence - November 13, 1991 September 18, 1991 ]Led SEP ~ 7 7991 Mr. Brad Suner 'lBigl dllL 11t218141 i I City Planner ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 93729 RE: Planning Commission Hearing of September 11, 1991 on subjects; Staff report and associated exhibits for ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Dear Brad, This letter is a follow up to the above referenced hearing and the correspondence delivered by us at that meeting. It is important to restate our comments made at the hearing as a result of the staff report given by Associate Planner Mikki Bratt. The record should indicate that the written staff report provided to the commission as well as in conjunction with the mailed notice of the public heanng recommended the project(s) be approved that night by trte planning commission. However, it later became clear that the Environmental Impact Report associated with the planning documents had not been completed. Discussion between the staff and commission also revealed that several technical appenmces to me ~:~K hacl nat been corr, l~ietc<~ nat rece~c~ rLv me c~xn-.t>~i..2n prior ~o me n~eem'~g. Another unusual aspect of this meeting was the information you provided prior to the heanng concerning the litigation between the city and the County of San Bernard~no. You stated because of negotiations which were ongoing at that time it would not be appropriate for the commission to take action on the project. This action would have presumably been to approve the project since you also stated that it would be questionable for the city to approve a plan dealing with the same areas which were subject to litigation. No where in your comments, or after questions from members ef your planning commiss~.on was there any discussion about the propriety of approving a complex ~nd controversial project without finalized environmental documentation. The important point to be made here i: not to comment on ~/~, ~r7 LETTER "AA' LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., PO. Box 645, Calirnesa, California 92320 714-795-8941 the failure to provide timely assembly and presentation of these materials to the ci~"s advisoR' committee's and decision makers. The point is to emphasize what appears to be a rushed attempt on the city's part to arrive at a specific plan of its own, flawed though it may be. The purpose of the city's plan now appears mainly to point out alleged deficiencies in. other previously crafted plans and to establish a contrasting set of documents to any which may be crafted in the future. It was most propitious for Mr. James des Lauriers, professor at Chaffey Junior College, to provide his comments at the meeting. In his written and oral statements, professor des Lauriers sustained our previously made comments that no detailed or ,authoritative hydrological studies had been performed which ascertain the origin of the marsh currently present on our site. What professor des Lauriers mistakenly perceives as our failure to recognize existing studies and documentation associated with our property is instead the disposition of our professional duties to pdint out to the city that such information is not cited in the EIR. What the EIR does provide are opinions and reference to studies which are not included as appenclices. We compliment Professor des Lauriers for providing the information in his correspondence- We have previously made provision in our land plans for access to the marsh area for potential future study. Most importantly, it is apparent by professor des Lauriers coming forward that the city has failed to provide excerpts from the references he has cited. The fact that these references are neither exhaustive nor accompanied by authoritative consensus is what catalyzed our comments in the first place. It is also what provides the starkest evidence that the city has failed to consider the entire range of issues prior to embarking on a radical land use reclassification on our property without articulated means of support or compensation. I am proud of the cordial relationship we have shared in the past and feel that discussion of these serious issues would probably be well served by a face to face meeting prior to the planning cornmission's consideration of the project. I will be iin touch with you to see if a mutually convenient time can be established for such a meeting. Sincerely, Richard P. Douglass, AICP Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. RPV / n:,d c.c. Mike Kerney LETTER 'AA' Urban Planning Department of RanchoA '{ ~ ]9 ~ .~ptember 24, l P o Box s07' I 99 RZn~ho Cucamonga CA 91729 Company) in the sagebrush that lies below Day Ca X n. quent user of this area and as a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, that a housing tract in this region would be very inappropriate because 1.) it will degrade the semi-rural atmosphere that I believe Rancho Cucamonga wishes to maintain, 2.) the area supports one'of the last rsmaining flat sagebrush wildlife habitat in the valley, 3.) a major fault zone crosses the region, ana 4.) the land offers a buffer from brush fires. First, I believe that having undeveloped parcels of land on the city's borders preserves the semi-rural atmosphere that many citizsns of Rancho Cucamonga use and enjoy. Instead of wall-to-wall houses, this flat acreage at the foot of the San Gabriel mountains could prorid8 an unique playground for the residents below. The land could be utilized as a sagebrush park, containing trails for horseback riding, biking, and walking. Second, the land below Day Canyon furnishes some of the last remaining flat sagebrush wildlife habitat left in the valley. Certain animal species depend on this particular kind of habitat for their survival. For example, jackrabbits, quail, and roadrunners dwell here; and dser and coyote prefer sage to the mountain chaparral. Also, because the land's flatness and sparse sage allows for easier sighting and diving, golden eagles glean most of their prey from level sagebrush land. During the past ten years, I have observed all these animals in this area north of Etiwanda. Please allow them to remain. Third, the area at the foot of Day Canyon has experienced intense earthquake activity in the recent past. The presence of two prominent fault scarps in the alluvium testify to the active Cucamonga fault zone. Being only around a thousand years old, these scarps were formed by thrusting action due to the Peninsular Range ramming against the San Gabriel Nounrains. As a geology student of UC Riverside, I feel that to build a housing tract close to these scarps is very unwise. Alluvium is unstable and can shift and migrate. Therefore, no one can say with certainty that the next tectonic upheaval in the area will be defined or limited to the present scarp systems. Fourth, the sage should provide a buffer from the intense wildfires that periodically roar down the mountains during Santa ~nas (like the ones of 1970 and 1988). Sage should not burn as "hot" as the denset and more oily buckthorn and manzanita of the mountains. Consequently, burning sage should be less of a threat to expensive homes below. In addition, several fireroads cross this flat sagebrush land. This broad belt of sagebrush with its fireroads should provide precious time for firefighters to establish a fireline against any oncoming inferno. In contrast, if homes hug the base of the mountain slopes (whet8 the denset and more oily brush tends to grow) firefighters stand a much reduced chance of warding off any fires before they create extensive property damage. It should be remembered that the southward movement of the fires of 1970 and 1988 was stopped in this sagsbrush region. LETTER 'Be' Dear Planning Commission: On October 9, 1991, the city held a public hearing that pertained to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. I would, however, like to know if the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment was; approved. Also, wher~ will the 4,112 acres that this Plan designates as open space be located? Finally, may the public view a zone map related to this Plan? Thank you, Dan 6729 Hermosa Ave. Alta Loma, CA 91701 LETTER "BB" LAND.PLAN DESIGN - - GROUP PLANNIN(j DIVISION Chairman Larry McNiel & Members of the Planning Commission C/O Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive - P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: P. espense to City Etiwanda North Draft Specific Plan Job No.: NES 876.6 & (Draft) Final EIR Dear Chairman McNiel: The Caryn Company, University of California, and Etiwanda Highlands LTD. continue to believe it is inappropriate to act on this project while the City and owners of the University Crest project, which is located within the boundaries of Etiwanda North, remain engaged in good faith seulement negotiations on the City's CEQA lawsuit. For reasons stated previously in our letter of August 14, 1991, we again urge the Planning Commission defer any further consideration of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan until after the mandate hearing in the City's lawsuit or until negotiations have been terminated, whichever is latter of the two. Please refer to our earlier letter on the draft Specific Plan and EIR dated June 26, 1991. In this letter we commented on several significant items which should have been responded to by City staff and the City EIR consultant. As we reviewed the draft Final EIR including the Response to Comments, we found the majority of our concerns had not been adequately responded to. In most cases, although answers were given, they were either partial answers or not at all applicable to the identified concern. We therefore find the Final EIR still inadquate and are resubmitting our earlier letter in hope that we can anticipate a proper response from staff. In addition, we request clarification of the City's current position with respect to park requi~Tements. It appears the Plan is still requiring 5 acres of improved park per 1000 population. What remains unclear in the revision of the documents is whether a portion of the 5 at./1000 pop. is allowed to be encumbered park. We would appreciate any assistance staff can give us in understanding more precisely the parks proposals citywide and of Etiwanda None We appreciate the opportunity to comment and reserve the right to do so again at a later date. e u , cc: Joe Dilorio LETTER "CC" Deborah Rosenthai corr ch o. f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 9, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ~qD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991.) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01, GPA90-03B, - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 9, 1991 Page 2 BACKGROUND: On September 11, 1991, Planning Commission continued the subject items for four weeks. The .purpose of the continuance was to provide time for mandatory "good faith" negotiations to occur between the County, the applicants, and the City in the City's lawsuit based on the California Environmental Quality Act adequacy of the County's University Crest project approval- The September 11, 1991, staff report, along with revised Resolutions recommending approval of the subject applications, are attached. Attachments to the September 11, 1991, staff report have been delivered to the Commission under separate cover and are available to the public in the Planning Department, as follows: o Draft Final Environmental Impact Report, September 5, 1991 o Revised draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), September 5, 1991 o Recommended Consistency Changes to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan (GPA 90-03B) A revised Statement of Overriding Consideration was also delivered to the Commission under separate cover and appears as Exhibit "A" to the Resolution recommending certification of the EIR. One additional document, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, has been forwarded to the Commission under separate cover for information purposes and is available to the public in the Planning Department- The plan establishes timing and responsibility for mitigation measures. Please note that three documents listed in the appendix of the ENSP are necessary for implementation of the Specific Plan and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration following approval of the Specific Plan and prior to approval of the first application for development in the ENSP area- The documents are: o Draft Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Fire Protection Study, January 1990- o Draft Etiwanda North Infrastructure Phasing Plan, Part I, Timing (preparation in process, screen check received) o Draft Resource Management Plan, (preparation in process, screen check received) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01, GPA90-03B, - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 9, 1991 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: Two letters, received at the September 11, 1991, public hearing on the subject applications, are attached together with staff discussion. One oral comment received by staff on September 11, 1991, is also discussed. (See Correspondence Received September 11, 1991.) CONCLUSION: All the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been prepared and made available for public review. Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolutions which recommend Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, approval to amend the General Plan, and approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. BB:MB:js Attachments: Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Staff Report, September 11, 1991 Draft Minutes of Planning Commission, September 11, 1991 Resolution recommending certification of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR, including a statement overriding considerations Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-03B Resolution recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-01 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 Staff discussion of written and oral comment received on September 11, 1991, follows: A. James des Lauriers, Chaffe~ College, Department of Biology (See Attached "Letter A"): Following is a discussion of the key points raised by Mr. des Lauriers. Comment The bog predates water development in the area. Response The provided citations are added to the record and support the analysis in the draft EIR. Comment The knoll is of tectonic formation- Response The provided citations are added to the record and support the analysis in the draft EIR. Comment Support stated for land use "modification-" Response The Hillside residential designation is listed in the City's General Plan as an open space designation and not a residential designation- The purpose of this designation is to place the burden on the applicant of proving that a given site in the hillside area is buildable- The level of environmental review for the! ENSP indicates that the area north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga fault is not suitable for building because of the hazard of ground rupture associated with the fault which results in a high risk of cutting off emergency access, as well as fire hazard, excessive slopes, and environmentally sensitive habitat including the bog, ripari~n habitat, and alluvial fan scrub habitat- Correspondence Received September 11, 199 1 B. Richard Douglas, Landmark Land Company of California: Following is a discussion of key points raised by Mr. Douglas for Landmark (See attached "Letter B"). Coment Draft Final EIR was not available for review and comment in time for September 11, 1991, public hearing. Response CEQA provides opportunity for public participation during the 45-day comment period and does "not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process." However, environmental review is part of the hearings for the subject items. Further, since the item was continued, there has been ample time to review all pertinent documents. Comment The City's sphere of influence is inaccurately described. Response An application is pending with LAFCO to expand the City's sphere of influence- This application does not require property owner consent. Until the City's sphere is amended, the maps in the Specific Plan shall be revised to indicate "proposed" sphere of influence, and the text shall be clarified. However, it should be noted that the "proposed" sphere is a logical extension of the City's sphere of influence and can be legally planned and pre-zoned by the City. Comment Landmark opposes annexation into the City- Response Landmark's current opposition to annexation has been previously stated and noted. Comment Designation of "resource conservation area/open space" is radically different than the historical designations for residential development- Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Page 2 Response Please refer to the previous discussion noting that the Hillside residential designation is an Open Space designation under the General Plan rather than a Residential Land Use designation. Although, the Oak Summit application for development which has been filed with the County is not under review at these proceedings, for clarification, it should be noted that Landmark owns 761.8 acres, of which only 450 acres have had previous environmental review. Landmark is proposing open space, limited residential development, and golf course development north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault, including residential development on 54 acres north and north-west of the bog and residential development on a smaller site northeast of the bog. Based on the environmental review for the ENSP, the land use change recommended for the ENSP permits a number of uses, including I dwelling unit per 40 acres, agricultural uses, and with a Conditional Use Permit allows recreational uses including a golf course- However, the underlying designation is Resource Conservation, which means the intention is to seek a dedication for' wildlife habitat preservation for the bog and alluvial fan scrub habitat north of the aforementioned fault. Comment No mechanism to acquire conservation ,easements has been identified. Response .Mechanisms for establishing Resource .Conservation areas are discussed in the draft FEIR and the ENSP- Establishing a program for acquisition of conservation easements is an implementation measure- It is conditioned to be established prior to the first project approval following adoption of the ENSP. Methods of acquisitions include: o Dedication as a condition of development, for example the 38 acre dedication in the case of the Caryn Company's Etiwanda Highlands project and the 200 acre dedication by County Flood Control District's Day Creek as mitigation for the debris basin and channelization project. o Tranfers-of-development rights o Establishment of a fee program for alluvial fan scrub habitat with contributions from all applican'ts for development, within the ENSP territory with alluvial fan scrub habitat mitigation obligation. Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Comment Public safety concerns have not been adequately addressed. Response Public safety concerns have a long history in the Etiwanda North area. The entire ENSP area originally was not incorporated into the City because of fire hazard and other public safety concerns. Historic surface rupture and the risk of future surface rupture along both branches of the Cucamonga Fault between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek has been a source of continuing concern to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. C. Mike White, Standard Pacific, (oral comments to staff): Comment The ENSP still does not adequately address the fact that Standard Pacific has a Development Agreement. Response Regarding the relationship of Development Agreements to Land Use regulations, reference to State Planning Law, Government Code Section 65866, shall be added as a footnote to Table 8, Basic Development Standards - Residential Districts, as follows: K. Parcels governed by a Development Agreement shall be subject to these standards in so far as they conform to California Government Code, Section 65866, as follows: "Unless otherwise provided by the Development Agreement, rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the land, governing density, and governing design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, applicable to development of the property subject to a Development Agreement, shall be those rules, regulations, and official policies in force at the time of executions of the agreement. A Development Agreement shall not prevent a City, County, or City and County, in subsequent actions applicable to the property, from applying new rules, regulations, and policies which do not conflict with those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the property as set forth herein, nor shall a Development Agreement prevent a City, County, or City and County from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent development Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Page 4 project application on the basis of such existing or new rules, regulations, and policies." Comment The Land Use Designation for Etiwanda Highlands should be changed to Low Density, because of lot sizes. Response Under its PUD regulations, the County permitted clustering of residential development and accepted a fee dedication of 39 acres of wildlife habitat in San Sevaine wash. The gross density of the project was deemed to meet the City's Very Low density requirement of 2 dwelling units per acre and a General Plan ~endment was not required- The foregoing statement shall be added to Section 13.6 of the ENSP- Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Page 5 Chaffey College Department of Biology TO: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. SUBJECT: Comments concerning Staff Report dated 11 Sept. 1991. I. Landmark Land ComPany seems to take issue with the identification and description of the "fresh water bog" (Page D,E,F 25, item 3 and D,E,F 29, item 15). The geological causes of the beg can be found in Matti, st. al. (1982) and Morton, st. al. (1982j. The Historical' presence of such formations in 'the mediate area has been documented (Clark, 1979). Various readily accessible documents describe the structure's character, soil type, mechanism of formation and biological significance, (West Valley Foothills Community Plan E.I.R. p. 46-52. San Bernardino County Office of pl~nnln_~; Brandman ~associates, 1988). Blanchard (1979) provides a detailed description of the water projects developed in Day Canyon. None of those projects seem related to the presence of the beg. An Etiwanda Water Company map dated 1916 shows the presence of a "cienega" at the site of the beg at a time when no substantial water development had occurred in the immediate vicinity of the beg. In any event the nature of the beg should no longer be in question. What should be seriously considered is the exact nature of the water supply to the beg as well as the exact nature and location of water discharge from the beg. The development company°s comment simply avoids that issue. II. Landmark Land Company evidently disputes the assertion that the "Knoll" was formed by the fault; (page D,E,F, 28, item 14). May I refer interested readers to Matti, st. al. (1982, p 36-43) and Morton, st. al. (1982). The tectonic origin of the knoll is carefully described in their analysis. III. Staff recommendations regarding the modification of land use designation (page D,E,F 5) will result in much greater confidence for the long-term preservation of the beg and its water supply. This reco~nendation ham my unqualified support. ., Sincerely, James des Leuriers, Prof. 11 Sept. 1991. REFERENCES. Blanchard, G.B. 1979. Development of gravity water sources for the Cucemonga County Water District. 54 p- MS (In the files of the Cucamonga Water Company, Rancho Cucamonga ). Brandman, Michael and Associates. 1988. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Rancho Etiwanda Planned Unit Development. San Bernardino County Clark, A.O. 1979. Quarternary evolution of the San Bernardino Valley- Quarterly of the San Bernardino County Museum Association. 145 p. 5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917014002 714/941-2354, 94%2355 LETTER A Matti, J.C., J.C. Tineley & L.D. McFadden. 1982. Holocene faulting history as recorded by alluvial strati~raphy wit.bin the Cucamonga Fault Zone: a preliminary view. IN: J.C. Tinsley, et. al. 1982. Guidebook: Field trip $12.78th Annual Meeting, Cordilleran Section, Geological Society of America. p 29-44. Morton, D., J. Matti & J- Tinsley- 1982. G~arternary history of the Cucamonga Fault Zone, So Calif. 78th Annual Meeting, Cordilleran Section, Geol. Soc. Amer. 14(4): 218. LETTER A September 11, 1991 Mr. Brad Buller City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 '~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Honorable Chairman Larry T. McNeil And Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Hearing of September 11, 1991 on subjects; Staff report and associated exhibits for ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Dear Brad and Members of the Commission, This letter is intended to serve as conveyance of our public comments for the above referenced projects. In the disposition of this obligation we feel it important to also convey our considerable dismay at the methods employed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the formulation and management of the planning of Etiwanda North. The City is in possession of our previous comments regarding the Etiwanda North DEIR/SP. We had not been informed that the Final Draft EIR was available for analysis until-we received the staff report for this meeting. Therefore, at this time we are unable to analyze the responses to the technical areas in which w.e originally commented. We do reserve the right to comment later. We are also on record expressing confusion with the management of the information comprising the ENSP/DEIR. However, none of this frustration approaches that level which is felt when we review the history associated with this planning endeavor. Let us first provide our technical comments before returning to discussion on the city's handling of this project. 1. On the cover page of the staff report from City Planner, Brad Buller to the Planning Commission, the first, second and third paragraphs describe the projects and reference the request to approve the "prezoning of approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence...". As is stated later in the staff report, on'bageD,E,F-10, reproduction problems (which were mentioned by us in earlier correspondence) made annexation areas poorly distinguished from sphere areas. While not underemphasizing the fact that these exhibits are unchanged and continue to be confusing, the point of the matter is that a considerable area of the property owned by Landmark Land Company, Inc., i~ not within the Sphere Of influence of the City. of Rancho Cucamonga. We strongly object to it being referenced as such and oppose efforts to annex the property in the future. It is important to note for the record that the City is designating areas owned by Landmark as in the City of Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence when it is not. Further, the City, as we will expand on later, is redesignating our property and that portion of our property not within the sphere-of-influence of the City, as (RC) or resource conservation area/open space. This classification is radically different than the historical designations for residential development as provided by the City and the County of San Bernardino. LETTER B LANDN%ARK LAND COMPANY, INC., 110 N. Lincoln Ave., Suite 100, Corona, California 917c20, 714-c272-9970 We will provide comment on what we feel to be the poorly articulated methods for achieving this redesignation below. 2. On page D,E,F,-2, under the section Response to comments prepared; the report describes comments by wildlife agencies "which indicate a need for change in the Specific Plan." These agencies "requested" that the limit of development be dropped southward. The report goes on to'~lescribe the entitlement which is held by Landmark Land Company, Inc. and then states: "The feasibility of moving the limit of development would require a mecham'sm to acquire property. However, there is a substantial body of evidence, including public health and safety issues, that the limit of development :~hould be moved to below the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek. Therefore a mitigation measure has been added to revise the Specific Plan accordingly. The Specific Plan Land Use Map has been revised and the number of potential dwelling units reduced by 145." This section and these statements compel us to ask the question; since the land use designations for this area have been devoted to low intensity residential land uses for over a decade by both the City and the Count),, whether previous city staff members and commissioners were aware of the designation of these lands? The same question would also necessarily be made about those staff members at the respective wildlife agencies. No doubt these agencies' comments were solicited with the same vigor and conviction at the time of the formulation of the City's general plan as they were for this specific plan. What makes this step by the City staff even more remarkable is that the city would abdicate creative advanced planning and site! planning techniques due to a "request" by the wildlife agencies. If all staffs of all agencies were to heed such "requests" very little need for city planning staffs would exist. Equally inconsistent with solid preplanning is the fact that no mechanism to acquire these lands is articulated. This leaves little doubt that such a mechanism has failed to be considered. Perhaps the most telling feature of this. section of the report falls within its last paragraph. Amazingly, the "request" from the respective wildlife agencies along with the "substantial body of evidence" (which has :not been provided) of public health and safety issues converges to provide a mitigation measure that would eliminate the "threat" to the "Bog". Apparently, the city staff has chosen to ignore the substantial body of evidence that fails to agree on the origin and nature of the bog and in the process forsakes all future study and the delivery of empirical evidence for this feature. We cannot help but express our concern with the close minded and seemingly manufactured approach to this issue. 3. Page D,E,F-5 provides further discussion on the radical change in land use designation for the property owned by Landmark Land .Co:mpany, Inc. This section exhibits inconsistency when it cites "the presumed water supply fo:r the bog." The haphazard thinking that has been present throughout these sections is again manifest when suggestion is made that "a mitigation measure be added in the EIR to investigate the feasibility of acquiring the area, in fee Or easement, for resource conservation use." It defies logic how the city staff could couple these alternatives. On the one hand, while implementing a radical change in historic land use, no compensatory mechanism is articulated. Additionally, suggestion is made for an easement, a device which would require dedication or would be acquired by a proceeding in eminent domain. Landmark would view either mechanism as a taking, and would contest any attempt to acquire this property. LETTER B The most remarkable aspect of this measure is that the City staff would propose radical, poorly articulated methods to protect features which demand further study. Landmark has continuously proposed measures which are intended to protect these features while suggesting future study is needed based on the conflicting evidence in the record. The company has a national track record for designing its projects with features that protect the environment. The city staff, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge that conflicting information exists'for the feature they seek to protect. In neglecting their professional obligations to ascertain the true nature of the features they seek to protect, City, staff compounds the problem by suggesting that tax payers dollars be blindly committed to costly litigation in the pursuit of acquiring a resource or resources whose nature is not fully known. 4. The staff report, although it correctly cites numerous instances of property owner objection to annexation, fails to provide reference to correspondence from James M. Roddy, Executive Officer of the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission to Jack Lam, City Manger for the City. This letter strongly recommends that the City withdraw its applications for annexation. 5. Page D,E,F-10, while admitting to problems in the reproduction of maps fails to mention that a portion of the property is not within the City's sphere-of-influence. Further, corrections have not been made to any of the exhibits which follow. In summary, we feel it important to provide some perspective on the long process which brings us to the hearing on the subject projects. Public controversy and complexity in the nature of large scale master planned development is the express purpose for the environmental review process and public comment. Unfortunately, it is our view that the controversy existent in this project has caused the City staff to emotionally circumvent thoughtful, objective analysis of many of the project features. In 1990, Landmark Land Company provided written and oral testimony on the City's Hillside Grading Standards. These comments were developed in conjunction with experts in the engineering field. These standards, which the city admitted to be stringent were also described as "a starting point" from which reasonable alternatives would be considered. It now appears the City has failed to develop a reasonable alternative other than no development. Throughout 1989, 1990 and 1991, the City was an active participant in the formulation of Etiwanda North by the consortlure of landowners. However, instead of taking the active role early in the process, the city waited until conflicts reached a high level and then took the unfortunate role of reactive planning. The best evidence is that which we cite in our discussion on the City's proposal to provide the costly mitigation measure of exp!oring mechanisms to acquire open space land that has for so long been designated as residential area. It is here that the evidence is most apparent that an otherwise capable and talented city staff has given way to emotion and reaction and forsaken creative planning in harmony with the environment. Richard P. Douglass, AICP Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. RPD/rpd c.c. Valery Pilmer o County of San Bernardino Mike Kerney LETTER B B. SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF THe= SOUTHEAS1 I OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, STREET, SOUTHEAST ST CORNER OF ELM AVENU~ a~N'P CHURCH STREET - request to vacate excessive street rights-of-way at the intersectiom of Milliken Avenue with Terra Vista Parkway, Spruce Avenue with Chu Street, and Elm Avenue with Church Street - APN: 227-151-22 1077-421-58, 1077-421-55, and 1077-421-62. Chairman McNiel asked if anyone woulc like to pull either of the Consent Calendar items for discussion. Kevin Farris, 7742 Belvedere Place Rancho Cucamonga, asked if there will be stop signs north and south of the on Spruce. chairman McNiel suggested Mr. 'ris contact the Engineering Department during regular working hours. He sa the item before the Planning Commission this evening was merely a tation for vacation of the excess property not needed for the bus lanes. Motion: Moved by Melt] seconded by Chitlea, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Calendar. pUBLIC HEARINGS C. - The request to allow a mobile scanner trailer to operate within the parking lot of an [fice complex on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park Dietrio (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 10837 Laure~ - APN: 208-352-16. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) McNiel announced that Item C had been withdrawn by the applicant. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMEND~__NT 90-03E - CIT~ OF RAMC~ C~CAMOM~A - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental lmpa~ reper~ prepareS for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-038 to prozone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rsncho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardins National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Millikan Avenue. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 11, 1991 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM~ - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Millikan Avenue. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - C=TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Millikan Avenue. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the listing of proposed changes to the General Plan plus a revised Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding Considerations) was being provided to the Commissioners. He commented that a lawsuit had been filed by the City against the County of San Bernardino regarding a development application located within the City's Sphere of Influence. He reported that the court had ordered that discussions be held between the two parties to see if a settlement could be reached. He stated those discussions were in progress and it was felt it would be premature for the City to act on the application. He suggested that staff give a presentation on the new information which had Just been presented to the Commission and the Commission continue the item for two to four weeks. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, discussed the revised Exhibit A and the suggested changes to the General Plan to make it consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). Commissioner Melcher stated that the Environmental Impact Report {EIR) for Etiwanda North lists Michael Brandman as the consultant. He asked if they were also acting as the consultant on part 2. Ms. Bratt responded that they have been acting in an advisory capacity to staff. Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be continued to October 9, 1991. Commissioner Melcher asked when the Resource Management Plan and the Phasing Plan would be completed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 11, 1991 MS. Bratt responded that those plans would not be completed until after approval of the EIR and the ENSP as they are implementation measures. She said the ENSP will indicate the infrastructure that is needed and the other plans will indicate how the ENSP will be implemented. Chairman McNiel opened-.the public hearing. Jim des Lauriers, Professor, Department= of Biology, Chaffey College, 5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter regarding the origins and nature of the bog and the knoll. He felt; the exact nature of the water supply to the bog and the nature and location of the water discharge from the bog should be considered. He said the integrity of the bog depends upon the integrity of the water source. He suppox:ted staff's recommendations regarding the changes necessary to reduce the environmental impact. He felt the number of units should be reduced and the bog should be set aside as open space. Richard Douglass, Landmark Land Company, Inc., 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100, Corona, provided a letter objecting to the City's proposal to redssignets some of their land as open space. He said a portion of the Landmark property is outside of the City's sphere of influence. He felt the Specific Plan should, not be adopted until the EIR is adopted. He objected to the proposal to designate half of their land as open space to protect the bog and comply with the request of the wildlife agencies and said Landmark would oppose any efforts by the City to acquire Landmark lend through an easement or eminent domain. He thought the City should not ~rush to adopt the ENSP. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment end Specific Plan 90-01 and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to October 9, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, M~LCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS z NONE ASSENTz COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried G. U 7 - - · ' - The consideration of suspens one1 Use Permit allowing the operation o with · restaurant located in the Neighborhoo~ Co at 6620 Carnal len Street, northwest corner of 19th end Car eta - APNz 201-811-56 through 60. H. O 7 · - A review of c~mpliance with conditions of approve of suspension or revocation of the Conditional Us nt and bar located in the Neighborhood Co lien Street, northwest corne.r of 19 11-56 through 60. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 11, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 11, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to receive comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere- of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 2 INTRODUCTION: The draft Final EIR (Part II) has been completed. Also, recommendations for revisions of the General Plan needed for consistency with the Specific Plan have been completed, and revisions recommended by the Planning Commission to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been completed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the attached Resolutions recommending approval of t]~e project to the City Council. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: A. Environmental Impact Report: Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated. On January 9, 1989, a NOP of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda North project area was circulated. In that notice the project area was defined as 5,640 acres of land. 'The project area remains the same, but the acreage figure have been changed to reflect more accurate measurements now available. Accordingly approximately 6,840 acres are included in the plan area. The number of proposed dwelling units was stated as 6,000 to reflect the application submitted by the Consortium of Etiwanda North Landowners. The number of proposed dwelling units has been reduced to 3,619 to reflect the City's alternative as the preferred alternative. In response to comn~nts on the draft EIR, additional land use changes discussed below have further reduced the proposed dwelling units to 3,157. Draft EIR circulated- Accordingly, in May 1991, the draft EIR was circulated for comment- The notice of completion of the draft EIR was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse on May 3, 1991. The 45- day comment period of the State Clearinghouse ran from May 6, 1991, through June 20, 1991. The City extended the comment period in order to receive public testimony' on the draft EIR at the Planning Commission hearing on June 26, 1991. The notice of availability of a Draft EIR was mailed to property owners and interested parties on May 7, 1991. The notice of availability was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 10, 1991- The notice' was received by SCAG on May 7, 1991, and published in the May 29, 1991, Intergovernmental Review Report. Response to comments prepared- I~n response to comments, mitigation measures have been revised. See attached Etiwanda North Draft Final EIR (Part II), Executive Summary. Changes in the mitigations from the Draft EIR are indicated in bld for additions and e~e~s~T~e for deletions. Generally, the changes are technical, reflecting comments by responsible agencies. However, as discussed at the June 26, 1991, meeting of the Planning Commission, comments by wildlife agencies-- including the California Department of Fish and Game, U- S. Fish PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 3 and Wildlife Service, and U. S. Forest Service--indicate a need for a change in the Specific Plan. The agencies have requested that the northern limit of development be dropped to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power utility corridor. There is an existing approval in the County for 450 dwelling units on 453 acres north of the utility corridor on the Coussoulis property since purchased by Landmark Land Company. The feasibility of moving the limit of development would require a mechanism to acquire property. However, there is a substantial body of evidence, including public health and safety issues, that the limit of development should be moved to below the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek. Therefore a mitigation measure has been added to revise the Specific Plan accordingly. The Specific Plan Land Use Map has been revised and the number of potential dwelling units reduced by 145. The aforementioned agencies have also requested that flood flows of velocities adequate to maintain alluvial fan scrub habitat be restored to Day Creek spreading grounds. Turnouts to release flood flows to the spreading grounds are in place; therefore, a mitigation measure to determine the necessary velocity of flow and, if necessary, the feasibility of alteration of existing turnouts and/or flood control structures. The County Flood Control District has raised objections to the alteration of structures, but only the alteration of the east-west diversion dike and/or additional turnouts from Day Creek Channel would be considered. Additional spreading and conservation of ground water could also be achieved by this mitigation. Therefore, a feasibility study is reasonable. Based on the mitigation measures, a mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared and forwarded to the City Council. Of the environmental impacts identified, most have been mitigated to a level of not significant. One item, Threat to the Bog, is shown in the EIR as not having been reduced to a level of not significant. However, because the plan proposes reducing the limits of development to the southern boundary of the northern branch of the Cucamonga fault, the level has been reduced to not significant. Other items have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, but still have not been mitigated to a level of not significant, including: Substantial alteration of existing open space land use character: Almost all of the total project area of 6,840 acres is currently in natural open space. Of the total, 4,442 acres will be designated as open space. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are proposed for development and will result in the loss of the existing open space land use character. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 4 City transportation policies and Traffic: Applicants for development will mitigate all on-site impacts and contribute to the City's Traffic Nexus Fee program for off-site impacts. Nevertheless, as a result of incremental increases to cumulative traffic impacts, off- site impacts will occur even after mitigation. Landform modification: Applicants for development will comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance and City Development standards. Nevertheless, grading for development within 2,112 acres will modify the existing character of the alluvial fan and portions of the hillsides. Wildlife habitat impacts: The project is designed to retain large, defensible areas of open space which will maximize the habitat value for the project area. A total of 4,442 acres will remain in open space land use designations. Nevertheless, development of 2,112 acres will diminish on-site wildlife density and diversity and fragment the remaining wildlife habitats. Alluvial fan scrub habitat loss: Applicants for development will be conditioned to preserve one acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat for one acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat lost. There are significant areas of natural alluvial fan scrub habitat within the project area which are available for preservation or which can be rehabilitated. Nevertheless, almost all of the 2,112 acres planned for development are alluvial fan scrub habitat which will be lost. Threat to riparian habitats: Applicants for development will be conditioned to retain existing riparian corridors, as well as to provide a buffer zone to protect the riparian corridors from degradation associated with urban development. Also, conditions will be enforced to protect the Resource Conservation areas including restriction of human use to designated trails, exclusion of domestic cats and dogs, exclusion of off-road vehicles, and techniques to divert urban irrigation run-off and polluted storm flows. Nevertheless, urbanization of the area will remain a threat to riparian habitat. Short term fugitive dust: Project applicants will be conditioned to implement actions to reduce fugitive dust during construction to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, some construction dust will occur. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 5 Solid waste: Project applicants will be conditioned to participate in City waste minimization programs. Nevertheless, there will remain an impact on landfill capacity as a result of solid waste generated by development of approximately 3,157 dwelling units, as well as up to 28 acres of commercial development. Accordingly, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared and incorporated into the Resolution recommending certification of the EIR. (See attached). Changes in the Specific Plan to Reduce Environmental Impacts. In response to environmental impacts, minor revisions in the Specific Plan have been made. First, the County Flood Control District has advised the City that their fee owned lands east of Milliken Avenue and west of the western levee of Day Creek Regional Spreading Grounds are not available for development at this time. Accordingly, the land use status will remain under the flood control use designation until such time as the County General Plan Map is revised and a similar application request is made by the County. However, the potential designation is shown as residential. Approximately 137 dwelling units are estimated to eventually be approved on this site; therefore, the infrastructure needed for this area should reflect the expected build-out condition. Second, in response to recommendations by responsible agencies, staff is recommending that the area north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault west of Etiwanda Creek and east of Day Creek channel be changed from Open Space and Hillside Residential use to Open Space use only. The site includes the bog, the presumed water supply for the bog, substantial amounts of alluvial fan scrub habitat, and the prominent knoll on which the U. S. Forest Service fire station site is located. Staff further recommends that a mitigation measure be added in the EIR to investigate the feasibility of acquiring the area, in fee or easement, for resource conservation use. It is expected that a reduction of up to 145 dwelling units could occur in the Oaks neighborhood as a result of this change. This reduction in units is not expected to substantially reduce traffic impacts identified in the traffic study for the Oaks neighborhood or the Specific Plan area. B. General Plan Amendment 90-03B: Resolution of Intent to Amend General Plan and Preparation of Amendments. On November 7, 1990, the City Council passed a Resolution of Intent to prepare amendments to the General Plan as needed to provide consistency with the Specific Plan. At the June 26, 1991, meeting, the Commission proposed amendments to the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 6 General Plan for the purpose of consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. A list of Proposed Amendments to the General Plan will be prepared and distributed under separate cover. C. Specific Plan 90-01: Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Specific Plan. A resolution of intent to prepare a Specific Plan was passed June 20, 1990. The plan has been prepared in accordance with the California Government Code. Specific Plan Review. Including workshops preceding the City's Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Specific Plan, twelve Planning Commission workshops and three colnmunity meetings have been held to review the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, as well as meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and meetings of the Trails Committee. Comments have been r'eceived from the public and from the Commissions. The Specific Plan has been reviewed to reflect the direction of the Planning Commission. On June 26, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Plan. (See attached draft Specific Plan, September 5, 1991.) Planning Commission Hearing. At the June 26, 1991, meeting the Commission directed staff to proceed with the documents recommending approval of the plan. (See attached Minutes, June 26, 1991.) : CORRESPONDENCE: Seven letters have been received- The letters and staff's responses are attached under Correspondence. CONCLUSION: Following substantial public review and comment, the draft Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed. Also, a final draft of the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan has also been prepared. As a result of land use changes, as well as the level of detail available through the review process, changes in the Land Use and Development, Environmental Resources, and Public Health and Safety Elements of the General Plan will be made for consistency- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning commission make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, including a statement of overriding considerations; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 7 2. Approve a resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-03; 3- Approve a resolution recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-01. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:MB:js Attachments: Etiwanda North Draft Final EIR, September 5, 1991 (Provided to Commissioners under separate cover) List of proposed changes to the General Plan, September 11, 1991 ( Provided to Commissioners under separate cover ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Draft, September 5, 1991 (Provided to Commissioners under separate cover) Correspondence June 26, 1991 Planning Commission Staff Report June 26, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes Resolution recommending certification of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR, including a statement of overriding considerations, September 11, 1991 Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-03B Resolution recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-01 CORRE S PONFDEN CE Comments on the Draft EIR are fully responded in the draft Final EIR distributed under separate cover- ~e following correspondence offers commentary on the draft specific Plan. Since, for the most part, the letters repeat issues raised by comment letters to the EIR, only selected issues are discussed below', using a comments and response format. 1. Chino Basin Watermaster, Letter of August 12, 1991: In support of "City's effort to protect and maintain existing "natural" recharge areas within the Chino Groundwater Basin as well as your own Cucamonga Groundwater Basin." 2. Standard Pacific of Orange County,. Letter of July 2, 1991: Comment Request for clarification of potential conflict between Development Agreement for Tract 13565 and Specific Plan. Response No conflicts are expected to occur, because established City Development Code ordinances and implementation procedures recognize that a Development Agreement takes precedence over a Specific 'Plan and the Development Code- In instances where the Development Agreement is silent, the Specific Plan and the Development Code take precedence. The existence of Development Agreements and approved Tract Maps is recognized in the Specific Plan- Part IV, Section 13.6, Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood, subarea 5, states: This subarea has been annexed into the City and is controlled by an approved San Bernardino County Final Plan of Development for Tracts 13564 and 13565. A Development Agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga further .conditions the use of this subarea- 3. Land Plan Design Group, August 14, 1991: Comment This representative of the property owner requests an indefinite continuance, or at least a four-month continuance- The reason given is that no action should be taken while the lawsuit alleging non-compliance with CEQA, which was filed by the City against the County of San Bernardino~and the owners of the University/Crest property, is resolved- Response Staff does not suppor~ a continuance for the purpose stated by the Land Plan Design Group. Further, the aforementioned lawsuit is only indirectly related to this project. The purpose in moving forward with the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan is to establish an environmental record and the City's development guidelines for a significant portion of the City's Sphere-of-Influence. Once the environmental record and development guidelines are approved, they will provide a standard of comparison for applications pending in the County. Also, certification of the EIR and adoption of the Specific Plan (pre-zoning) is a prerequisite for annexation. The City supports annexation if outstanding issues can be resolved and annexation applications are pending before LAFCO. City staff recognizes that at this time there is considerable property owner opposition to annexation, because of the widespread perception that higher density, lower development standards, and fewer processing requirements, such as no design review, are advantages available by remaining in the County. Comment If the above-request for a continuance is not granted, a request is made for a continuance to September 25,1991 in order to review and comment on the draft Final Environmental Impact Report and the revised draft Specific Plan. Response Staff does not support a continuance for further public review and comment, because the revised EIR and Specific Plan are not substantially different from the documents reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 1991. Comments and Responses to the draft EIR are intended to more fully inform decision makers on impacts addressed by the draft EIR. CEQA guidelines do not require an additional public comment period on the Comments and Response. Proposed changes to the draft Specific Plan resulted from input from the Trails Coz~nittee meeting, January 16,1991; Planning Commission workshop, January 17, 1991; Neighborhood meeting, January 28, 1991; and Parks Commission Public Hearing, February 21, 1991. Further changes proposed to the Land Use Map as a result of comments on the draft EIR were discussed at the Planning Commission public hearing on June 26, 1991. Other minor changes to the revised draft Specific Plan have been made to incorporate mitigation measures from the EIR. Comment The University/Crest project approved by the County is significantly different from the land use and circulation proposals in the Specific Plan. Response The Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed the project submitted to the County and recommended denial to the Board of Supervisors- Further, the project approved by the County is in conflict with the City's General Plan. If annexation to the City is proposed in the future by the property owner, a General Plan Amendment must be processed. Further, if any project approved in the County is in conflict with an approved Specific Plan, and annexation is proposed, the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments would be processed with an annexation application. 4. Landmark Land Company of California, June 27, 1991 In general, the comments in this letter have been responded to in the draft Final EIR. Comment This property owner objects to inclusion of their property within the Specific Plan and opposes annexation. Response Regarding inclusion of parcels in the Specific Plan, the City's goal is to provide for comprehensive planning rather than continue project-by-project, piecemeal planning for the City's Sphere-of- Influence area north of Etiwanda- Further, as stated above, City staff recognizes that at this time there is property owner opposition to annexation- Comment Exhibits indicate the Landmark property has already been annexed into the City. Responsq Because of reproduction problems in the December 1990 draft Specific Plan, annexation areas were poorly distinguished from Sphere areas- This problem has been corrected, for example refer to draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, September 1991, Exhibit 6. Comment The Specific Plan does not reflect the property owner application for development on file in the County. Response Staff has reviewed the property owner application for development on file in the County and has made recommendations in the Specific Plan which differ from the aforementioned application. As stated above, if a property owner obtains project approvals in the County which differ from the City's General Plan and an approved Specific Plan, and requests annexation, then applications would also be filed for General Plan and Specific Plan amendments. 5- Deborah A. Webster, August 8, 1991 Comment This owner opposes an open space designation for portions of this property. Response Portions of this property are proposed as Hillside Residential and portions as Open Space. The proposed land use for this property has not changed substantially from the existing City and County designations. (See attached Exhibit, CORR-a for the location of this property.) The primary difference is application of the County Hazards overlay maps for seismic hazards, flood hazards, and slope hazards in order to conceptually distinguish the potential for residential development from open space uses required because hazardous conditions exist. The open space designation permits development of 1 residence per 40 acres, as well as agricultural uses, and may conditionally permit commercial and recreation uses- This property is not planned for mitigation for any other property. However, a flood control/riparian designation has been applied to Morse Canyon to recognize the riparian corridor which is existing. If future development is proposed for the Webster parcels, then a conservation easement would be sought to protect the year round stream and related vegetation in Morse Canyon. Such a designation would not interfere with existing water rights for the property. 6- Netta Shannon, July 26, 1991 and 7. Rebecca Mills, July 30, 1991 Comment The above letters are identical, by co-owners who oppose a "permanent" open space designation. Response A "permanent" open space designation is not proposed for this property- (See Exhibit CORR-1 for location.) In the Specific Plan the Resource Conservation desi~ation is used to identify land for which "permanent" wildlife habitat preservation easements have been obtained. A habitat preservation easement has not been identified for this property. However, because several hazard conditions overlay the property, an open space designation appears to better describe the development potential than a Hillside Residential designation. San Bemerdi~o National Forest OS OS , : RC OS OS FZ uc Webst ' ~RdPOSE6 UC UC ' UC · REGIONAL PARK *- FC , ,: ..... himrid Avenue LEGEND ~'~" ~ ~ Ve~ L~ Density Residential [<2 DU/AC) Proposed Trill Head ~ Gqi~ Station Very Low Residential Estate (1 DU/AC) Pro~sed Equestrian Facility _ ; ~ ~ Hillside Resigntill (<2 DU/Net Builda~e Acre) ~ Proposed School Site ' '~' i ' ~ ~ ~ Hillside Residential Estate (<1 DU/Net Buit~e Acre) I . ~ ~ FC Fl~d Control Proposed Perk Site ~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ' '" ~ UC utility Corri~r P Exisli~ Park Site "'; ~- O~ Open Space * NOTE: ~ ~ .... : " ~' IN Institutional Th levilop (NC) Neigh~rhood Commercial * / ~':,'~..Ai~,:;~. :% ITEM: SP 90-01 -~- " !:: ;" '..,.""' .. ":-i:Y': ~E: WEBSTER, FRENCH ~ ::*-...: ............... .~ ~ -- ~ :"' '~': :. ':::':::" E~~: CORR-1 SCALE: NONE .... , WATERMASTER "i DONALD :~. jOHN L. ANDERSON, Secr~a~re~urer ' c'~': ~ ~ Teiepnone ANNE W. DUNIHUE. Memo. ~~~ ' R E C E I V E D -- BI~ HILL. MemOer CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA - PLAN~iNG DIVISION uqus z2, z99z AUG 3 City of Rancho Cuoamonga Planning Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 SUBJECT: ) USE P~ - ETIW~A )~ORTH SPECIFIC P~ EIR LETTER OF 8U)PORT Gentlemen: Please accept this correspondence as our letter of support for your Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR, specifically the section devoted to land use as it relates to dedication of a significant area for groundwater recharge purposes. As you may be aware, drought conditions within the Chino Groundwater Basin area has caused considerable concern due to the cutback of replenishment water deliveries which are normally available throughout the winter and spring months from Metropolitan Water District. We are all hopeful however, weather patterns will change this winter and provide the rain we so desperately need. These open spaces designated and reserved as basin recharge areas are-vital to Watermaster's basin recharge program. Therefore, please accept this'letter as support to the City's effort to protect and maintain existing "natural" recharge areas within the Chino Groundwater Basin as well as your own Cucamonga Groundwater Basin. incere Donald R? peters, C~i~f' Watermaster services DRP/ces cc: Mark Kinsey Diana Leach CHtNO BAS;N WAT'_-;qMASTE~ 8555 ARCHI,~ALD AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA MAIL;NO ACORESS c, O P_..Ox 697 RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CAL!FQANIA gl 730-0697 LETTER 1 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY July 2, 1991 Mr. Larry Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 RE: DRAFT ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 (CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA) TRACT 13565 (BRENTWOOD COLLECTION) Dear Larry: Pursuant to our conversation last week, the following represents my initial comments with regard to the Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). Having personally written many specific plans over the years, I hope my comments will assist you in providing the Planning Commission with a complete and accurate specific plan document. I do not wish to comment at length with regard to the status of our project, however, I would appreciate your understanding with regard to my comments, since the bulk of them deal with the existing approvals for Tract 13565. 1.2 Authority: "Development plans, site plans, and Tentative Tract/Pro cel Maps in this area must be consistent with both Specific Plan and the City's General Plan." As you know, Tract 13565/1-10 was approved and recorded in the County of San Bernardino (the County). All development approvals for Tract 13565 are governed by a Development Agreement between the City and Standard Pacific. With this, I am assuming the above statement would not apply to Tract 13565 since all of our approvals were obtained prior to the tract's annexation to the City. 1.3 California Environmental Quality_ Act Compliance: "Mitigation measures included in this document may be applied to these projects." The following comment applies to both the ENSP and the Draft Etiwanda North Environmental Impact Report (ENEIR). On August 24, 1987, the County Board of Supervisors approved Tentative Tract 13565 and adopted a Negative Declaration. All recommended mitigation measures were included in the projects Conditions of 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard LETTER 2 Costa Mesa, California o2D26, 714i6o8-4300 Mr. Larry Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 1991 Page 2 of 6 Approval. These Conditions of Approval fall under the authority of the Development Agreement which was in place at the time of the annexation. Therefore, any mitigation measures proposed by the ENSP and/or ENEIR I would assume would not pertain to Tract 13565. Exhibit 4 Property_ OwnerShip: This exhibit denotes Tract 13565 as under the ownership of the Caryn Development Company. We would request that this; exhibit be revised to reflect the correct ownership. Exhibit 10 Open Space and Trails Plan: This exhibit shows a community equestrian trail to be located north of Tract 13565 within the SCE Corridor. Tract 13565 was conditioned as a part of the County Development Plan W138-49 Etiwanda Highlands (the Development Plan) to construct an equestrian trail on the north side of Summit Avenue and along the east side of San Sevaine Avenue. The Development Plan, however, did not provide for the construction of an equestrian trail along the SCE Corridor. I have attached a copy of the approved County trail system map for your reference. Exhibit 12 (B) Street Sections: This exhibit, which illustrates the cross-se;ction for Wilson Avenue (Summit) adjacent to Tract 13565 does not reflect those plans as approved by the County. I have' enclosed a copy of the exhibit with the correct cross section dimensions per the approved street plans. Exhibit 12 (E) Street Sections: Per this exhibit, I am assuming that the top cross-section refers to Wardman Bullock Road west of Tract 13565. I have enclosed a copy of this exhibit with the correct cross-section dimensions as indicated on the County approval plans. Exhibit 12 (F) Street Sections: This exhibit is not necessarily incorrect., however, it does not apply to Tract 13565. I have enclosed a copy of the Specific Plan exhibit with the cross-section dimensions that apply to Tract 13565. The two cross-sections provided occur at various locations within Tract 13565, and are shown on the County approved street improvement plans. ~[ i~C ~'--'~ LETTER 2 Mr. Larry Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 1991 Page 3 of 6 9.1 Water: Exhibit 13, Water Master Plan shows an eight inch waterline to be installed in Wardman Bullock Road and along the north boundary of Tract 13565. Standard Pacific has approved water plans from CCWD which do not show the construction of waterlines as illustrated in this exhibit. 9.2 Sewer: Exhibit 14, Sewer Master Plan shows an eight inch trunk sewerline to be constructed in Wardman Bullock Road. Tract 13565 has already received approval from CCWD with respect to on and off-site sewer improvements. Our improvement plans do not show the construction of a trunk sewerline in Wardman Bullock Road. 9.5 Flood Control/Drainage: As stated previously, Tract 13565 received conditions of approval and a negative declaration from the County during the Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map approval process. It is my assumption that it is the City's intent to reflect the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) Master Plan and where this exhibit and the SBCFCD Master Plan are in conflict, then the SBCFCD Master Plan shall prevail. I also want to confirm that the Conditions of Approval with regard to the flood control obligations for Tract 13565 shall take l:;recedence over the SBCFCD Master Plan illustrated in the ENSP. This would include any associated conditions and mitigation measures with regard to flood control improvements. Exhibit 16 Storm Drain Master Plan: As a part of the development of Tract 13565, Standard Pacific constructed a 24" RCP and a 60" RCP in 241h Street. In addition, we understand that Tract 13564 constructed a 66" RCP on the south side of 241h Street. Both storm drains eventually empty into the San Sevaine Spreading Basin No. 1. With regard to the SBCFCD Master Plan Exhibit, I am assuming that the actual site and location of the storm drains are conceptual in nature, since they are not based on approved plans. LETTER 2 Mr. Larry Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 1991 Page 4 of 6 11.4 LandsCape ArchiteCture: Currently Standard Pacific has approve. d landscape plans for the landscape areas along 24th Street and a portion of the IVlWD easement. Both of those areas have been landscaped and are ready to be accepted by the LMD for maintenance. I am assuming that the landscape cross-section shown in the document are conceptual in nature and do not necessarily depict future landscape treatments for those areas. For your information, I have enclosed copies of those cross-sections which impact Tract 13565 with my comments. Exhibit 22 COmmUnity. Theme Wall / Entry MOnUment Plan: This exhibit does not accurately reflect ,our current approvals for our project. First, the wall plan shows a view fence locate. d along San Sevaine Avenue. Our current DRC approval is for a six (6) foot high stucco wall with a brick pilaster located at every other property line. I am assuming that our previous City approvals will take precedence should the ENSP be approved this way. Second, the entry monument plan shows an entry monument located along Wardman Bullock Road into our tract. Standard Pacific does no( view Ward:man Bullock Road as a major entry road deserving of an entry statement, as shown on Exhibit 26(A). Standard Pacific has already provided an entry monument similar to that shown on Exhibit 26 on 24th Street. 12.0 DevelOpment Standards: The following comments also refer to Se:ctions 10.1.1 and 10.2 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. As stated previously, the Development Plan for Tract 13565 was approved by the County in September 1988. The Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map approval set forth certain conditions of approval, as well as specific development standards, all of which are contained in the Development Agreement. In reviewing the ENSP, the General Plan Map and the Specific Land Use Plan have designated Tract 13565 as very low density (VL). This designation allows up to two (2) dwelling units per acre and sets. forth specific development standards for properties that fall within this category. These development standards (i.e., minimum lot sizes, setbacks, etc.) are inconsistent with the Development Plan standards and the Conditions of Approval for Tract 13565. In our opinion, Tract 13565, based on it's density and recorded lot sizes, is more likely to be designated as low density. However, even this designation and associated standards are still in conflict with our LETTER 2 Mr. Larry Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 1991 Page 5 of 6 existing approvals. In order to eliminate any confusion with regard to the applicable standards which apply to Tract 13565, I would suggest that a statement be added to this section which would clarify the development standards for Tract 13565. I think this would eliminate any confusion with regard to the applicable standards for Tract 13565. 12.2.4.2 Development Criteria: "Any structures or land outside the Flood Control District which is subject to flood inundation, as depicted on the Federal Insurance Flood Rate Maps or otherwise by the City Engineer, shall comply with the flood protection measures as outlined in Title 19 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code." Standard Pacific has installed flood control protection facilities in accordance with the Conditions of Approval and the standards set forth by the SBCFCD. Standard Pacific will comply with all standards set forth in the Conditions of Approval and Development Agreement. 13.4 Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood Sub Areas 13.4.1 Sub Area 5: Community. Design Features: "View fencing shall be featured for residential development along San Sevaine Drive to take advantage of the view of the wash and foothills." Tract 13565 will provide view fencing along the northern tract boundary of the project, however we received DRC approval to construct a theme wall along San Sevaine Avenue. "Paseos should provide pedestrian access to the San Sevaine Wash. Also, paseos should provide access to community trails along the San Sevaine Wash." The in-tract improvement plans and landscape plans for Tract 13565 do not provide direct access to San Sevaine Wash. Our landscape plans do, however, provide for pedestrian and equestrian access along San Sevaine Avenue. Direct access to San LETTER 2 Mr. Larry Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 1991 Page 6 of 6 Sevaine Wash is obstructed by SBCFCD right-of-way fencing. Larry, in addition to the above comments, I hope to discuss with you specific issues within these sections of the ENSP: Section 8.2.2, "Other Pertinent Access and Design Policies"; Section 10.1, "General Provisions"; Section 10.1.2, "Relationship to Other Regulations"; Section 10.1.3, "Conflict with Other Regulations"; Section 10.1.4, "Relationship to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code"; Section 10.1.10, "Agreements"; Section 10.2, "Land Use Regulations"; Section 11.0, "Design Guildelines". I hope my comments are helpful. I look forward to meeting with you and Miki on Wednesday. Sincerely, · White Project Manager cc: Bob Shiota, Standard Pacific Ray Allard, Fuscoe, Willjams, Lindgren & Short Greg Sanders, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot Joe Dilorio, Caryn Company Keyin Pohlson, Caryn Company Miki Bratt, City of Rancho Cucamonga Brad Buller, City of Rancho Cucamonga LETTER 2 DESIGN GROLIP August 14, 1991 Chairman McNeil and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 92729 RE: City ofRancho Cucamonga, Job No.: NES 876 Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B Dear Chairman McNiel: Four Month Continuance: The Caryn Company, University of California, and Etiwanda Highlands LTD. agree that an extension of time is necessary to allow completion of CEQA documents and adequate time for public review. However, The Caryn Company, University of Califomia, and Etiwanda Highlands LTD. request that the Planning Commission consider a significantly longer continuance, until January 1992, to allow resolution of the CEQA lawsuit filed by the City against the County of San Bemardino and the owners of the University/Crest property before considering this planning approval. We believe there are important legal and practical reasons for this continuance. It is obvious from the draft documents already released by the City that the University/Crest Project is an important, if not central, element of the Specific Plan. As it currently stands, the County has already determined that the Project will be developed according to County standards and with County-approved mitigations. The only way for the City to control development of this territory would be to win the pending lawsuit challenging the County's approvals -- and ultimately, to annex the property. Therefore, development of what we would call the "centerpiece" of the Specific Plan will necessarily be inconsistent with the City's current plans unless the lawsuit is successful. It only makes good economic and planning sense to wait until the lawsuit is decided before continuing the preparation and consideration of two very expensive -- and complex -- documents. By these comments we do not mean to suggest that the County's University/Crest project approval is likely to be oveL"turned. In fact, if the City does not wait, we believe that the more likely result is that the Specific Plan and EIR will be completed on the basis of project criteria which are inaccurate and inapplicable by the time the Plan is adopted. Under these circumstances, completion of the Specific Plan at this time serves no purpose other than heightening the conflict between the City, the County and the University Crest project property owners. LETTER 3 .:- z :-, ' c - ..... :'~:' · "'2 Co'7-Z?7' · ::,Xr714 832 2025 Chairman McNiel CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Job No.: NES 876 August 14, 1991 Page2 We therefore urge the Planning Commission to defer any further consideration of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan until after the mandate hearing in the City's CEQA lawsuit. These are cases entitled to preference so a hearing is likely before the end of the year. If the City is unwilling to grant an indefinite continuance for these purposes, we suggest that this hearing be continued -- not to September, but to mid-January 1992. Six-Week Continuance: If, despite the compelling reasons for a longer continuance, the Planning Commission wishes to proceed, we request that this matter be continued until at least three weeks after completion and public distribution of the Final EIR for the project. The current schedule calls for less than four working days between distribution of the Final EIR and revised Specific Plan and the scheduled public hearing. This is not enough time for any meaningful review of the documents including the City's response to comments which we have not yet seen. While it may meet the minimum legal requirements for public review, it does not allow an opportunity for us to make substantive and -- we would hope -- helpful comments on the planning documents. As the final documents are not currently scheduled to be available until September 5, 1991, we ask that the matter be continued to September 25, 1991 -- if the Planning Commission rejects our request for a longer continuance. Associate ATM:!w cc: chron COlT · . LETTER 3 June 27, 1991 - RECEIVED -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ms. Mikki Bratt PLANNING DIVISLON Associate Planner Planning Division JUL 15 1991 9 ]23, 8 10500 Civic Center Drive VlS| Jllllll~ 144~1~ P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 t Mr. Larry Henderson, AICP Principal Planner Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 89012314 Dear Ms. Bratt and Mr. Henderson, Thank you for your notification of the above referenced DEIR and completed Draft Etiwanda North Spedtic Plan. Comments respective to these documents are contained on the following pages and are also intended to act as our public response to the notification we received from the City of Rancho Planning Commission dated June 11, 1991 for the following projects: · Environmental Impact Report for Spedtic Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B - City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01 - City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B - City of Rancho Cucamonga. Each of these projects were to be discussed at the Rancho Cucamonga planning commission meeting on June 26, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. ANNEXATION Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. hereby enters its objection to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for including Landmark's property in any plan whose stated purpose is to create a platform for annexation of Landmark's property into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As stated in Section 1.1 of the city's Draft Etiwanda North Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27, 1991 Specific Plan (ENSP), the document would, among other things, "act as a pre- requisite to annexation of the [plan] to the City of Rancho Cucamonga." Accordingly, we object to our property and il:s boundaries being included in a document for this purpose. At the present time Landmark Land Company enjoys property ownership within the unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County - outside of the corporate city limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Additionally, much of Landmark's property also falls outside of the Sphere of Influence of the City. We believe the maps contained within the ENSP, beginning with Exhibit 3 on Page 1-8 as well as those identical maps copied to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for same to be incorrect insofar as they to indicate certain lands owned by Landmark within the city's Sphere of Influence. These :maps should be corrected as well as provided in a scale suitable for proper analysis. Lastly, consistent with our objections stated in the preceding paragraph we further object to being annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence. COMMENTS ON DRAb'T ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN 1. As stated previously, all exhibits contained in the ENSP document which indicate land owned by Landmark Land Company of California being either within the city limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere of Influence of the City should be revised. Exhibit 4 on Page 1-10 contains a small graphic in the lower left corner which: a. Indicates property owned by Landmark Land Company within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Cuca.rnonga. b. Indicates property owned by Landmark to be in area "previously annexed to Rancho Cucamonga". Consistent with our previous requests, maps such as these (including Exhibits 3 through 11, 13 and 14 ,16 and 17,19,22, and 34 should be revised and subsequently provided in a scale suitable for proper analysis. 2. Exhibit 3 on Page I-8 indicates an area outlined in a curvalinear pattern and labeled "Bog". We will provide comment on this area later in this letter, however, we feel this area to be out of scale as well as factually incorrect since the nature and origin of this area has not been established beyond mere opinion. Since this exhibit acts as the base map for further generations of maps we also, by reference to Exhibit 3 on Page I-8, object to these succeeding exhibits. 2 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27, 1991 3. Contained within Section 4.5 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS is a goal to "preserve and protect the fresh water bog, along with a 200-foot wide buffer of natural vegetation and the upstream recharge corridor, adequate access to natural hydrological resources, and appropriate protective fenring." The nature and origin of the "fresh water bog" is still an open issue. Accordingly, it may be premature to attach such significance to a feature whose "hydrological resources" have yet to be ascertained. It is equally premature to provide such non-specific and misleading language such as "the upstream recharge corridor" when such a feature may not exist. 4. Also contained within Section 4.5 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS is a goal to "preserve the Forest Service site and an adequate surrounding area for parking, trail head, rest rooms, and picnic facilities for public use and enjoyment." The former Forest Service site mentioned in the ENSP is little more than one acre in size. The surrounding area is owned by Landmark Land Company who would not consider sale of this property to the City for the purposes of providing such uses as parking and public restrooms. Landmark is providing nearly 250 acres of open space, much of it in pristine natural area accessible by hiking trails. It is not clear why the City would provide for such a goal when superior public use and enjoyment has been incorporated into Landmark's plans. 5. Exhibit 9 provides the boundaries and orientation of the Neighborhood Themes for the ENSP. We have noticed that you designate the area of our property as "Oaks:' and state that "the neighborhood will be characterized by native field stone entries and pilasters with native Oaks and Sycamores." This theme is consistent with our plans for the area. For further information the City should further consult the Oak Summit Development Plan which is on file with the County of San Bernardino and which has previously been provided to the City. 6. Exhibit 9 also provides a curious set of lines indicating, apparently, the location of trees. These areas do not conform in any way to our development plans or any approved street matrix in the vicinity. The map should be revised to indicate existing approvals and development plans. It is also debatable whether or not it is the City's prerogative to provide precise future 3 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27, 1991 locations for local and collector streets., if that is what these areas are intended to convey. 7. Table 2 - the Land Use Statistical Surnmary shown on Page 11-14 provides for 542 acres of Residential Net Acreage with 379 Dwelling Units. This table is inconsistent with the general depiction of the Oaks area provided on Exhibit 9 and fails to consider land use approvals existent in the area. Landmark Land Company currently has approval for 453 units on 453 acres within this area. Ultimate development within this area will include approximately 620 dwelling units on 761.8 acres. The land use matrix should be revised. to provide for currently approved plans and a more realistic land use scE:nario. 8. On page II-19 of the Draft ENSP in the opening paragraph of Section 7.0 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS CONCEPT states, "the diverse biological and wildlife habitats found in the bog" is mentioned. Since it is yet to be determined if this feature is indeed a "bog" this statE:ment is questionable. 9. Page II-21 in discussion of the Community Park/Equestrian Center provides that "contribution toward the acquisition and development of the equestrian center shall be a condition of development for all tracts which have a minimum lot size of less than 20,000 square feet which are in the General Plan Equestrian Overlay District." It is highly questionable why lots of le:ss than 20,000 square feet should be singled out to bear the impact of funding a regional facility, when, by the very nature of their economy, they are less likely to meet the financial profile to afford a feature which proportionately' few will utilize. Further, no discussion is provided nor any criteria presented which attempts to illustrate why 20,000 square feet is the correct size to levy fees upon. Other than an arbitrary finding that because the City is committed to equestrian activity we feel that the City must provide: a. The number of residents within the extended community which currently own horses and will likely do so in the future. b. Other statistical data which support the aforementioned focus on lots of 20,000 square feet or less. 4 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucarnonga ENSP/DEIR June 27, 1991 c. Maps indicating the boundaries of the existing and planned equestrian overlay district. d. The DEIR for the ENSP fails to address the health and safety issues associated with having horses in dose proximity to non-ec/uestrian oriented land uses. The DEIR should be revised to include such a discussion. 10. Exhibit 10 - Open Space and Trails Plan provides two Community Equestrian Trails through property owned by Landmark Land Company. This plan fails to consider the fact that this property is under private ownership with approved land use plans. Further, subsequent plans have been made available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga which indicate the possible allowance of equestrian trails over and/or adjacent to this property in different locations. Exhibit 10 takes a capricious approach to this private property by ignoring the aforementioned and directly bisecting Landmark's property with trails which are incompatible with current approvals and Landmarks future development plans. Additionally, the scale of trails depicted on the plan would provide in excess of 300 feet for each such trail. The City should seek to place equestrian trails within areas currently designated as easements and again review the plans which Landmark has provided. These plans provide the links which the City is seeking and in land more scenic and suitable for such purposes. 11. Section 7.3.3 on page 11-25 provides that local equestrian trails shall be established as a condition of development within the Very Low and Hillside Residential District planning areas where the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. The purpose of the trails is to provide safe equestrian access to community and regional trails. As stated previously, there is no discussion as to why lots of less than 20,000 square feet are singIed out while no criteria is presented which attempts to illustrate why 20,000 square feet is the correct size to levy this exaction upon. Other than an arbitrary finding that because the City is committed to equestrian activity we feel that the City should provide those items listed in Number 9 above: 12. Section 7.3.6 on Page II-27 illustrates that the site immediately adjacent to the Day Canyon Flood Control area provides a potential trail head location. 5 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27, 1991 This area is completely unacceptable to Landmark Land Company. The provision of public facilities including; public restrooms accompanied by the waste associated with equestrian activities is clearly incompatible with upscale housing. As stated previously, equestrian trails are pro?Jided in our land plan. The city should explore other areas more compatible with the features of equestrian activities and provide discussion of these alternative within the context of the DEIR. 13. The Circulation Plan - Exhibit 11 on Page II-30 provides for a street matrix inconsistent with currently approved plans and the County of San Bernardino General Plan. Property owned by Landmark Land Company currently includes entitlement for 453 dwelling units on 453 acres in the area adjacent to the northerlymost collector streets shown on this exhibit. The exhibit should be revised to indicate the north/south oriented collectors to be al!gned generally with Etiwanda and Hanley Avenues. 14. Section 13.3.I Subarea 4.1 on Page IV-1.3 requires that "the fault knoll be set aside as a public park contiguous with the bog. Park uses shall include passive recreation, rest rooms, and trails head parking for hikers and bicyclists." Please see our previous comments regarding the compatibility of placing' a public park in this location at the expense of other more suitable sites. The same section goes on to state that this knoll was "formed by the fault". Data supporting this claim should be provided within the DEIR. It is further stated that "historically, the site has been used by the public as an overlook of the valley with views on a clear day to San Gorgonio and San Jacinto to the east, Saddleback Mountain to the south, and the ocean to the west. The knoll should be retained for public use." This statement is inaccurate and misleading in both fact and context. Since the site is remote from existing urban land uses it stands to reason that only a minuscule portion of "the public" has ''historically" used the site as an overlook. Further, the portrayal that this feature should be "retained" as something of a community resource is also inconsistent with the historical use of the site for fire fighting/watching purposes. It also fails to be mentioned that the portion of the knoll devoted to the previous ranger station is only a very small percentage of the knoll. The remainder of the knoll is, as it always has been, under private ownership. 6 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California, Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27, 1991 Each of the major attributes of the knoll described in the dty's passage in this section can be achieved in a superior fashion, affording far greater views, in areas made accessible by the plans provided by Landmark Land Company and currently on file with the County of San Bernardino. A courtesy copy has been previously provided to you for your reference. 15. Section 13.3.1 Subarea 4.1 on Page IV-14 also states that "a unique bog is located to the east of the knoll and shall be preserved. The bog was formed by tilted fault blocks which capture underground and surface runoff water in a shallow depression. The bog must be fully-identified and preserved. Its water sources shall also be identified and protected." This set of opinions should be reassessed with respect to the facts assodated with this feature. Despite the information circulated about this feature to date, we were unaware that such hard evidence existed so as to provide the inescapable conclusions reached above. A reading of the DEIR assodated with the project failed to cast any additional light on this subject. 7 LETTER 4 -- RECEIVED -- c}~Y OF RANGHa CUCAMONGA PLANNING City of Rancho Cucamon~a · August 8. i991 Attn: Hzki Bratt 10500 Civic Center Dr~ve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear ~s. Bratt: Below are some concerns I have regarding the preservation of 4,112 acres of open space, limiting development from the National Forest boundry on the North side to the double powerline corridor on the South side. It has always been our dream to build a new home, set up stables for boarding horses. and set aside a few acres for a. Christmas tree farm, with very little impact to the natural balance. This property is our nest egg. our retirement plan, our life. As it is now, we live on the property using a natural spring for our water supply. Preserving this open space and natural springs would cut off our current water supply and deny us the possibility o:~ obtaining power and water from local agencies. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has developed at an alarming rate, a rate so fast that Rancho Cucamonga has been mentioned in "National Geographic's" August, 1991 issue. as one of ten major U.S. cities with the most rapid growth rate (expanding by more than 60% in less that a decade). I strongly oppose the use of my land as mitigation for the loss of habitat associated with this development, thus depriving me of my opportunity to develop if I so desire. Another area of concern I have is the annexation into Rancho Cucamonga, areas identified as LAFCO Reports #2625 and #2626. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to LAFCO from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. I would especially like to hear your comments on mutual aid agreements, the equipment used to effectively fight a wildland fire not being part of mutual aid. the "Wildland Fire Protection Contract", and who pays the costs of these contracts. Thanks for your time and I am looking forward to hearing from you. ~egards, ~,~b~ ~/)-/~/Z~ ~,)(i~ C ~ 7 LETTER 5 Deborah A. ~ebster P. O. Box 53, Etzw~nd~, CA 91739 Phone: (714) 899-1347 Ms Niki Bratt, Associate Planner July 26, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center DMve P.O. ~x 807 R~cho Cucmo~a, CA 91729 R~: City Of Cucamon_aa. Etiwanda North SDeCifiC Plans Dear Niki Bratt: As a co-owner of approximately 32 acres within the area bordering national forest on the north and the double power line corridor on the south which is facing the possibility of being zoned as permanent open space, I should like to add my opposition to this possibility. Property that is now privately owned, if zoned as permanent open space, would be worthless to the owners. A fair decision would be to zone it for residential development on a reasonable ratio conforming to the standards of prudent land use. The property thus would retain some value for its owners. ! plan to attend the Council meeting on August 14, and I request that my voice be added to those others which strongly oppose zoning Etiwanda Nodh property as permanent open space. LETI'ER 6 ~ulY 30,1991 Subject: City o~ ~ancho Cucamonga, ~tiwanda ~orth Specific Plan Ms. Niki Bratt, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cuoamonga, CA 91729 Dear Ns. Bratt, I am a co-owner of approximately 30 acres within the area bordering the national forest on the north and the double power line corridor on the south. I understanding this area is facing the possibility of being zoned as permanent open space- I would like to add my opposition to this possibility. Property that is now privately owned, if zoned as permanent open space, would be worthless to the owners. A decision more fair to the owners would be to zone it for residential develop- ment on a reasonable ratio conforming to the standards of' prudent land use. The property would then retain some value for its owners. I plan to attend the Council meeting on August 14, and I request that my voice be added to those others which strongly oppose the zoning of Etiwanda North property as permanent open space. t~ith thanks and my regards, Rebecca Wills 2319 Bayside Court Westlake Village -- RECEIVED -- CA 91361 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVI$10N (818) 889-4267 AUG O 6 1991 r mg mamiml mB m m LETTER 7 'C~r.t Billings, Engineering Technician, replied that the gates not be locke~d~less the residents provide a lock. n v e Chaiman McNiel invited publi t, but there was none. Comissioner Melch athy with why the alley is to be closed of roblems. tie a PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. D. ENVIRONMENTA]~ ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 26, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on the process of adoption of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Bratt stated that the comments to the draft EIR and the written responses would become the final EIR. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, sivated the Planning Commission would review the written comments before the EIR is forwarded to City Council for final certification. He said the public comment process would te6nnically end upon the close of tonight's public hearing, but staff typically responds to all comments submitted up until the final certification. Commissioner Melcher questioned the amount of park land being requested under the Quimby standard. Ms. Bratt replied that under Quimby standards a municipality can require up to 5 acres of park per 1,000 population if there is already existing parks at that ratio. She said the current City basis is 4.689 acres per thousand. Commissioner Melcher asked if the 4.689 figure is based on developed park acreage. Ms. Bratt responded that it includes land which is owned or developed including trails and trail heads. Commissioner Melcher asked about the comment that the impact would be less than significant. Ms. Bratt replied that there would be a significant impact if the City required less than the General Plan goal for parks, but the impact will be less than significant if the proper amount of park land is provided. Commissioner Melcher asked if the development standards would change in the future if the Hillside Development Ordinance is changed. Ms. Bratt replied that development would be based upon the standards in effect at the time of approval for such development. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Hillside Development Ordinance should be strengthened to avoid adverse impacts. Mr. Henderson commented that the act of grading will cause an impact, so impacts could not be reduced to less than significant. CommisSioner Tolstoy thought the Planning Commission should reevaluate the Hillside Development Ordinance based on experience with the project now in process to be sure the Ordinance is accomplishing the objectives of the Commission. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the level of development achievable within the Ordinance guidelines is not the s~e as the goal of the Commission. He questioned if the wildlife corridors would remain viable. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 26, 1991 MS. Bratt reported that staff is currently reviewing the resource management plan to address those concerns. Commissioner Melcher asked if all hiking and equestrian trails will be available to all City residents. Ms. Bratt responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked the level of development of East Avenue. Mr. Bratt replied that it will be a collector street. Commissioner Vallette questioned the upper limit of development. Ms. Bratt stated the forest station sits on a prominent knoll and development would be north to that site. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Kearney, Landmark Land, 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Corona, stated their 762 acres is located at the northwest portion of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they had been working over two years on the preparation of the plan with both the City and the County. He stated they are currently processing their development within the County. He said only the lower portion of their project is located within the City's Sphere of Influence. He indicated they are opposed to any annexation into the Sphere of Influence or the City boundary until the plan is approved. He presented a package of comments and stated he wished to reserve the right to present additional comments because some of the land uses had been changed since the plan they had seen. Mike White, Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa, stated he is the owner and developer of Tract 13565 in the City. He said that when the tract was annexed into the City in 1989 the City Council approved a Development Agreement which sets forth certain standards. He asked for clarification that the Development Agreement would not be superseded by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they planned to meet with staff during the next week. Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 14751 Plaza Drive, "A", Tustin, submitted a letter with comments. She said their primary concerns regard land use, open space mitigation, the legality of the open space mitigation, and the Hillside Development Ordinance. She disagreed that estate lots would be more in line with the County General Plan. She said the County does not have a minimum 1 acre lot size, as the City would like to impose. She reported that they had asked staff for documentation regarding the Quimby numbers. She expressed concern about the commercial land use locations and said it was her understanding that the area is not in the Equestrian Overlay District. She said they would like to reserved the right to review staff's later materials and return to comment at a later time. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 26, 1991 Richard Heilman, 5660 San Marino, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the designation of Neighborhood Commercial in Subarea 6 at the northwest corner of Wilson and Wardman Bullock Road. He thought the designation is not consistent with the General Plans of either Rancho Cucamonga or San Bernardino County. He commented there is no other Neighborhood Commercial in the City north of Route 30 except for the Haven corridor, where it extends to Lemon. He felt the increased traffic, noise, and parking lot lighting will create negative impacts in the residential area. He thought the density in the area will be too low to support Neighborhood Commercial. He complimented staff on the technical preparation of the document but asked why so much taxpayer money was being wasted on a plan when it was entirely possible nothing will come of it. He was concerned about the financing for the rest of the area and commented he lives within a Mello-Roos Distr~ct. He thought the County and City were perhaps needlessly spending money because of bickering caused by egos. He suggested the County and City get together and produce a quality product. He reported that the San Sevaine wash has been completed north of 24th Street and has been completely fenced in, making animal movement impossible. He felt that with the vegetation growing in the area it will be a high fire area and he thought the fence presents a danger to wildlife because of the fire hazard. He wondered why the City's EIR recommended the area be left open but the County is fencing it off. Jim Lynch, 11640 Mt. Whitney Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said he appreciated the concerns regarding wildlife habitat and the development of the foothills. He did not feel development should be allowed if the impacts cannot be mitigated. He asked why so much scrub habitat is to be eliminated if scrub habitat resources are dwindling. He was concerned that the wildlife corridors may not be viable. He suggested that hiking and equestrian trails should not be included in the wildlife corridors because of conflicts with the animals. He thought development should be limited to south of the utility corridor in the Oaks area to protect against a human impact upon the bog. He wondered about economic and tax liability for the City and did not feel a lot a residential development is good for the City. He thought the City is approaching a condition of being overdeveloped in the residential area and feared future bankruptcy. Chairman McNiel thanked the participants for their comments, both written and oral. Motion: moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to July 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 26, 1991 Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that interested individuals could telephone the City to make an appointment to discuss their concerns regarding the items. - RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow 1~ uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided esearch and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an ex complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Inc Di rict (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, on the corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261- Staff issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued June 12, 1991.) F. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-~ - JAMES PAGE - The request establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) ir leased space of 103,552 s, [eet within an existing industrial cen' on 13.77 acres of land in the Industrial District, (Subarea of the Industrial Area Specific located at 11530 Sixth Str - APN: 229-026-28. Staff recommends aance of a mitigated Nec Declaration. Related file Conditional Use 86-06. (Continued June 12, 1991.) Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Planner, the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what ~ld happ, if Condition 6 were deleted from Resolution 86-78 and the [ does not materialize or does not continue as a use. He asked if that cause a problem. Brad Buller, City Planner, 'stated hen the project was first proposed, the Commission felt it was importa that t leasing agent advise perspective tenants that the parking ratio i 50 squa feet. He said if the condition were deleted, the applicant ou still be subject to the same parking requirements. Commissioner Vallette que rioned the justification for requesting a parking ratio at 1/150 for the sap meet use. Ms. Hernandez replie that the applicant had submitts a detailed parking study which was dee d satisfactory to staff. Chairman McNiel ened the public hearing. Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, 100, Rancho , a rSr Yt could m ify the Resolution to require that the owners notify any future tenant of the maximum parking ratio of 1/350 after processing of Condi 'onal Use ermit 91-03 for the swap meet. He requested that the condition requ ing ~%n~eJnrte~8 Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 26, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ S T A F F R E P O R T DATE: June 26, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA~ ~PORT FOR SPECIFIC PL~ 90-01 AND G~ERAL PL~ AMENDM~T 90-03B - CITY OF ~NCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Pi~ Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the ~ncho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling ~its on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located nor~ of Highland Avenue (State ~ute 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 26, 1991 Page 2 Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue- I- ABSTRACT: The purpose of this hearing is to receive comment on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan draft Environmental Impact Report, consider the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and to consider those changes in the City's General Plan which will be required for consistency with the Specific Plan. Upon receipt of public testimony and Planning Commission discussion, staff recommends that this hearing be continued to July 24, 1991, in order to complete revisions- II. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report: The draft Environmental Impact Report has been coz~leted and circulated for comment- A copy of the draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission on May 3, 1991. The official comment period was from May 6, 1991 to June 2Ci, 1991. Oral and written testimony received at this hearing will be included in the final EIR. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is discussed in Table 1-1, Executive Summ~ry (see attached). Several items cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant- Under the California Envirorunental Quality Act, a reasonable effort must be made to reduce environmental impacts- The draft EIR recommends two approaches. For aggregate resource areas and parks, a change in the Specific Plan is proposed- These changes are supported by staff- For the remainder of the impacts, a reasonable effort has been made, but the impacts are still significant- Therefore, a statement of overriding consideration must be prepared and approved prior to approval of the Specific Plan (see attached Exhibit "A" Discussion: Draft EIR Mitigation Measures). B. Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan: The Etiwanda North Specific Plan was distributed to the Planning Commission on December 21, 1990. As a consequence of review by the Planning Commission, the Trails Committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, a community worrkshop, EIR mitigation measures, and public comment, some revisions to the draft plan are proposed. (See Exhibit "B", Discussion: Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan-) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 26, 1991 Page 3 Accordingly, revisions are proposed to the Land Use and to the Park and Trails maps. Changes have also been made to several of the remaining maps to achieve clarity of presentation, to make technical corrections, or to provide consistency with the Land Use Map. (See Exhibits "C-1" through "C-12", Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan Maps.) C. Consistency with the General Plan: The draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan is consistent with the overall goals and intent of the General Plan. However, several changes are recommended to achieve actual consistency and specificity between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. (See Exhibit "D", Discussion: Consistency with the General Plan.) Changes are recommended to the Land Use Plan, Circulation Plan, Parks and Recreation Plan, Master Plan of Trails, Community Design Resources, Natural Resources, and Open Space Plan. (See Exhibits "E-I" through "E-8", Existing General Plan Maps-) III. SUMMARY: The Environmental Impact Report identifies a number of impacts and offers mitigations. However, because 2,500 acres will be changed from an undisturbed natural area to developed area, a number of impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Specific Plan is recommending a number of land use designations which are different from existing General Plan land use designations- The Specific Plan builds on the City's standards for development and provides detailed guidelines for development- A number of changes to the General Plan will be necessary to provide consistency with the Specific Plan- These changes are consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use policies and with surrounding land uses. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Comments are invited on the Environmental Impact Report, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,. and on changes to the General Plan necessary to provide consistency with the Specific Plan- Following public testimony and discussion by the Planning Commission, the Commission should direct staff to complete revisions to the Draft Specific Plan, prepare responses to comments on the draft EIR, and to prepare a statement of overriding considerations for the final EIR. Accordingly, the public hearing for this item should be continued to July 24, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 26, 1991 Page 4 to receive the draft Specific Plan revisions, the FEIR, the Environmental Determination, and for consideration of Resolutions recommending adoption of the Specific Plan and consistency amendments to the General Plan- BB:MB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Discussion: Draft EIR Mitigation measures Exhibit "B" - Discussion: Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan Map Revisions Exhibit "C" - Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan Maps Exhibit "D" - Discussion: Consistency with the General Plan Exhibit "E" - Existing General Plan Maps Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Summary EXHIBIT "A" DISCUSSION: DRAFT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES DRAFT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES: Although mitigation is proposed to the maximum extent feasible, several impacts have not been mitigated to a level of less than significant, in these instances staff supports issuance of s statement of overriding considerations. These items include the following: Loss of Open space: Development will result in loss of approximately 2,500 acres of natural open space- A Resource Management Plan will be prepared to provide measures to protect sensitive resources. However, impacts will not be reduced to a level less than significant- Circulation: At buildout, and with developer contribution for intersection improvements, the following intersections are still projected to operate at less than level C: * Cherry at Wardman Bullock * Milliken at Base Line * Rochester at Base Line * Day Creek at Base Line * Etiwanda at Base Line * East at Base Line * Milliken at Foothill * Rochester at Foothill * Day Creek at Foothill * Etiwanda at Foothill Therefore, impacts are not reduced to a level of less than significant- Aggregate Resources: Significant impacts will occur as a result of development on County Flood Control property west of the Day Creek Wash levee- Since the County is not proposing development in the County's Specific Plan, staff proposes to revise the plan to omit residential development on identified aggregate resource areas- This is consistent with the General Plan policy on Aggregate Resource areas. A floating park/school site designation will remain, and will require a separate assessment if actually located on aggregate resource land. Therefore, the impact will be reduced to less than significant. (See Exhibit "B", Discussion: Aggregate Resource Area-) Parks: Staff originally identified the neighborhood park requirement as 3 acres per thousand population per the Quimby requirement standard in effect- This is not consistent with the General Plan goal of 5 acres per thousand- However, a revised ~~ ~ ~ EXHIBIT "A" - Page assessment of the Quimby basis indicates the City can now require 4,689 acres per thousand- Therefore, staff proposes that the project be amended to provide at least 4.689 acres per thousand. The sites should be unencumbered neighborhood parks on minimum sites of 5 acres of developable land. Additionally, trail head or other smaller sites for related park use will be required and may be applied to the 5 acres per thousand General Plan goal. This action will reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Land forms: Development will result in loss of approximately 2,500 acres of natural land forms, mainly prominent alluvial fans. To reduce impacts, measures that will be taken include: * Development will occur on gentler sloping terrain; * The Hillside Development Ordinance shall be used; and * The prominent knoll adjacent to the bog shall be reserved for a passive park. These actions will reduce project impacts, but not to a level less than significant- Regional Wildlife and Habitat Impacts: Development will result in loss of approximately 2,500 acres of wildlife habitat area. Measures will be taken to preserve significant areas as natural open space, including: * Lands above the National Forest boundary; * Steep slopes; * Riparian corridors; * Wardman, Morse, and Henderson Creek riparian corridors upstream of the alluvial fan; * San Sevaine wash; * Etiwanda Wash; * An adequate wildlife corridor connecting Etiwanda Wash and San Sevaine Wash; * Seismic setback areas; * Day Creek spreading gro~mds; * Investigating the feasibility of restoring flood flows to Day Creek spreading grounds; * Preserving natural vegetation within flood control and utility easements to the maximum extent feasible; * Establishing buffer zones between development and natural areas which vary from 10 to 50 feet in width; * Revegetation with native plants in buffer zones, consistent with the Etiwanda North Resource Management Plan and Etiwanda North Fire Protection Study; * Prohibiting off-road vehicle travel within open space areas; and * Establishing a permit system for pedestrian use of open areas bordering the National Forest (addition per Planning Commission workshop). Comments from wildlife agencies indicate that in addition to the alluvial fan scrub habitat within existing spreading grounds, recommended for preservation in the Specific Plan, the alluvial fan scrub habitat north of the double utility corridor should also be considered for preservation. (See Exhibit "B", Discussion: Regional Wildlife and Habitat Impacts.) Aesthetic: Development will result in loss of approximately 2,500 acres of natural area with attendant aesthetic loss. Community Design, Development Standards, and the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan shall be implemented. View potential areas shall be protected. However, impacts will not be reduced to a level of less than significant. Air Quality: Construction will cause a temporary significant increase in particulate matter. Dust suppression techniques shall be implemented. However, impacts will not be reduced to a level of less than significant. EXHIBIT "B" DISCUSSION: DRAFT ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN MAP REVISIONS The following discussion presents an overview of the Land Use proposals of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. An overview of the maps included in the Specific Plan are also included. ISSUES: The following items set policy for the Specific Plan: Aggregate Resource Area: In response to the impacts to the aggregate resource area, the residential designation for the area outside the Day Creek Wash Levee will remain Flood Control. However, the potential of the area for residential use is noted, and staff recommends support for appropriate residential use following a County Land Use Amendment. Regional Wildlife and Habitat Impacts: In response to potential impacts to the bog area, staff proposes that the limit of development on the alluvial fan north of the bog be moved to the south side of the upper branch of the Cucamonga Fault. This land use designation will protect the bog from urban runoff, protect the existing water sources of the bog, and permit wildlife access. In light of communication from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game, this is a conservative approach- The wildlife agencies indicate that the limit of development should be the upper power corridor and the alluvial fan north of the power corridor between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek should be designated as a wildlife habitat and alluvial fan scrub mitigation area- The Planning Commission may wish to investigate the feasibility of designating all the aforementioned alluvial area north of the upper power corridor as a mitigation area. Hillside Residential Estate: The Specific Plan also proposes that the developable hillsides east of Etiwanda Creek carry a more restrictive land use designation- The proposed hillside residential estate designation would require 1 unit per developable acre with a minimum 1 acre lot size. This designation contrasts with the existing hillside residential designation which allows 2 dwelling units per developable acre and does not specify a minimum lot size. The proposed designation is responsive to the terrain and closer to the designation of the County General Plan than the existing general hillside residential designation- Neighborhood Commercial: The Specific Plan proposes two general Neighborhood Commercial areas. A site specific market study would be required to support any commercial development in the Specific Plan area. EXHIBIT "B" - Page 1 Park Sites: Five neighborhood park sites are proposed. There are 5 proposed park sites, one for each identified neighborhood. The recommended size of the parks will be adjusted to reflect the 5 per thousand population goal of the! General Plan for unencumbered, developable parks. It should be noted that Community Services has reviewed its parks requirements under the State Quimby Act Legislation, and is currently entitled to resource 4.689 acres per thousand. Supporting calculation is as follows: According to the 1990 Federal Census, the current population figure for the City of Rancho Cucamonga is 101,409. Taking these numbers into consideration, the calculated park acreage standard is: 233.75 acres developed 19.0 under construction 222.8 undeveloped 475.55 acres parkland 475.55 acres .00468 x 1000 = 4.689 acres 101,409 population 1000 population Trail heads will also provide park acreage. The 5 acre per thousand goal of the General Plan will be met on-site- Trails and landscape utility easements shall not count toward the neighborhood park goal within the Specific Plan- Equestrian Site: A minimum 25 acre equestrian site is proposed to provide for equestrian boarding facilities within the City's Equestrian Overlay District. The equestrian facility is proposed to meet the intent of the General Plan policy to provide lots large enough for keeping horses north of Highland Avenue- A 36 acre site on Southern California Edison surplus property has been identified as the preferred site for an equestrian facility with a trail head to be located immediately to the west on the other side of Day Creek Boulevard. A second trail head shall be located in the vicinity of the Upper Power Corridor and Regional Front Line Fire Road/Trail- School Sites: The Etiwanda School District indicates that three elementary schools are needed within the Specific Plan area. In addition, Chaffey High School District requests that a high school site be provided in the vicinity of Banyon and Milliken Avenues. Each school site must be a stand-alone facility, with adequate open space on-site to serve the student population. Schools shall be located adjacent to parks to facilitate joint use of facilities, and also to provide a neighborhood focal area. MAPS: The plans and maps prepared for the Specific Plan are briefly discussed below- Review of these items provides an overview of the Specific Plan: Land Use Plan (see Exhibit "C-1": Single family residential land use with supporting uses of neighborhood commercial, parks, and school is proposed. Substantial areas remain under open space designations. Circulation Plan (see Exhibit "C-2": See Discussion, Exhibit "D." Open Space and Trails Plan (see Exhibit "C-3": Significant areas of open space are expected to remain undeveloped- A Resource Management Plan shall be prepared to reduce the impacts of planning urbanization of adjoining areas. Planning Area Key Map (see Exhibit "C-4"): The Specific Plan provides for five neighborhoods focused by a neighborhood park and an adjoining school site, except in the Oaks neighborhood which does not have a proposed school site. Constraints Map (see Exhibit "C-5"): Maps significant resources and hazards affecting development. Existing Conditions Map (see Exhibit "C-6"): Maps significant existing conditions such as utility corridors, existing residences, and other built features within the area. View Potential Map (see Exhibit "C-7": Maps significant view potential areas identified within the Specific Plan area. Water Master Plan (see Exhibit "C-8"): This map is updated to reflect the Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan. Sewer Master Plan (see Exhibit "C-9"): This map is updated to reflect the Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan. Storm Drain Master Plan (see Exhibit "C-10"): This map is consistent with the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use (see Exhibit "C- 11"): This map is informational. San Bernardino County General Plan Land Use (see Exhibit "C-12"): This map is informational. National Forest OS FC OS OS (RC) OS OS . OS UC VL RC RC- OS~ V~' ' ~ ....VL ..... : UC UC PROPOSED REGIONAL PARK FC (RC) Avenue FC (RC) ~:' ..... . lind Avenue 30) LEGEND ~ EH~nd~ hnrlh %p~'~ dt~ I't~ LOW DenSity Resigntill (2-4 DU/AC) .n.~,, ~ ....~ Ve~ Low Density Restdental (<2 DU/AC) ~o~sed Trail Head . G~iq Station Ve~ Low Residential Estate (1 DU/AC/ Pr~sed E~strlan Facility ' ~ Hillsi~ Resi~ntial {<2 DU/Net Builda~e Acre) . ~ Hdlstde Res~nttal E state (< 1 ~/Net 8ud~e Acre) q I ~ ~ FC FI~ ControllR~artmn PrOlid Plrk Site .... ~ P Exlst~ Park Site E ~ ' ~ UC Utihty ~ri~r - _, I ~ OS ~en Space ~ ~TE: IN Institutional ~or ~1 the iocltlo~ site I~IClI~C. T~I RC Resource Conservahon Area {NO} Neigh~rho~ Commercial W (L.VL.VLE.RC) ,OT,NT~AL FUT~, L,~ ~ ,Sm~T~ LAND USE PLAN EXHIBIT C I · San Bernarqino National Forest T - LEGEND ~ .....u. ~,,~,~ ~,,~,~ P,.. ~ Major Divided A~erial A1 Typical Section ~ ~,,,, ..... ~ .Day ~e~ ~ulevard G~i~ Stmti~ m m m m m m S~cial Divi~ Seconda~ Aderial ~~ ~ .wils~ Avenue (east of Day Crek Bhd.) { ~' ~ / ~ , S~ondsW ARerial . , ~ ~ 3'~ - ~ -~1~ Argue .Et~ Avenue ~ .Millik~ Avenue .~r ~y Creek ~ulevard .... ~ A~nue · ~nyan Strut -R~h~ter Av~ue · Vinta~ ~Ne .Wardran BuiCk R~d · Summit Argue .East Argue ~ ' ' .~n S~am ~r L~ StrHts CIRCULATION PLAN. ~Etiwanda North'~ Specific Plan City of EXHIBIT C 2 To Caging Station ~' Study Area Existing Front Line Fire Trail / San , National ForeSt / I j HJ~hiaJ_d Avenue _ LEGEND ~ ~ R~ional Trail .............................. Bicycle Lane (~ p.ve~t- c=.. ,) Bicycle Path l- Parkway - Class I) Trail Head is. ~TE ~.} Park/School ~TE: The altea 8hown may not ~ cunently owned no~ Is the location Ills ipecIII¢. The Qeplcllen of I Ills tl In In{Iclllon ol a p~olected luture ,8ed that rely be 8dJusled over time IS Ihe CIty and the School Dlsl~lcl develop. OPEN SPACE AND TRA&S PLA ~tiwanda NorthTM Specifi~ Plan ~ity of Ra~ [u(a~ga ~ ~ ~ ~ ? EXHIBIT C 3 San Bernsrqino Netional Forest 10.3 7 OAKS ' ' ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS .... 3.2 - 20.2 IPPER ET 8 11 ~HAFFEV ....... ~,..o. Ave... ....... Hlgklan~ Avenue ........... LEGEND ~ 1.0 Su~rea Reference PLANNING AREA KEY MAP ~tiwanda Nort~ Specific Plan Eity Ra~ho Eucamn~a EXHIBIT C 4 SIn Bernardino National Forest -.:_.--_:~ ;.- Bog Hydrology Study Ares :.:.~v~,v,..v., ......... i .;,~;-:-:-;-:-:.:.:.:.: ......... .:-:.:.:.:.:-:.:-::'::i:E;E:E:i:~:E:E~::i:i:~::E:!: .' ._: :.:.:.>:-...,.-.-.-.-.-..... ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~: ~ LEGEND (~harge ~ci~ ~ ~ ~rd ~aDarral Greater Than ~ ~S) ~ . ~~j ~ ~ ~ Alluvial A~iat~on ~/~ ~ m ~ m Al~iSt-PriO~ S~il Studies Zone . Seismic Areas i . m m m m City A~t~ SNc~al St~ Zone C 0 N S TRA IN TS MAP Etiwanda North~ Specific Plan City of EXHIBIT C 5 · - VACANT LAND - NATIONAL FOREST AREA. I · : ~ront Line F,re Road-,.,,~, ~ ~lnlBllTtar~'t~NBtiomltForest ~r7-~' '~*' '~ 7'~ : ~ ' ; ' Existi~ . . ~ "* rdma r~k = ~ Ranger Station Site, ~ ' ... ~~n C ' ~ So~ C :~: .... ~-.- ,,,:= :,'~m~ .:.:-:-:-:,:.:.~?:.:.:,:-:-:. :m~ Pla~ ~ading Basin · E~sti~ ~ :::::::::::::::::::: : : . ~: .mms~ L~e ~- .-.-.. ~ :::::::.: """"""""::T~ .__:~,.~: ..~ · , L:'~ ~ > ling Stati~ ~,:,~, T~ ~ Existing Bri~e Cros~ ~~~ '~'~':"""'""'"""""~""""" /' . . : .~ j ..... ~ Water Transmis~ Line . ._~ EXISTING CONDITIONS AND USES /~tiwanda North''~ Specific Plan City of Rancho EXHIBIT O 8 I ,. . . t Sen Bemerqino Nltio~! Forest. I Wilson Wilson Avenue ~ / , . VIE W P 0 TEN TIA L MAP 40oo. Etiwanda North Specific Plan City ot Rancho Cucamonga ~--)~ C/~/ EXHIBIT C 7 PiDe|ine from Day Canyon ~ .. \ ..~ ......... PiOeline from Smith Tunnsl~ mll vm~g, iDeiine from B Tunnel ~ ~ East Etiwanda Can, ' Res, No. 6C I ' 12" ; NO. 5C ~' 1 5mmmC 8" _ ~ '. Res- No, 4C 4 ~; ' 27"_ s161m MWDi~Comtectlon CB;16~ · m m12~1 ::~ ~ 12~ LlOyd W, Michae W,TP · ~ ~: - Connectione I r.r ~ummit L_'~_' ' ~-' LEGEND ~p~ ........ Proposed CCWD Boundary ; ........... [] ,,,,,,,=,,_ Existing CCWD Boundary ....... ~121 Pipeline and Diameter ~~... · Reservoir /' · · · . i e Metropolitan Water District (M.W.D.) Connection \' ' r i: .~.~ o Booster Pump Station ,~_ , V Pressure Regulator Station .? ~ i ~" ~ Pressure Zone Boundary 4 Pressure Zone Number ~: ., ~ .. ' ~ ,,, ~ Existing Pipeline Source: Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) Master Plan June 1987 WATER MA S TER PLAN ~ooo. 2ooo. ,moo. ~Etiwanda North''~ Specific Plan city of Ranclio Cucamonga EXHIBIT C 8 , I San Beset mo Netiorlei Forest _ I IiiiiiIIIIIIiI1~11111111111111111_~ ; ~~ .... Street Wilson Av~ue , ~ _ 24t~ ' ': -- ' '-- --'~, "~ '. G~i~ S~=%;, LEGEND ~ ~ Present CCWD Bounda~ .... . ~ ~~ __~ Pieline and Diameter .~ I _ ~ i :] ~ ~ m__m~m Existing Pipeline - ~__~ . ~ ~ IIIIIIIIIIIII Proposed District Annexation Area SEWER MASTER PLAN ~Etiwanda North' Specific Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT C 9 ! I / (1): q Sen Bemmrqino National Forest, Day Creek Drainage Area rainage Area ' %th~v_ a ermine Drainage Area i iwanda Intercept Channel - ':~1" ' Regional Debris Dam &Basin ' Creek Dam ~-,, ~. San s,~.i.. i Spreading Channel. , Bog Hydrology Study Area -- 39' Channel -- Upper 48" Channel 66' Spreading Grounds 60' e3' 48' so' ~ \ San Sevaine Regional Mainline Upper Etiwanda Rqional Mainline Channel Basins LEGEND ~ R~i~al Mainline Drainage Facilities ~ Master Plan Storm Drain ~'-,~ Drai~ge Area Limits mmmmSecon~ R~ional FaciliW F~S (1) ~al~ge/area ~u~r~s su~t to S~CD a~oval, (2) All pill rues are ~oximate; act~l m~ to ~ ~t~m~ ~ a fill h~o~/h~aul~ STORM DRAIN MAS TER PLAN Etiwanda North Specific Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT C 10 I Sen Ben *- i 0S -~ ~ .... FL/UC i FLi/UC i ~ _VL i .-.:--, VL ~'" - ' ' FL/UC FL/i i ,.- ..... - F' ,--,--' ~ uc" !~ i:,,--:.:-.~?'' vL-NC ~i. Ct'rY G~NERAL PLAN -~- PLAN ! L ~! (~ FL/UC ' GCGC '*~ ,,. OS LU- LEGEND ' · Fuwar, da North Spcc,[,c Plan ~ Estate Residential o-~ DU's/AC (Etiwanda Specific Plan) ............ [] . Very Low <2 DU's/AC ~i~ St.~;' LM Low Medium 4-8 DU's/~ ~ ~~ FL/UC FIll Control/UtiliW Corridor ,' . . · I NC Neigh~rh~ ~mmercial . ~-~' ~--- E Existing Sch~ls ~ Acquired Perk Site ~'. .,... ; ~'. ~ ~ Proposed Perk SIte ~TE: ~ sites m~n rely Mt ~ c~r~tly owMa ~r Is the - ~t~ mite IHCII~, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ~tiwanda North Specific Plan City ot Ri~ Cucamn~a EXHIBIT C 11 San I Forest PD1 PD1/10 pD1/IO ~ ~ RS1 PD1/10 PD1/2.5 RS- 1 ~ PD1/1 PD-RSI RS1/IO F. i .... : :.. -- _: tIN) ' ~ ' PD2/1 :'~ FW Street ~U~A~enue_._ ~ ~ ~ H~hla~ Av~ue - - . ~llwanda hor,h Spc~,[,c rl~n LEGEND: ........... ~ N~: Num~i~lref~efol~thela~ PD 1/40 =1 DU/40 ACRES --~ .... u~ ~sig~t~. rere~ts al~ ~s~ PD 1/10 = I DU/10 ACRES G~l~Stlti~ PD 1/2.5 = I DU/2.5 ACRES ~ ~ minimum ~rcel size. ~ ~Z ~pr~PreviousW~x~to~nchoCu~mo~ PD 1/1 = I DUll ACRE ,' . '~ ~ ,x ,~ FW Fl~ay PD 2/1 = 2 DUll ACRE ' ' ' P "m U ~ ~ Institutional PD 3/1 = 3 DU/1 ACRE , ~ :. ~ IN F ~" I~ PD Plann~ Development PD 4/1 = 4 DUll ACRE I~ R$ Single Resi~ntial RS 20M = 20,000 SO. FT. MIN. ~ ~ ~ {IN) Inferred institutional Designation LOT SIZE ': .~ . ' SAN BERNARD/NO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA 0 ~' ~' ~tiwanda North Specific Plan City of Ra~ho Cuca~nga EXHIBIT C 12 EXHIBIT "D" DISCUSSION: CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The following are highlights of proposed changes in the General Plan which provides consistency with the Specific Plan. LAND USE PLAN (see Exhibit "E-I") Residential: The open space designation north of Highland Avenue, south of the upper utility corridor, and generally east of Day Creek Boulevard will be changed to Low Density Residential, consistent with surrounding land uses. The Low Density designation between the upper and lower utility corridor and west of Etiwanda Avenue will be changed to Very Low Density Residential, consistent with surrounding land uses- Parks: A neighborhood park shall be located within each identified neighborhood. The size will be a minimum of 5 developable, unencumbered acres. Schools: Three elementary school sites shall be provided- Each site shall be located adjacent to a neighborhood park, but must be a stand-alone facility- Commercial: Two neighborhood commercial sites are provisionally designated, but the land use designation is conditioned upon completion of a site-specific market study supporting the use- Fault Zone: A 50-foot setback is required for each side of an identified fault zone- The resulting 100-foot setback shall be retained as public open space. A community trail is proposed within the fault zone designation- CIRCULATION (see Exhibit "E-2") The plan provides the backbone circulation system suggested by the General Plan- Etiwanda Avenue: Etiwanda Avenue ends at a "T" intersection with an east/west collector loop road immediately north of the lower power corridor. Etiwanda Avenue between the "T" intersection and Wilson Avenue is changed from a secondary arterial to a collector street. The name of Etiwanda Avenue north of Wilson shall be changed. The purpose of these changes is to protect historic Etiwanda Avenue- Day Creek Boulevard: Day Creek Boulevard shall meet Wilson Avenue with a 4-way intersection- The proposed curve shall be deleted. Wilson Avenue: Wilson Avenue shall be completed across Day Creek Wash to provide one of two east-west arterials needed to facilitate emergency vehicle access to the area- The name Wilson Avenue shall be extended from Milliken Avenue to the eastern city Limit to provide for consistency- The road is currently variously designated "24th Street," in conflict with another 24th Street within the City, and "Summit Avenue" with which it now connects- Banyon Avenue: Banyon Avenue shall be completed across Day Creek Wash, connecting with Summit Avenue on the east side of Day Creek Channel, to provide one of two east-west arterials needed to facilitate emergency vehicle access to the area. Vintage Drive: Vintage Drive shall be completed across Day Creek Wash to provide a low utilization collector to serve as a frontage road for the Foothill Freeway. Freeway Off-Ramps: Freeway off-ramps are planned for Day Creek Boulevard and East Avenue- Therefore, the upper and lower loop roads, as well as Banyon and Wilson, shall connect to Day Creek and East Avenue to provide part of the backbone circulation system- Lower Loop Road: The lower loop road shall follow the lower utility corridor in order to maximize the use of developable property north of the power corridor. PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN (see Exhibit "E-3"): Park sites shall be added as indicated in the Specific Plan. (Compare with Exhibit "C-3".) MASTER PLAN OF TRAILS (see Exhibit "E-.4"): Trails shall be added as indicated in the Specific Plan. (Compare with Exhibit "C-3".) COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES (see Exhibi't "E-5"): Viewshed shall be added as indicated in Specific Plan. (Compare with Exhibit "C-7"-) AGGREGATE EXTRACTION RESOURCE AREAS (see Exhibit "E-6"): No changes are proposed for this 'map. NATURAL RESOURCES (see Exhibit "E-7"): Several technical corrections are proposed for this map. The spreading ground areas shall be revised to reflect the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Map Designation- Also, the limits of vegetation shall be revised to conform with the vegetation survey map prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Finally, the bog and its hydrological study areas shall be identified- (Compare with Exhibit "C-5"-) OPEN SPACE PLAN (see Exhibit "E-8"): Several technical corrections are proposed for this map- The hillside residential area shall be changed to reflect constraints identified by the environmental review process. Also, the streamside woodland and water recharge areas shall be revised to reflect the aforementioned vegetation survey. Finally, proposed parks shall be added. (Compare with Exhibits "C-3" and "C-4".) ~"'"'"~,,~Zj ! - II -~ ' II ] II ~ ~ cX ~ ~ o EXHIBIT E ~ EXHIBIT E 5 ~! F"""; N $ ' " .-, ..~...: II, i ' 1 · ' : i ~l ' ~.. ;:-':.'.~ ,.-.-.~-,N, : ]j~:,2i-..!.:.i'..':!...'..%..:......-i.:.i.,.i~..'III ' ~i~i!ii!iiZi~i~....... :"-'~' ! ..";:.:.:'..':..'.~ 2.:'.-'::.:':':-'~i:.-J ............ i ,, .... ~ __.~. .... , II ! it ; ' : II - : i "I .~=,,..'. ./' i i ~ i, . . ....::I: / ..... F"' : --' ~ I'~"'/""'L - ' ~'-]'~ C. 115 EXHIBIT E 6 · ' F~4 "0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) There has been presented to this Commission, in conjunction with this Commission's consideration of the recommended adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, a Final Environmental Impact Report. (ii) The Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this Resolution consists of that document dated May 1991, entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan," together with the draft Final Environmental Impact report dated September 11, 1991, including written comments on the draft EIR and written responses thereto submitted by staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented during the hearings on the recommended adoption of the said Specific Plan insofar as that testimony pertained to the environmental matters, as well as the revised executive summary, including revisions to mitigations measures, as well as the mitigation monitoring plan. Hereinafter, the above-referenced documents will be referred to as the "Final Environmental Impact Report." The entirety of the Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga take the following actions with respect to the Final Environmental Report: a. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and with the regulations promulgated thereunder. Further, that the Council certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in considering the adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; b. Find that the Final Environmental Impact Report does identify physical environmental impacts inherent in the project and that changes or alterations have been incorporated in the project which mitigate or avoid all significant environmental effects thereof other than as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 1) Substantial alteration of existinq open space land use character: Almost all of the total project area of 6,840 acres is currently in natural open space. Of the total, 4,442 acres will be designated as open space. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are proposed for development and will result in the loss of the existing open space land use character. 2) City transportation policies and Traffic: Applicants for development will mitigate all on-site impacts and specified off-site impacts, as well as contribute to the City's Traffic Nexus Fee program for off-site impacts. Nevertheless, as a result of incremental increases to cumulative traffic impacts, off- site impacts will occur even after mitigation. 3) Landform modification: Applicants for development will comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance and City development standards. Nevertheless, grading for development within 2,112 acres will modify the existing character of the alluvial fan and portions of the hillsides. 4) Wildlife habitat impacts: The project is designed to retain large, defensible areas of open space which will maximize the habitat value for the project area. A total of 4,442 acres will remain in open space land use designations. Nevertheless, development of the 2,112 acres will diminish on-site wildlife density and diversity and fragment the remaining wildlife habitats. 5) Alluvial fan scrub habitat loss: Applicants for development will be conditioned to preserve 1-acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat for 1-acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat lost. There are significant areas of natural alluvial fan scrub habitat within the project area which are available for preservation or which can be rehabilitated- Nevertheless, almost all of the 2,112 acres planned for development are alluvial fan scrub habitat and will be lost. 6) Threat to riparian habitats: Applicants for development will be conditioned to retain existing riparian corridors, as well as to provide a buffer zone to protect the riparian PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 corridors from degradation associated with urban development. Also, conditions will be enforced to protect the Resource Conservation areas including restriction of human use to designated trails, exclusion of domestic cats and dogs, exclusion of off-road vehicles, and techniques to divert urban irrigation run-off and polluted storm flows. Nevertheless, urbanization of the area will remain a threat to riparian habitat. 7) Short term fuqitive dust: Project applicants will be conditioned to implement actions to reduce fugitive dust during construction to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, some construction dust will occur. 8) Solid waste: Project applicants will be conditioned to participate in City waste minimization programs. Nevertheless, there will remain an impact on landfill capacity as a result of solid waste generated by development of approximately 3,157 dwelling units, as well as up to 28 acres of commercial development. c. Find that notwithstanding the unmitigated adverse environmental impacts specified in paragraph b above, that specific economic and social considerations make infeasible any project alternative specified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; and d. As to those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report which cannot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measures and project alternatives, recommend adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations in substantial form to that set forth in Exhibit "A", attached heretD and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 4 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the, following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~IBIT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain impacts which cannot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measures. Impacts which have been mitigated to-the maximum extent feasible, but still have not been mitigated to a level of not significant, include the following: Substantial Alteration of Existinq Open Space Land Use Character: Almost all the total project area of 6,840 acres is currently in natural open space. Of the total, 4,442 acres shall be designated as open space. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are proposed for development and will result in the loss of existing open space land use character. City Transportation Policies and Traffic: Applicants for development shall mitigate all on-site impacts specified off-site impacts, as well as contribute to the City's Traffic Nexus Fee Program for off-site impacts. Nevertheless, as a result of incremental increases to cumulative traffic impacts, off-site impacts will occur even after mitigation. Landform Modification: Applicants for development shall comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance and City Development Standards. Also the prominent knoll, where the historic U.S. Forest Service Fire Station site is located, shall be preserved as open space. Nevertheless, grading for development within 2,112 acres will modify the existing character of the alluvial fan and portions of the hillsides. Wildlife Habitat Impacts: The project is designed to retain large, defensible areas of open space which shall maximize the habitat value for the project area. A total of 4,442 acres will remain in open space land use designations, including approximately 145 acres in the vicinity of the bog and north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault, a portion of which was previously designated for residential development. Further, a Resource Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented. Nevertheless, development of 2,112 acres will diminish on-site wildlife density and diversity and fragment the remaining wildlife habitats. Alluvial Fan Scrub Habitat Loss: Applicants for development shall be conditioned to preserve 1 acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat for 1 acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat lost. It is intended that 4,442 acres shall be designated as open space and that alluvial fan scrub habitat in Day Creek wash, Etiwanda Creek wash, San Sevaine Wash, and 145 acres in the vicinity of the bog and north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault shall be retained as open space. Further to the maximum extent feasible, resource conservation easements EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS February 26, 1992 Page 2 shall be obtained for the aforementioned wildlife habitat areas. Nevertheless, almost all of the 2,112 acres planned for development are alluvial fan scrub habitat which will be lost. Threat to Riparian Habitats: Applicants for development will be conditioned to retain existing riparian corridors, as well as to provide a buffer zone to protect the riparian corridors from degradation associated with urban development. Also, conditio~ns will be enforced to protect the Resource Conservation areas, including restriction of human use to designated trails, exclusion of domestic cats and dogs, and exclusion of off-road vehicles, as well as techniques to divert urban irrigation run-off and polluted storm flows. Nevertheless, urbanization of the area will remain a threat to riparian habitat. Short-Term Fuqitive Dust: Project applicants will be conditioned to implement actions to reduce fugitive dust during construction to t2~e maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, some construction dust will occur. Solid Waste: Project applicants will be conditioned to participate in City waste minimization programs. Nevertheless, there will remain an impact on landfill capacity as a result of solid waste generated by development of approximately 3,157 dwelling units, as well as up to 28 acres of commercial development. Notwithstanding these impacts, project approval is recommended based upon a finding that specific environmental, economic and social considerations make infeasible any project alternatives specified in the final Environmental Impact Report and accordingly constitutes an overriding basis for project approval. Substantial environmental benefits will occur as a result of approval of in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment No. 90-03B, as follows: , Of the total 6,840-acre plan area, development will be limited to 2,112 acres and 4,442 acres shall be designated as open space. * Applicants for development shall contribute to the building of the circulation and transportation system of the community by mitigating all on-site impacts specified off-site impacts as well as contributing to the City's Traffic Nexus Fee Program for all other off-site impacts. EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS February 26, 1992 Page 3 , Applicants for development shall comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance and City Development Standards. Also the prominent knoll, where the historic U.S. Forest Service Fire Station site is located, shall be preserved as open space. , The project is designed to retain large, defensible areas of open space which shall maximize the habitat value for the project area. A total of 4,442 acres will remain in open space land use designations, including approximately 145 acres in the vicinity of the bog and north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault, a portion of which was previously designated for residential development. Further, a Resource Management Plan shall be prepared and .implemented. · Applicants for development shall be conditioned to preserve 1 acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat for 1 acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat lost. It is intended that 4,442 acres shall be designated as open space and that alluvial fan scrub habitat in Day Creek wash, Etiwanda Creek wash, San Sevaine Wash, and 145 acres in the vicinity of the bog and north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault shall be retained as open space. Further to the maximum extent feasible, resource conservation easements shall be obtained for the aforementioned wildlife habitat areas. · Applicants for development will be conditioned to retain existing riparian corridors, as well as to provide a buffer zone to protect the riparian corridors from degradation associated with urban development. Also, conditions will be enforced to protect the areas designated as "Resource Conservation," including restriction of human use to designated trails, exclusion of domestic cats and dogs, and exclusion of off-road vehicles, as well as techniques to divert urban irrigation run- off and polluted storm flows. · Project applicants shall be conditioned to implement actions to reduce fugitive dust during construction to the maximum extent feasible. , Project applicants shall be conditioned to participate in City waste minimization programs to reduce the flow of municipal solid waste to landfills. EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS February 26, 1992 Page 4 Also, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment' No. 90-03B, are themselves measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing community which would otherwise occur without a planned and comprehensive approach to future development. The Specific Plan contains provisions tailored to development of the sensitive alluvial fan and hillside environment, and is meant to replace existing Citywide zoning regulations that do not address the unique qualities and community traits of that portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere-of-Influence. Further, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan provides pre-zoning for the Sphere- of-Influence area and for the planning area north of the National Forest boundary where City zoning ordinances do not apply. Consequently, the adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will result in potential environmental effects that are substantially less significant in scope and extent than those effects which would otherwise occur under the existing General Plan and zoning regulations, including each alternative analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-03B, ENDING THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAPS, AND REVISING VARIOUS MAPS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) On June 26, and continued to July 24, August 14, September 11, October 9, November 13, December 11, and December 17, 1991, and January 8, January 22, and February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings concerning the recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment 90-03B. (ii) The General Plan Amendment is set forth as Exhibit "A," attached. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, this Commission has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and recommended that the City Council certify the Report, including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. 3. The Commission finds as follows: (a) The Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use or Circulation Policies of the General Plan. (b) The Amendment promotes the goals of the General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements. (c) The Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. 4. This Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt General Plan Amendment 90-03B, marked as Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 2 5. The Secretary to this CoMmission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH(3 CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EXHIBIT "A" ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN (PRE-ZONE) RECOMMENDED CONSISTENCY CHANGES TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA'S GENERAL PLAN (GPA 90-03B) The following changes to Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan are recommended. There are two categories of changes: one is changes to the General Plan's maps and plans (see figure references below) and the other is changes to text. Text changes are short additions to clarify objectives or policies brought into focus by the Specific Plan. Land Use Map and Circulation Map changes reflect policy changes. Other map changes reflect additions of details in the Etiwanda North Sphere-of-Influence area. (Note: Recommended text changes are in bold for additions and strike-out for deletions.) I. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT General Plan Text Revision The Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Land Use Element. General Plan Land Use Map: Fiqure III-1 Refer to attached Exhibit GP-1; modify as indicated. II. GENERAL PLAN CIRCLFLATION ELEMENT General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and ~olicies of the General Plan Circulation Element. To Page III-26, Policies, regarding Etiwanda Avenue, add the following: ,,Implementation strategies to discourage the use of Etiwanda Avenue for through traffic should be developed and used for improvements to Etiwanda Avenue north of Highland Avenue." General Plan Circulation Map: Fiqure III-3 Refer to ENSP Circulation Map, Exhibit 11, modify to indicate backbone circulation system as shown, including, but not limited to, the following: CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 2 · Day Creek Boulevard: Eliminate curve at Banyan Street. · Day Creek Boulevard from Highland Avenue to Wilson Avenue: Special Major Divided Arterial. , Day Creek Boulevard from Wilson Avenue to SCE utility corridor: Secondary Arterial. · Day Creek Boulevard north of SCE utility corridor: Collector. · Wilson Avenue from Day Creek Boulevard to Cherry Avenue: Special Divided Secondary Arterial. , Wilson Avenue from Day Creek Boulevard to Milliken Avenue: Secondary Arterial. · Etiwanda Avenue north of Wilson Avenue to north side of SCE utility corridor: Secondary Arterial. · Etiwanda Avenue at north side of SCE utility corridor: Ends in a T-intersection. · East Avenue north of Wilson Avenue: Collector. · Wardman Bullock Road north of Wilson Avenue: Collector. · San Sevaine Drive north of Wilson Avenue: Collector. , Vintage Drive from Rochester Avenue to Bluegrass (Hanley) Avenue: Collector. , Lower East-West Loop from East Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard: Collector. · Middle East-West Loop from East Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard: Collector. · Middle East-West Loop from East Avenue to Wardman Bullock: Collector. , Upper East-West Link from Day Creek Boulevard to the extension of East Avenue: Collector. CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 3 III. HOUSING ELEMENT The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Housing Element. No changes are recommended. IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT PARKS AND RECREATION General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Parks and Recreation section. Make the following text changes for clarification: To Page III-56, Policies, regarding location of parks and school to facilitate joint use, add to the last paragraph: ,,However, each facility shall be of adequate size to be a stand-alone facility." General Plan Parks and Recreation Map: Figure III-6 Refer to ENSP Open Space and Trail Plan, Exhibit 10, and modify as indicated, including the following: , Five proposed neighborhood park sites · Four proposed school sites adjacent to park sites, including three elementary school sites and one high school site · One special use facility - Community Equestrian Center site TRAILS General Plan Text Revisio~ The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan's Riding, Hiking, Bicycling and Trails section. Add the following text revisions for clarification: To Page III-60, regarding the keeping of horses and consistent with the General Plan's Land Use policy "to ensure that development can accommodate equestrian activities," add text as follows: CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 4 "Where lot sizes within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District are insufficient for the keeping of horses, public and private boarding facilities should be encouraged. Land dedication and/or in- lieu fees should be established in order to acquire land for a public boarding facility in the north-east area of the City's Sphere-of- Influence." To Page III-71, regarding the Equestrian Overlay Zone, add text as follows: "As areas within the Equestrian/Rural District annex into the City, they should be incorporated into the City's Equestrian Overlay Zone and appropriate mechanisms established for trail maintenance." General Plan Master Plan of Trails: Fiqure III-7 Refer ENSP Open Space and Trails Plan, Exhibit 10, modify as indicated, including but not limited to, the following: · East-West Community Trail link along the middle of the SCE utility corridor. · East-West Community Trail link along the lower branch of the Cucamonga Fault seismic corridor. · East-West Community Trail link along the upper branch of the Cucamonga Fault seismic corridor. · East-West Community Trail link along the upper branch of the Cucamonga Fault seismic corridor. , North-South Community Trail link along Day Creek Channel/SCE corridor. · Delete Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail at Etiwanda Avenue T-intersection north of the middle SCE Corridor. V. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Community Design Element. Add the following text changes for clarification. CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 5 Regarding Special Boulevard Treatment: To Table III-9: Special Divided Secondary Arterial, add: "Wilson Avenue between Day Creek Wash and Cherry Avenue." To Page III-85: Regarding Special Boulevard Treatment, add discussion of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue as follows: "Day Creek Boulevard: Because it adjoins a 330- foot SCE utility corridor, has value as a scenic corridor and a major north-south viewshed, and serves as a major north-south arterial street, Day Creek Boulevard should be designed and constructed as a Special Boulevard to enhance its scenic opportunities-" "Wilson Avenue: Because it follows the 120 foot MWD R.O.W, has value as a scenic corridor and a major east-west viewshed, forms the northern boundary of the historic Etiwanda community and serves as a major east-west arterial street, Wilson Avenue east of Day Creek Boulevard should be designated as a Special Boulevard and designed and constructed to enhance its historic and scenic opportunities." To Page III-96, regarding scenic corridors, add the following: "The County has also designated Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue, in the City's Sphere- of-Influence as scenic corridors." To Page III-97, regarding vista points at the terminus of major north-south'arterial streets, add the following: "and Day Creek Boulevard at the prominent knoll adjacent to the bog." General Plan Community Design Resources, Figure III-10 Modify as indicated below: Land form , Refer to ENSP View Potential Map, Exhibit 7, and indicate prominent knoll west of the bog as a prominent land form. CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 6 Creeks and Channels , Refer to ENSP Existing Conditions Map, Exhibit 3, and indicate current alignment of Day Creek. Also indicate channelization where constructed. , Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate main branch of San. Sevaine Creek, Wardman Creek, and Henderson Creek; also for the latter two creeks, indicate channelization where constructed. Special Vegetation , Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate Riparian Vegetation for Henderson, Wardman, and Morse Creeks within the hillside areas. , Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate bog and its hydrologic source. Major Arterials, Secondary Arterials, Collectors , Refer to ENSP Circulation Map, Exhibit 11, and indicate arterials and collector streets as shown. Transmission Corridors , Refer to ENSP Existing Conditions Map, Exhibit 3, and add existing utility transmission corridtors as shown. Landmarks and Focal Points · Refer to ENSP Property Ownership Map, Exhibit 4; ENSP View Potential Map, Exhibit 7; and Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and add the U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station Site, prominent knoll, and bog, as focal points. Scenic Corridors , Refer to ENSP View Potential Map, Exhibit 7, and indicate Day Creek and Wilson Avenue as scenic corridors. CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 7 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES LAND RESOURCES The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Land Resources Section. PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Plant and Animal Resources Section. Add the following text revisions for clarification: To Page IV-15, regarding objectives for lands of biological significance, add the following: "Help to preserve lands having biological significance especially riparian (wa~e~ stream- related) areas and their associated woodland vegetation, and alluvial fan scrub habitat. The latter habitat once predominated on alluvial fan landforms in the region, but is a rapidly disappearing habitat resource." To Page IV-15, regarding policies, revise as follows: "The City shall consider the streamside woodland associations along the Cucamonga, Deer, Day, Etiwanda, Henderson, Morse, Wardman, By~e-e~eek, and San Sevalne Canyons as areas of natural significance and limit the encroachment of development into these areas (see Figure IV-3)." To Page IV-16, regarding natural areas which can be used for educational or other scientific purposes, add the following example: "Another example is the peat bog to the east of the U.S. Forest Service site, the last example of a habitat which was once abundant in the region." General Plan Natural Resources, Figure IV-3" Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, ENSP Exhibit 8,'modify as follows: CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 8 Waterways , Indicate San Sevaine, Morse, Wardman, and Henderson Creeks. , Indicate the current alignment of Day Creek. Major Recharge Area , Revise to be consistent with existing recharge capacity for San Sevaine wash. Streamside Woodland * Revise to be consistent with streamside woodland association in hillside area for Morse, Wardman, and Henderson Creeks. Open Wash Association , Revise Day Creek to be consistent with channelization. Hard Chaparral and Alluvial Association , Revise boundary as indicated. OPEN SPACE SECTION General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space .Section. No changes to the text are recommended. General Plan Open Space Plan, Fiqure IV-4 Modify as follows: Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area * Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and revise to be consistent with Natural Resource Map, Figure IV-3. Special Vegetation , Refer to ENSP Landscape Theme Plan, Exhibit 19, and indicate special vegetation for Day Creek Boulevard from north of Highland Avenue to Wilson Avenue and for Wilson Avenue from Day Creek Wash to Cherry Avenue. CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 9 Hazard Prevention · Note that the ENSP identifies seismic setbacks for the purpose of establishing open space easements, but no change is recommended to the General Plan Open Space Plan. Recreational Opportunities · Refer to ENSP Parks and Open Space Plan, Exhibit 10, and indicate five (5) proposed park sites. Flood Control Land and Utility/Transportation Right of Way · Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate utility corridors. , Refer to ENSP Existing Conditions Map, Exhibit 3, and modify flood control easements as a result of channelization work on Henderson and Morse Creeks. · Refer to ENSP Land Use Map, Exhibit, 17, and modify floodway area shown within San Sevaine Wash. , Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate flood control easements above the LADWP utility corridor. Limited Development , Refer to ENSP Land Use Map, Exhibit 17, and modify hillside residential area. VII. GENERAL PLAN HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Health and Safety Element. Modify the following text for clarification: CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-03B February 26, 1992 Page 10 To Page V-ll, regarding seismic policies, add the following: "* For residential tract development of 4 or more units where fault traces are well identified (for example the Cucamonga Fault east of Day Creek and north of the LADWP utility corridor), residential development of 4 or more units should require a 50-foot setback from the identified fault and establishment of a 100-foot seismic open space easement for the resulting setback area." Front Line Fire VACANT LAND - NATIONAL FOREST AREA - " ~ rdman Creek mk Dam/ \\, · Reinclef Ranger Station Site X "" Sar~i~vei~qe - , 'i;' Etiwanda-Cre~k (;;harmel ================================== iona'T" -. nds S ':: '-:.;.:-:-;.: ..... , , menf Plant ....... '; - Basin -_: Existing - .-.-.-.;:*.-.-. ' Imission Line ;;. .-..:.;.:.:.:.:.:. ,, '~ ::::::::::::::::::::::____ : : ~ ~aging ., -. -'; Av.J.nU.L · I s~an~ta N~,rlh %p~:~l,~ Pl~,n ~ Indicates Property Previously Annexed to Rancho Cucamonga } '~'~"~'~"" "T~ : Ex,st,ne B,~e C.~os$ing . . Gigling Stltioll .._,.,,, Levee ~ ' .~~L==- .:;~.L~- Ele¢lrlcil Trlnlmllllon L|ne/Corr|dor / . . . , ..... MWD Water TraPSmisSiOn Line .' ',,: .. I . . .~ ~ ~ M.ior ".'""e" "*" ,~,o,.,...,.t., -,.!T,- EXISTING CONDITIONS AND USES. EXHIBIT 3 ~Etiwanda North''~ Specific Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ "~ C I~ 7 GPA.90.03B DRAFT I L San Bemardipo National Forest ' ' 1 3 32 '~<;3 ' 44 "'4 66 4 45 4 43 i 33: ......... j 25 F' 34 22 5 36 5 25 27 42 2 2 4 : f et ' 112~ 2 Wilson ~ Avenue ~ ' ' c _ ? :,,_:, L -_ 1 Etiwan~ Highla~ Prop 23 Tefich ~5 Ba~ick 2 ~n Befnar~i~ ~, FI~ ~ntfol 24 ~tans~r~ 46 ~emington PropaNics Etl,lnda Norlh 5Pc~,[,c Pi,n 3 ~ndmaffi ~ ~. 25 ~ter 47 Praetzet 4 So. ~lifornia Edi~ ~. 26 French ~ Zandia ~""~'~ ~ .... ~ 5 ~ ~vel~ment ~. 27 C~ of Los A~eles 49 TraSh 7 Smith 29 Et~a~ He~hts Day. 51 Ma~id 8 Remington Pr~. 30 Ciffi 52 Venti 9 R~ents of the ~iv. of ~lif. 31 ~n~ ~ Ly~ / . " 10 So~hern Su~lus RealW 32 Kl~r ~ Joshua 13 Klanjan 35 She~ 57 ~mans~ , : ~ 14 Li~le 36 ~iro ~ Watt Inland Empire ; 15 Su~ta 37 ~ard Fami~ PaRhers 59 Moya ' ' 16 Metro. Water Dist. of ~. ~lif. ~ ~ Pointe ~ Di Iorio ~:~, Z ~ ~ 17 Cu~monga Coun~ Water Dist. 39 ~ms~ 61 Kolo 18 Inland Empire Ltd. 40 H~ard ~ffell P~re 62 Chun 19 Stanford 41 Pear~n ~ Chang ~L .E.- -' 20 A~ell 42 ~unW of ~n ~mardino ~ Rustad 21 Hughes Investments ~ McNay 65 Wa~ Inland Emptre 22 Ch~ ~ Roach 66 Unit~ States Government Land Note Pr~ owners are cu~ent as of Jdne 1991 lndicatesProperty Prewously Annexed To Rancho Cucamonga PROPER TY 0 WNERSHIP EXHIBIT 4 o ,~' '~' ~ti a a Nort~ w nd Specific Plan GPA.90.O3B City ot ~P ArT VIEW POTENTIAL MAP EXHIBIT 7 ~Etiwanda Nortl~ Specific P|an City of GPA.90.03B DRAFT ~N,.Ran(:h° Cucamonga San Bernardino National Forest ,i, ~ : ,~ L ' " Bog Hydrology Study -:.~:.: · ,. :.;-;-:.:.'-:-;-: X.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-J :,:.:,:.:.:,; ,~' ,... :.:.:.:.;-;-;,,~;,:,;~-: , _ _ ~_ LEGEND Malor Recharge Area Greater Than 50 CFS) ,! 7' ' L_.l ~ Streamside Woodland I _ ~ I Alluwal Association ' ' Z ' " ~ Open Wash Association ~! mill · mare Al(3ulsl-Prlol0 Special Studies Zone almaam Cdy AdoDeed Special Stud/Zone CONSTRAINTS MAP EXHIBIT 8 Etiwanda North Specific Plan City GPA.90.O3B DRAFT ~,,,Ram:ho Cucamon~a San Be.rna.~rrqino National Forest OAKS F""" ' ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS UPPER ETIWANDi LEGEND ..,.. i~ ~lllltlrl. with Cl~yon Ltvl Oaks I~ California Black k ,, .........~ ~ Eucalyptus Windrow The ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS Neighborhood will be ~ G~i~ Station' and Crepe My~,I. " ~ Ca~fornll Sycamre/Austrlllan WIllow .... .~ : ~.. : ~ Redbud/African Sumac I .... ~ ~ ~ Red Bud/Bradford Pelr/Crl~ Myrtle Cifilry IIll~d Pine end loCinil Of BradfOrd Pelt arid Jlpl~ell NE/GHBORHOOD THEME PLAN EXHIBIT 9 PA.90.03 DRAFT ~ To Gaging Station ~ cog Hydrology Study Area Existing Front Line Fire Trail San Barnat , National Forest Wilson LEGEND eeeeeeeeee Community Equestrian Trail Recommende~ Un~rpass ............... Bicycle Lane (m ps.m.m- c,.. H) Bicycle Path (~n Parkway- C~II I) future need Ihmt m~y ~ ~dJusled over time ~s Ihe City ~nd the School DIstrict develop. OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN EXHIBIT 10 Etiwanda North~ Specific Plan ~ity of GPA.90,03B DRAFT ~Rancho Eucamon~a I San Bernarqino National Forest i it 850' CURVE RADIUS ~ _ Banyan Street ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ Summit - ~ ..... ~ ~'"'~ ~""""' ~'~'" ~ Major Divided ARerial A1 Typical Section ~ ............ ~ 'Day Creek ~ulevard . ~-~ .... m m m m m m Special Divided Seconda~ Aderial ~ ~ ~ -Wilson Avenue (east of Day Creek BIrd.) ~ P ~ , ,, , ~' Seconda~ A~erial , ; , ' ~ .Wilson Avenue -Etiwan~ Avenue · Milliken Avenue .U~r Day Cr~k ~ulevard ._ ~-~ -~ Argue ~ mm am Collector ~ ~ ~' ' ~ ~ .Banyan Strut *R~hester Avenue ~ ~ / .Vintage ~ive .Wardman Bull~k R~d · Summit Avenue -East Avenue · ~n Seva ine .~her L~ Streets CIRCULATION PLAN EXHIBIT 11 /Etiwanda North''~ Specific Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA.90.03B DRAFT San , National Forest OS FC OS OS OS HR\ HR OS UC UC -~ [ ~C UC ¥L RC OSl : ~: *-VL UC UC UC ' PRdpOSE0 REGIONAL PARK -~ FC FC : FC- Avenue · ' FC (RC) LEGEND ~ . I.~.lnd., '~,~rlh ~.p~Hh~ Pl.~g Low Density Residential (2-4 DU/AC) ', ! ,,. .........[] Very Low Density Residential (<2 DU/AC) l~'oposed Trait Head 'k Gagtrig Station Very Low Residential Estate (1 DU/AC/ Proposed Equestrian Facility 'k Hillside Residential (~2 DU/Net Builda~le Acre) ~ Proposed School Site 'k "' ~" i ~ ~'] Hillside Residential Estate (< 1 DU/Net Buildable Acre} i Proposed Park Site 'k i ,: . _ F¢ Flood Control/RIparisn ' ! ": I ' OS Open Space 'k NOTE: J""~'~! ~i' IN Instituhonal nor ii title locilion e~te $pectttc, The "1 FZ Fault Zone proleclla future neeti that may tie ~ ., :""'~'; RC; Resource Conservation Area {$evelop (NIt;)Nelghi:x3rhood Commercial 'k LAND USE PLA EXHIBIT 17 4~' ~tiwanda North Specific Plan City of rest OAKS ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS ~ I~-.. ~:: I * ' * UPPER ETIWANDA --- i ~ ~' ,.:~ -- ...... LEGEND ~ ,n ....~ ....~ ~ E~alyptus W~ow ~--~ ~ ~ry Iralind P~/~ sycm~em and Aultt/.an W~ow~ and accents o1 Knobcone Pie ' ~ ~Nf~ma Syca~t/A~tmBln W~ ' ~ ~ny~ Live ~k/C~Mf~m ~8ck Olk ,e~ It~ lAirroe In. pileliars, wllh Western Re.bu. and Afncln . ~ ~RI~NI Sycamre/~ny~ Live Oak ~ ~ J '~ ~ ~/Alrtcan Sumac ~ ~d B~/~f~d P~lr/Crl~ Myrt~ Cm~ry i,ll~ Pine i~ locihis ot Eriefore Pelt and Japanese ' ' :-- - Pqo~ trill. ' t~'~.i ff ~ Cleforal Pl~ The CHAFFEY Neighloe~oa wi~ a, chmrlclerlle, Uy hallye field ~'., ' ~~ - LANDSCAPE THEME PLAN EXHIBIT 19 ~~ N~ th ~' ~' ~pecific P a Eti n a DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01, THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) On June 26, and continued to July 24, August 14, September 11, October 9, November 13, December 11, and December 17, 1991, and January 8, January 22, and February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings concerning the recommended adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, hereinafter referred to as the "Plan." (ii) The Plan comprises approximately 6,850 acres located generally north of Wilson Avenue (with a portion north of Highland Avenue), south of the National Forest (with portions within the National Forest), east of the extension of Milliken Avenue, and west of the City limit of the City of Fontana, all as referenced in the Land Use Map, Exhibit 17, of the Plan. (iii) On file in the City Clerk's office, and incorporated herein by this reference, is a full, true, and correct copy of the Plan. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution; 2. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, this Commission has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Plan and General Plan 90-03B and recommended that the City Council certify the Report, including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. 3. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, this Commission has reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 90-03B and recommended adoption by the City Council. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the Plan has been drafted to include, in text and accompanying diagrams, all of the information as follows: a. The distribution, location, and extent of the land uses, including open space, within the area covered by the Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 b. The proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy', and other essential infrastructure proposed to be located within the area of the Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Plan. c. The standards and criteria by which development will proceed for land uses within the Plan and standards for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources, where applicable, within the area of the Plan; and d. A description of the implementation measures, including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out those provisions referenced in subparagraphs a, b, and c above within the area of the Plan. 5. This Commission hereby re=commends that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt Specific Plan 90-01, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, on file in the City Clerk's office and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to each and every environmental mitigation measure set forth, in full, in the "Etiwanda Nortlh Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA :,:!.~ STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL .ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF - ROCKFIELD - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the preservation and transplanting of 22 Olive trees ( Olea europa ) along the western slope of the flood control levy adjacent to the Community Trail for a previous ly approved Tract Map consisting of 154 single family lots on 67.8 acres of land and for a previous ly approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 84 single family lots within the tract, located in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Summit Avenue and San Sevaine Road - APN: 226-111-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND: A. Plannin~ Commission Approval: Tentative Tract 13566 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1987, with a total of 161 single family lots. At the time of original approval, the exact location of the equestrian trail along the east tract boundary was not datermined and a condition was placed on the tract which stated: "Community Equestrian Trails shall be provided along the north, south, and east tract boundaries- The precise alignment shall be shown on the final map which shall be reviewed and approved by the Trails Advisory Committee prior to recordation of the map." (See Exhibit "A," Resolution No- 87-126. ) Also at that time, six Olive trees were approved for removal along the east tract boundary and were to be replaced, in kind and on a one-for-one basis, with minimum. 15-gallon size trees · At their meeting of June 3, 1987, the Trails Advisory Committee expressed their preference that the trail along the east tract boundary be located at the bottom of the levee adjacent to the Olive trees in ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOD. TO TT 13566 - ROCKFIELD DEVELOPMENT February 26, 1992 Page 2 order to take advantage of the 'unique environment. The Committee also felt that the Olive trees should be annexed into a Landscape Maintenance District to help ensure preservation. A design review for the tract was submitted by Rockfield Development Corporation in December of 1987. At that time, the tentative map was modified which reduced the total number of lots to 154. During the review process, Rockfield also modified their design review submittal to include only 84 of the 154 lots- Also during the course of the review process, comments were received from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District which required that pad elevations of those lots along the east property line be raised approximately 5-10 feet above the natural grade in order for them to be above the 100-year flood level- This requirement necessitated the re~0val or transplanting of all of the existing Olive trees and resulted in an area being created adjacent to the flood control levee which allowed for a level trail surface. The applicant was directed by the Design Review Committee (April 7, 1988 ) to submit an arborist report which approved the feasibility of relocating the Olive trees to the upper slope of the flood control levee- An arborist's report was prepared by Poly Associates (see Exhibit "B") which indicated that of the 52 Olive trees along the east boundary tract, 34 were suitable candidates for transplanting. The design review submittal by Rockfield Development was approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1988, and was conditioned as follows regarding the Olive trees: "That 22 of the existing Olive trees are to be preserved and transplanted to the weste~ slope of the flood control levee adjacent to the Community Trail. The remaining 30 trees shall be removed and replaced with 15-gallon size replacement trees on a one-to-one basis to be planted on the west side of the flood control levy- A landscape and irrigation plan illustrating tree relocation and replacement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to recordation of the final ~p. All planting on the levee is subject to approval by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District." (See Exhibit "C" - Resolution No. 88-114.) A design review for the remaining portion of the tract (70 lots), as well as 5 lots previously a~proved for Rockfield Development, was submitted by Century American in December of 1988 (see Exhibit "D" ). The project received Planning Commission approval on May 24, 1989, and the condition regarding Olive tree replacement was not placed on this project since the lots in question did not abut the east tract boundary. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOD. TO TT 13566 - ROCKFIELD DEVELOPMENT February 26, 1992 Page 3 B. Plan Check Process: Rockfield Development began the plan check process shortly after the project was approved by the Planning Commission in 1988. Each plan check correction notice indicated that written approval from the Flood Control District must be obtained prior to recordation of the tract map. The 22 Olive trees were boxed and stored on-site in mid-1989 to be replanted at some later date. All but seven of these trees were destroyed in the severe Santa Ana winds occurring in the fall of 1989 and winter of 1990. It was then proposed by Land Plan Design Group that the trees be replaced by 15-gallon size Olive trees (see Exhibit "F" - Letter from Ernie Seidel). Planning staff responded in a letter that replacement with 15-gallon size Olive trees was not acceptable (see Exhibit "G"). It was th,en proposed by Land Plan Design Group that 36-inch box size Olive trees be utilized for replacement · City staff responded that this would not be acceptable and in order to fulfill the intent of the original condition that only 96-inch box size trees would be acceptable (see Exhibit "H")- Staff originally received correspondence from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District in ~pril of 1989 that the concept for the equestrian trails along the east tract boundary was acceptable (see Exhibit "I")- Subsequent to this correspondence, City staff received notice from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District in November of 1990 that mature Olive trees would not be acceptable to the District and that an alternative tree should be selected (see Exhibit "J"). The District's concern is that the tree canopy or root system should not encroach into their right-of-way. Both the Planning and Engineering Divisions worked together diligently to try and reach a solution that would be acceptable to all parties involved and agreed upon the following two alternatives in April 1991: 1. Eucalyptus windrow style plantings placed 8 feet on center in addition to 24-inch box Geijera parviflora (Australian Willow) placed 20 feet on center, or 2. A total of twenty-two 96-inch box size replacement trees of either Ma~tenus (Mayten tree), Quercus (Oak), or Geijera (Willow). The Planning Division supported the 96-inch box size replacement tree alternative since it was felt this more closely met the intent of the original condition. This concept was then forwarded to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for their review and PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOD- TO TT 13566 - ROCKFIELD DEVELOPMENT February 26, 1992 Page 4 comment in June 1991 (see Exhibit "K"). The alternative was not acceptable to the Flood Control District as indicated in their letter of July 1991 (see Exhibit "L"). City staff and the applicant worked together over the next several months and determined that the Geijera parviflora (Willow) might meet the requirements of the Flood Control District as well as the concerns of City staff. Information was forwarded to the District on the ~rowth habits, root strncture, and water requirements of the Gei~era. The Flood Control Dist~:ict responded that this tree would be acceptable to them (see Exhibit "M"). The intent is to plant the Willow trees along the slope between the trail and the retention basins (see Exhibit "N" ). ANALYSIS: Rockfield Development and the Caryn Company are requesting (see Exhibit "0") that Planning Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 88-114 be modified to allow the use of 15-gallon Geijera parviflora (Willow) along the eastern tract boundary. Staff is in support of the applicant's request because even if the Olive trees were still suitable for transplanting, the concept wou].d not be acceptable to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. A substantial amount of staff time was spent trying to resolve ~-he issue with the Flood Control District and it took many months to reach a solution which would be agreeable to all parties involved. The remaining issue which needs to be resolved is the spacing and size of the trees along the slope. The applicant is requesting we modify the condition to allow them to use 15-gallon size trees. Although it is unfortunate that the Olive trees were damaged and are no longer viable for replanting, staff does not feel that this size is appropriate in comparison with what was originally intended to be planted on the slope. Further, the Tree Preservation Ordinance requires replacement with the largest nursery grown stock available. Staff has verified that 36-inch box size Gei~era are available and would be approximately 12 to 14 feet tall with a 5- to 6-foot canopy spread. By contrast a 24-inch box size tree would be approximately 9 to 10 feet tall with a 3- to 4- foot canopy spread and a 15-gallon size tree would be 7 to 8 feet tall with a 2- to 3-foot crown. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valle~ Daily Bulletin newspaper, the project site has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify Planning Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 88-114 as follows: "The western slope of the flood control levee adjacent to the Community Trail shall be planted with twenty-two 36-inch box size Gei~era parviflora (Australian Willow) in lieu of preserving the twenty-two Olive trees which were existing on the site · The PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MOD- TO TT 13566 - ROCKFIELD DEVELOPMENT February 26, 1992 Page 5 remaining thirty Olive trees which have been removed shall b replaced with 15-gallon size Gei~era parviflora replacement tree on a one-to-one basis to be planted on the west side of the flood control levee- A landscape and irrigation plan illustrating the relocation and replacement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to recordation of the final phase of the map- All planting on the levee is subject to approval by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. All trees shall be planted prior to the issuance of any building permits for any lots within Phases 2-4, specifically Lots 45-57, 69-92, and 124-128 of the approved Tentative Map." R s//~lrtysubmitte~ City Planner BB:BN/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Resolution No. 87-126 Exhibit "B" - Poly Associates Correspondence Exhibit "C" - Resolution No. 88-114 Exhibit "D" - Site Plan - Century American Exhibit "E" - Site Plan - Century American & Rockfield Exhibit "F" - Letter from Land Plan Design Group dated January 16, 1990 Exhibit "G" - Letter to Land Plan Design Group dated January 26, 1990 Exhibit "H" - Letter to Land Plan Design Group dated July 5, 1990 Exhibit "I" - Letter from San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated April 27, 1989 Exhibit "J" - Letter from San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated November 5, 1990 Exhibit "K" - Letter to San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated June 12, 1991 Exhibit "L" - Letter from San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated July 2, 1991 Exhibit "M" - Letter from San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated October 9, 1991 Exhibit "N" - Conmmnity Trail at East Tract Boundary Exhibit "O" - Letter from Applicant Requesting Modification to Condition .Resolution of Approval RESOLUTION NO. 87-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COHMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13566 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13566, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Caryn Development, applicant, for 'the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 67.8 acres of land into 161 single family lots located at the southwest corner of Summit Avenue and Almond Avenue (APN: 226.-111-02), regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on July 22, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the P1 anning Commi :;si on has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Conmnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as fol 1 ows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 13566 and the Map thereof: ( a ) The tentative tract i s consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific. plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoi dabl e injury tO humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - CARYN DEVELOPMENT July 22, 1987 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Decl arati on i s issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13566, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: ~ivision:_ 1. Commu~uestrian Trails shall be provided along the north, south, and east trac boundaries. The h t precise alignment shall be s own on the final map whic. h shall b.e review. ed and approve.d by the Trails 2. One Texas umbrella tree and six (6) Olive trees are approved for removal along the east property line and shall be replaced in kind on a one-for-one basis with minimum 15 gallon size. 3. The Eucalyptus windrow along the north boundary shal 1 be removed and replaced with col umnar type trees as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 4. Average lot size within the tract shall be 15,000 square feet. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City P1 anner pri or to recordation of the final map. Engineering Division: 1. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications) on the project (south) side of 24th Street (Upper Summit Avenue ) shal 1 be undergrounded along the project frontage extending to the first pole off site (north and east) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. Reimbursement of one-half the City adopted cost for undergroundi ng from future development on the opposite side of the street is not feasible, because the property is in the County. 2. Notice of intention to form and/or join the Lighting and Landscape Districts shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 3. The developer shal 1 submit a request for the vacation of Almond Avenue as shown on the tentative map prior to final map approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - CARYN DEVELOPMENT July 22, 1987 Page 3 4. If the project is to be phased, the streets and drainage facilities to be constructed with each phase shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 5. All interior local streets shall be constructed with a 36 foot curb separating within a 50 foot right-of- way. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side. 6. Twenty-fourth Street (Upper Sunm~it Avenue) shall be improved full width to include curb and gutter on the north side for the entire length of the project. 7. Lower Loop Road from the east tract boundary to Cherry Avenue: a. Construct the roadway to include a minimum 26 foot wide pavement (2 lanes), full fill embankments for the ul timate roadway width, and full length culvert capacity to pass a QIO0 under the roadway. : b. If the tract is to be developed in phases: (1) Bonding for the total cost per (a) above shal 1 be provided pri or to recordation of the first final tract map. (2) The construction per (a) above shall be completed pri or to occupancy release of any parcels in any tracts containing parcels south of the Lower Loop Road and/or the first two east/west tiers of parcels north of the Lower Loop Road. The developer shall make a good faith effort to obtain an easement for the roadway, however th i s requirement shal 1 be limited by the provisions of Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map. Act. ( 3 ) Either the roadway per ( a ) above or similar improvement of 24th Street from the east tract boundary to Cherry Avenue shal 1 be completed prior' to the occupancy release of any parcels within the total tract. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - CARYN DEVELOPMENT July 22, 1987 Page 4 c. Funding assistance for the roadway per (a) above shal 1 be as fol 1 ows: ( 1 ) The Systems Development Fees and Dra i nage Acreage Fees from the project may be credited toward the direct cost of construction of the portion of the roadway (including related regional drainage facilities) across the basin if so approved by the City Council. (2) A portion of the $500,000 off-site roadway constructi on contri buti on per County Tracts 13564 and 13565 (located to the north of this tract) may be credi ted toward the improvement costs if so approved by the City Council and County. ( 3 ) The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement for the cost of improvements from future development as it occurs inmnediately adjacent to the roadway; however, if credit against the $500,000 contribution per Tracts 13564 and 13565 is granted for these portions of the roadway, 'future reimbursements shall be made to the contribution fund and not to the developer. d. The roadway shall intersect Cherry Avenue as far north as possible to provide as much distance as possible from the freeway. 8. The site shall be protected from off-site flood flows as follows or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer: a. West tract boundary: Provide a structural block wall along the entire length, a minimum of 2 feet above and 3 feet below the adjacent natural ground to the west. In addition, the pads adjacent to the wall shall be elevated 2 feet above the adjacent natural ground to the west. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - CARYN DEVELOPMENT july 22, 1987 Page 5 b. North tract boundary: Provide a levee on the north side of 24th Street from the San Sevaine spreading grounds near 24th Street extending northwesterly a sufficient distance to intercept flows from the north,, west, and east and not divert flows to the property to the west. The north face of the levee shall be hard faced and shall have sufficient longitudinal grade to be self cleaning. c. East tract boundary: The pads shall be elevated above the 100 year flood level within the basins to the east. The west bank of the north basin shall be reinforced to prevent erosion from flows entering the basin. 9. Storm drain facilities shall be provided as determined necessary by a final drainage report and as approved by the City Engineer. The system design shall provide QIO0 protection. A master plan shall be provided for the off-site area to the west. All facilities necessary to serve the area to the west that may be located within this tract shall be constructed to the tract boundary. 10. The proposed storm drain .within the rear of Lots 2, 3, and 6 shall be relocated to be within Streets J and K. 11. A detailed alignment study shall be provided for the Loop Road froat the west tract boundary to 24th Street prior to recordatton of the first final map. The study shall investigate both the current Ettwanda Specific Plan "S" alignment and the proposed alignment curving to the north intersecting 24th Street at Wardman Bullock Road. All necessary street right-of-way required for the worst case alignment within this tract shall be dedicated on the ftnal map. 12. A detailed alignment study shall be provided for 24th Street extending a sufficient distance off-site to verify that the roadway is placed in an optimum locatton in terms of impact on adjacent properties, transitions to existing pavement, and crossing of the San Sevatne Basin. P Io PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - CARYN DEVELOPMENT july 22, 1987 Page 6 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ElfryeS. Mr./Nier, Chairman ATTEST: /~fa~l~~t~ Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Comtssion 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 Cow~nission held on the 22rid day of July, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: CO!~ISSIONERS: EPIERICK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, r~CNIEL NOES: COI~ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COI~ISSIONERS: TOLSTOY May 2, 1988 ASSOCIATES . /i- ..I Mr. Steve Kelly ~M "~ ~ "' ' 230 Newport Canter Drive Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Steve: Re: T.T. 13566 - Olive Trees As you and ~he City of Rancho Cucamonga .have reques'=ed, I re/ns~ectea the above trees recentlW with respect to selecting those olives that would be candidates for transplanting. The results of that inspection follow. There are currentlW 52 olive trees on the eastern border of the propertW. The approach I took on thi~ inspection was to select onlW the best trees of this group that could be transplanted. This selection was based upon the trees' health, appearance, and the feasibilit~ of such a transplant. As a consequence, I found' 34 trees that are possible candidates for trans- .planting. I have grouped ~em in prioritW of transplant, as followS: GROUP 1 - These trees are the best candidates for transplanting as theW are in good condition and appearance, and their trunks are not too large: Nos. ii, 12, 13, 14, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 41, 42, and 43. GROUP 2 - The following trees are gout next best candidates for trans- planting: Nos. 4, 20, 22, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 49. GROUP 3 - The trees in this group are not as good as the others in appearance or health, or the~ have the large basal woodW growth (hurls) that would limit the feasibXlit~ of transplant- ing ~em, as evidenced b~ t'~e enclosed two pictures of tree #38, which has a basal hurl of at least 8 feet. The trees in Group 3 are numbers t, 2, 3, 9, 18, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 50, and 52. Should there be ang questions on this report, please give me a call. Si ncerel ~, Paul A. Rogers Consulting Arborist Member - American Societg of RESOLUTION NO. 88-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13566 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 24TH STREET, EAST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) A. Recitals. (i) Caryn Development has filed an application for the Design Review of Tentative Tract No. 13566 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On June 8, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. ( i i i ) A11 1 egal prerequi sites to the adopti on of this Resol uti on have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on June B, 198B, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed design is in accor~ with the objective of the Development Code and Eti wanda Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed design t s i n compl iance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan; and 4. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the publ i c heal th, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSIO~ .SOLUTION NO. TT 13566 Caryn Development June 8, 1988 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and i n the attached Standard Condi ti ons attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) Verification of the high water level (HWL) of the San Sevaine Spreading Basins adjacent to the east property boundary i s requi red pri or to recordati on of the final map. In the event there is a major deviation from the previously calculated high water level, the site shall be redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer, 2) That any off-site easements required from County Flood Control shall be obtained prior to recordation of the final map. 3) The off-site slope easement adjacent to the western property line shall be planted for erosion control and that a temporary irrigation system shall be maintained for a period of at least 6 months by the developer, consistent with the standard requirement for slope planting for custom lot subdivisions. A landscape and i rri gati on pl an shal 1 be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of any permits. 4) That 22 of the existing olive trees are to be preserved and transplanted to the western slope of the flood control levy adjacent to the Community Trail. The h remaining 30 trees shall be removed and replaced wit 15- gallon size replacement trees on a one-to-one basis to be planted on the west side of the flood control levy. A landscape and irrigation plan illustrating tree relocatton and replacement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ctty P1 anner and C i ty Engineer pri or to recordatton of the final map. All planting on the levee is subject to approval by the San Bernardino County Flood 5) The applicant shall submit a tree removal permit to address the proposed removal of any part of the off-site windrow adjacent to the western property line prior to recordation of the final map. 6) The design of the tract's entry monumentation shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Commfttee and City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - Caryn Development june 8, 1988 Page 3 7 ) That a permanent decorative wal 1 treatment shal 1 be utilized along the western property line unless a map has been approved on the adjacent property at the time this project is to be constructed, in which case a wood fence may be utilized, subject to the City Planner's approval. The wood fencing shal 1 then receive a consistent paint or stain treatment. Regardless of whether a project has been approved on the adjacent property, the west boundary of Lot 1 shall receive a decorative block treatment. 8) A natural stone shall be utilized for any fieldstone veneer. However, other types of stone manufactured veneers may be considered subject to further design review, prior to issuance of building permits. g) That perimeter walls (including walls along street 'I"), return walls between units, and corner sideyard walls shall be required and shall be designed with a decorative treatment. Final design of the wall treatment along Summit Avenue shall be subject to review by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 10) That 360o architectural detailing shall be provided on all side and rear elevations with an enhanced treatment provided for those units which si de-on to Summit Avenue or the Community Trail. 11} Driveways shall not exceed a width of 16' through the publ i c ri ght-of-way. 12) Final design of the equestrian trail s (fencing, landscaping, grading) and an equestrian trails plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation of the final map. The trail width shall be a minimum of 12' free and clear and slopes adjacent to the trail shall not exceed a 3-to-1 ratio. 13'} Additional landscaping, .including ground cover, shrubs and additional trees shall be added to the west slope of the flood control levy. Details shall be provided on final landscape and irrigation plans and shall be subject to review by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. All planting on the levee is subject to approval by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 14} Lots gO and 91 shall be meet the minimum width requirement of 80' as measured at the required front setback. PLANNING COMMISSIOn' SOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - Caryn Development June 8, 1988 Page 4 15) Fifty percent of all of the homes shall have side-in garages. Eight additional units shall be have side-on garages for a total of 42. 16} The unit on lot #46 shall be reversed in order to prevent car lights from shining into the living room areas. 17} Community equestrian trails shall be constructed and improved at the time of street construction. 18) Final design of the grading and drainage for the western property line shall be resolved prior to recordation of the Final Map. 19) All conditions from the previous tentative tract map approval shall apply. 20} Front yard landscaping shall be required on all lots. The design of the landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits.. Engi neeri ng Di vi si on 1) All off-site easements and agreements for the maintenance of the Community Trail shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District prior to final map approval. 2} Final design of the portal~ located within the public right-of-way shall be subject to approval of the Design Review Committee and the City Engineer. 3) Driveway locations shall be revised as follows: a. Lot 12 shall access as close to the west property line as possible. b. Lot 57 shall access from street 'B'. 4) A 12' wide storm drain easement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be provided on lot 27. 5} Community Equestrian Trail Improvement Plans shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 6} 24th Street and the Lower Loop Street shal 1 be constructed in conformance with the latest City adopted cross section in effect at the time of the Final Map recordati on. PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. TT 13566 - Caryn Development June 8, 1988 Page 5 4. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1988. B Buller, ~~r~ h ntn 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 Co~,ntsston held on the 8th day of June. 1988. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: CONNISSIONERS: CHITIEA. EMERICK. ~NIEL NOES: C~ISSIONERS: NONE ~SENT: C~ISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY. TOLSTOY NORTH CITY OF x~m~'- RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~m,m:~ FLANNING DIVISION r~l~ EXI4IBIT: 2~-/SCALE: PDMxT'.~I'No-. Drv'LRION LAND.PLAN DESIGN GROUP 16, 1990 ~181~i~i~1~111~181~1~ Ms. Beverly Niasen CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9320 Baseline Road, Unit C Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Project: Tract 13566 Olive Tree~ :lob No.: ETW 741 Subjec:: Condition of Olive Tre~ Schedule for Replan~n$ This letter ia to document the sequmce of events with reatud to the selection digXing and storing of the mature Olive trees fo~ replanting on the !eve~ at the ess: tract boundary of Tract 13566. conditions which have takfm a toll on the condition of the twenty-two (22) trets tim were trees with rccopition of pom'bility of wind cmdi~a~ which are norarally cham~eris~c of thatixu~cularm Olive tree as follows: All but scvm (7) of the Olive trees ~ been blown over a number of dineS even though they lave bern mmppmu~ mid re4mbofed. The fired condition of tlm tme ism follows: Seven(7)ofthetremsareinthsoriSjfmiboxnsdcondidon- The Upon my sitz visit of early Inntory, I noted tim · mareher of the trees had severe structural ReSets was calkd mui satt plu~ of the htest tnss condi~om-with request for Thiswmwiththeundemmdinithmdmtreeswnldrunakindmmmforanaddid°nal few moaths until relocmion. Upon my re:as axnmmladom with Rackfield Develolxnmt Corn;tony, I wm told thin ibm maybe smote emmlmed sd2dule for rephndngtheOliveUealmedmthe fimlgrsJinfoflbeleveebdnfexpedited. In either case, dmre's need for an additional evdmUton ofdm mmaininl tre~ I was mid by Rocln'idd that they fdt that tlmm were appmxinmely five (5) oebsr trees that may lave not been severely damaged by the wind and, therefore, could bs comidered for replanting also in addition to the seven (7) u'ees that are in good comiifim. 34 Executive Park, Suite 150 / Irvine, California 92714 1 ('/14) 474-4200 1 FAX: (714) 474-4209 Ms. Beverly Nissen CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ETW741 Page2 1/16/90 Rockfield Development will request a meeting and evaluation of the tree conditiom prior to their schedule for replanting. I recommend that the meeting be attend by t~presenlatives from Rockfield, the City and Land Plan Design Group. Because of the uncontrollable circumstances, I would like to recommend that any ttzes not replanted because of severity of damage, be replaced with one (1) 15-pllon tree each as was the approval for the other Olive trees removed not to be tramplanted. Please call me if ytm have any questions. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. I await your reply. sinc.ere y, Corr 15 cc: Sonny Geary, Rocifield Development Rudy Lee, Rockfield Development Tun Unger, Rockfield Development chron '~ CITY OF RANCII0 CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807. Rancho Cuca~m~a, Cai~ornia 91729, (714) 989-1851 January 26, 1990 Ernie 'Seidel Land Plan Design Group 34 Executive Park, Suite 150 Irvtne, CA 92714 SUBjECT: CONDITION OF OLIVE TREES - TRACT 13566 Dear Ernte: Regarding your letter of January-16, 1990 and our subsequent site vtstt*~ of January 24, 1990; I would 11ke to c]artfy several tssues. The~ Planntn9 Dtvtston wt]] requtre written verification free the arbortst* that he has inspected a]] the trees.tn question, tn person and not free photographs only. T~ts verification shall tnc]ude a recoeeendatton as to which trees are still suttable for retanttn9. In addition, the trees that are not suitable for relocatton eust be replaced wtth.the largest grown nursery stock available. Replaceeent wtth 15 gallon trees ts not acceptab]e. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 989-1861. St ncere~ y, COll4UNITY DEVELOPNENT OEPARTNENT PLANNING OIVISION I1 BN:,ls cc: Sonny 6eary, Rockfield Oevelopment ~ /, C,~,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r¢,~t o,,~ n .... ~1, ~anc,~, cucar, o,sa. Cahr ....... ~'2~ .'14 ..... '.~ July 5, 1990 Ernest Seidel Land/Plan/Design Group 34 Executive Park, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: TRACT 13566 - OLIVE TREES Dear Mr. Seidel: Regarding your letter of June 29, notwithstanding the effort to date to preserve the 22 olive trees in question, the Planning Division cannot support replacement with 36" box size trees. As you are aware, the City has approved removal of 30 of the 52 original olive trees for this project subject to the preservation "of 22 trees by transplanting. It would be inconceivable for staff to allow the 22 large olive trees to be replaced with 36" box size. The 22 olive trees average 30 feet in height with a comparable spread. Clearly, replacement trees of approximately 10 feet in height with a 7 foot spread, as you propose, does not meet the intent of the condition · of approval to preserve. The etniu ecceptable replacement size would be 96" box size to satisfy this condition. Anything less would require t through a publ i c heart ng to reconsideratton of the Planning Coemm sston modify this condition. Your letter continues to assert, as did your previous letter of f have been severely damaged january 16, that a majority o these trees from winds and are not suitable for replanting. We have asked for, and request again, that your arbortst conduct a field inspection of all 22 trees and submit a written report to the Planning Division as to the health and condition of the trees. This report shall include a recomendation as to which trees are still suitable for replanting. Please be advised that this issue may effect occupancy release and should, therefore, be addressed by the developer and your firm as expeditiously as possible. ',~ ..... ~,%lham J Alexander Charles J. Buquet II ~ '~. ;! .....· Dcnn,. [. '4h,ut Debt,rah X Brown Pamela J Wright I,kk I.H, \it [' tt U Ernest Sei del T 13566 July 5, 1990 Page 2 Sincerely, Dan Col eman Principal Planner DC :ml g cc: Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner Tony Gearyo Rockfi el d Development Co. TRANSPORTATION / FLOOD - ONTROL cou. oF DEPARTMENT ~bd S~aT · Sin ~m~, CA 92415-0835 * (714) ~7-2 /~/ /~/~///lll~f~ ' ' / / ~ril 27, 1989 ~.: 1-800/1. O0 City of ~ ~~ x i "': '+ ' P.O. ~x 807 ~ ~~, ~ 91730 CiTy CF _, *. ~r~tion of ~act 13566 [Dear Ray Allard of Fuscoe Williams Lindgren & Short, by copy of letter attached dated February 7, 1989, has requested the District give written conceptual approval of several items prior to the recordation of the first phase of Tract 13566. There are several itere in the letter which need to be addressed. Iten No. 1 refers to the aligrlrent of Lower Loop Road (aka Wardman-Bullock Road). We assume the alignment, when established, will be dependent on the City's traffic needs and patterns. The general concept of a road crossing is acceptable, however, Flcbd Control District needs have not been addressed to date. We have received a scheTatic plan for borrow in basins 1-4, however, cannot approve it until the basins are engineered in detail with appropriate technical backup. We feel that the right-of-way could be provided to the City for the Lc~er Loop Road in exchange of Cherry and Almond Avenues right-of-~my. However, we have only received a basic dimensionless map which is not adequate to evaluate the monetary differences of the easerents and fee parcels. A title report of the concerned streets may be necessary to evaluate the present worth of the existing roads and the future joint use of District facilities by the City. The agreevent may be appropriate to finslize for the subject area. In addition we are in receipt of plans for the landscaping and trails to be provided by the subject develo~nent. The basic concept is acceptable, however, further review of detail and coordination will be necessary before final approval can be given by the District. EX:HI {1- _1: Mr. Russell Magui re April 27, 1989 Page Two Iten 3 refers to the 100-year flood ~ater surface elevation and grading of pads one foot higher than 100-year ~r~ter surface elevation. The District is presently reviewing information suk~nitted by the Developer's engineer regarding the ,high water surface elevation in the basin ares. We will further respond on this it~n when our' review is ccm~lete. A recent letter fr~n F~4A suggests that the creeks may, in a laree flood, deviate frown traditional flowpaths for this San Sevaine System. Item 4 refers to "Permit Application for Storm Drain into P~ins." These will be processed accordingly. The District will have other concerns as the concepts presented by the Developer 's Engineers hecate more technically refined and engineered. The District is willing to cooperate with the City on tba concepts of the road crossing and r~na-~cape/Equestrian easements (possibly fee) as long as the District 's rights and requirerents are res~m~.-ted. The District will continue to work with the: City and the Developer's Engineers in attaining these concepts. Mr, we cannot give final aE~roval of any of the itens noted above without receiving more detailed engineering plans to resolve our concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me a~: (714) 387-2619 should you have any questions on this request. LSN/gld Attac2rent as noted cc: Ray Allard, P.E. KAM/JAS/Reading File TRANSPORTATION/FLOC- CONTROL cou.TY D E P A R T M E N T ~\~'~ "'{'////- /..vmo. M..T AL //,.~ PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY ~2~5 e:' Third Stret. Sen ~.rdiM, CA 92415-0835 · (714) 387-28~ /~!ilit~%~ ~. Brad ~ller, City P~r City of ~ ~~ ' 10500 Civic ~ter ~i~ ~ ~~, ~ 91730 ~: ~ 13566 ~~ ~l~ti~ of Oli~ ~M ~rly ~ja~t to ~ ~ ~ 9 E m~ of ~y ~r~. ~: It ~ ~ to ~r att~ti~ ~t ~ City of ~l~r of ~ 13566 to i~l ~tTt~ (22) mt~e oli~ trM ~ sl~ a f~ f~t ~t of ~r ~t~e ~trol r~, ~~t ~ ~ ~ ~ai~ ~r~ gr~ ~ of 24~ Strut. ~ri~ a s~t visit to ~ site ~ ~~tim of trM, ~ fel ~s ~ ~d ~ r~i~r~. ~ iM~hti~ ~ i~t~ ~ ~r ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ of ~ trM to ~r~ ~t ~r ~ture ~ ~~ li~ ~ ~rMly ~ ~ e of ~ ~tr~ r~. ~ s~t ~ City ~i~r a ~ler, ire ~le t~ or elm ~ tr~ in ~s are, ~i~ ~d ~t ~~ m ~r ~tr~ r~ ~r ~ a r~ ~tm ~ ~d ~te~ ~r~ffi ~r ~isti~ le. ~ ~e ~ ~rM ~t ~r~i~ r~ts s~ ~ ~rs ~ gr~ ~irre~ wi~ Mt ~ r~ ~ ~e r~~t ~1~ in ~r int~r~ 1~ s~te. ~ ~ for ~i~r~ ~s Mri~ totter. Ple ~ ~t Mitre to ~~ I at (714) 3~-26~ if ~ i~ ~ ~ti~ r~~ ~is rMt. Ve t ,y~ ~~, P.E. ~y ~ IJ~~W File T H E C i T r' ,C - DA NC PIC) C LICA M©NC A June 12, 1991 Chiti Onamangu San Bernardino County Flood Control District 825 E. Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92415 SUBJECT: TRACT 13566 - LANDSCAPE PLAN Dear Mr. Onamangu: The Planning and Engineering Divisions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga have been working with Land Plan Desic.~n Group to try and resolve the landscaping issues along the east boundary of Tract 13566 adjacent to Flood Control District property- I have attached the latest memos on this project for your review- I understand that Flood Control District has some concerns about what would be acceptable on the slope adjacent to their service road- I would appreciate receiving any input you could provide on the attached memo regarding the provision of 96" box oak trees on the slope- I believe it would be in everyone's best interest to resolve this issue as soon as possible. If I can answer any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at (714) 989'1861- Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Beverly Nissen Associate Planner BN: ds cc: Dan James Attachment Mayor Dennis L. StoOt ~ CouncilmemOef Oiane Willlares Mayor Pro-Tern William J. Alexander Councilmember Pamela J. Wright Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager . , CouncilmemOer Cha~es J. Buquet .. . ~ancno Cucamonga. CA 9172Q · (714) 080-~ ~_51 · IC~00 C~v~c Center Dr,re · PO Box 807 · f_-J(,fffD!!' It U'-" TRANSPORTATION/FLOC CONTROL ~. . COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT .us.,c wo..s ' 825 East Third Street · San Bernardlno. CA 92415-0835 · (714) 387-2800 ~~/' KE~ A. MILLE~ Fax No. (714) 387-2667 ~~/ Director ~ J~y 2, 1991 JUL 3 J~ File No: 1-802/1.00 ~v~ly Ni~ Ci~ of ~o ~~a 10500 Civic ~ ~ive ~o ~~a, ~ 97129 Re: Zone 1, ~ 13566 ~ Planting Adjac~t to SBCFCD ~~f-Way ~~. Nm: ~f~~ ~e ~de ~ y~ le~ ~ J~ 18, 1991, ~ ~ ~le~o~ ~nvetion of ~y, J~ 24, 1991. ~e le~ ~ a~~~ pr~ ~e pl~t~ of 96" ~x ~ ~ at 40' ~c~ alo~ ~e ~e ~ ~ion. I ~~, ~~ ~ ~nv~tion, ~t ~e ~ ~e ev~~ ag~olia ~ ~t g~ ~ ~ 70' ~ ~ ~t~ ~r~d ev~ wide. ~e r~ g~ cl~ ~ ~e ~a~. ~ ~e ~ y~, we ~ve revi~ ~ o~ ~ pl~t~ pro~ ~ ~ve ~ t~ rela~ ~ ~ition ~ ~e ~~t: la~ PI~ ~i~ ~. ~ ~nt~u~ ~ition ~, ~t ~e ~ ~i~ ~d ~ on o~ ~ol r~d, ~r ~e ~t ~ ~ ~~~ ~ lev~. We ~e still ~~~ ~ m~~, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ go~e ~ g~ ~els et~ ~e ~ ~ ~~ ~~t hol~ ~ ~ ~al lev~ ~s~. We ~ore ~lude ~t ~ prowl ~ill d~ ~t ~t ~ r~Hret ~ ~efore is ~t a~pt~ble. We do, h~E, ag~ wi~ y~ ~t it will ~ ~ ev~one's ~ ~~t ~ rel~ ~s ~e ~ ~efore pro~ ~t y~ ee ~ Mt wi~ ~ ~ f~ a rel~on ~ ~n ~ ~s~le. We ~~, ~ all ~e revi~ r~~, y~ ~ ~e ~ at~le ~ siz~ ~ ~e ~red of ~e r~ ~. ~ ~11 facili~ ~e revi~. Ple a~ all ~~m ~ ~ S. Ne, P.E., ~oj~ ~g~, ~i~/~ ~e bj~ ~ ~11 ~ at (714) 899-2941 if you ~ve ~y ~i~. V~ ~y ~, eIN. ~, P.E. ~id~t ~~ Ri~/~ ~~ Fi~ ~n~l bj~ ~:cl ~is S. Ne, P.E. ~/~/~~ File -_ ,. .- .. TRANSPORTATIONIFLOFD CONTROL r~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT -~-~ .usuc .~ttl~ Irb2~N) KEN A MILLER OCT ]. 0 ~991 34 ]bect~ve Z:~dc, 9.ti. te 3.55 Zz'vine, C~ 9273.4 ~ 3.3566 Willow) tree and determined that these tress, ~f planted with Dil~r ct a~ 04~tb o~' root. baz~ie~s, ale accapt'_mhle. ~o/s~ c~: ~ S. Neeb, ~. (.,,tnly Adnnnlstratlve Ofhce[ MARSHA TUROCI ...... First Oistrlcl BARBARA CRAM RIORDAN Ihl;,I D~he~t MICHAEL G. WALKER JON D. MIKELS ....... Second District LARRY WALKER· . A~thtdnl Adnldu$[rdhve OH.:er R()fiERT t IIAMMOCK Filth r~i,t,,' W~rkS Our original Condition of Approval required us to remove and replace twenty-two existing olive trees during rough grading operations. This was accomplished in the winter of 1989. Subsequent to the removal, we were informed that the San Bernardino Flood Control District would not allow the replacement of these olive trees as indicated on the city approved landscape plans. I refer to a letter from Lou Neeb to Brad Bullet dated November, 1990. At that point, our consultant, Land Plan Design Group, commenced negotiations between the city and the flood control district and in October, 1991 the parties agreed on Australian Willow Trees in lieu of the olive trees. City staff is requiring we install seventy-six each, forty-eight inch minimum size boxed Australian Willow Trees in lieu of the original olive trees. Staff is also requiring we replant the remaining olive trees at a new location off site of our project. We have requested the city staff allow us to install fifteen gallon trees in lieu of boxed trees. In view of our costs to date, removing and trying to maintain the original olive trees, as well as staff's request for numerous additional forty-eight inch boxed Australian Willow's, we feel this specification to be excessive and too much is being asked. of our firm. RESOLUTION NO. 88-114A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPROVED TRACT MAP NO. 13566 CONSISTING OF 84 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITHIN A SUBDIVISION OF 154 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 67.8 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND SAN SEVAINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 226-111-02 A. Recitals. (i} On June 8, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-114, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, the Design Review for a portion of Tentative Tract 13566. (ii) On January 28, 1992, a request was filed by Rockfield Development/Caryn Co. to modify the condition of approval requiring the preservation and transplanting of 22 existing 0live trees. (iii) On February 26, 1992, th~ Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B- Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows~ 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows= (a) The application applies to property located at the south side of 24th Street, east of Wardman Bullock Road within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)~ and (b} The property to the north is Low Residential with an approved Tentative Tract 13565, to the east is a retention basin/spreading grounds, to the south is a .retention basin and open space, and to the west is vacant land de~ignated Low Residential~ and PLA/qNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-114A MOD. TO TT 13566 - ROCKFIELD DEVELOPMENT February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) The revised wording of Planning Condition No. 4 does not substantially alter the general intent of the original condition but does allow the developer flexibility in fulfilling the condition as well as meeting the requirements of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows= (a) That the previously approved tentative tract and design review is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code~ and (b) That the proposed modification to conditions of approval will not cause inconsistencies with the General Plan and Development Code~ and (c) That the proposed modification is not likely to cause public health or safety problems. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and that a Negative Declaration was issued on July 22, 1987. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies Resolution No. 88-114 by changing Condition No. 4 under Planning Division to read as follows: The western slope of the flood control levee adjacent to the Community Trail shall be planted with twenty-two 36-inch box size Ue~era parviflora (Australian Willow) in lieu of preserving twenty-two 0live trees which were existing on the site. The remaining thirty trees which have been removed shall be replaced with 15-gallon size Gei~era Darviflora replacement trees on a one-to-one basis to be planted on the west side of the flood control levee. A landscape and irrigation plan illustrating tree relocation and replacement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to recordation of the final phase of the map. All planting on the levee is subject to approve1 by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. All trees shall be planted prior to the issuance of any building N~rmits for any lots within Phases 2-4, specifically Lots 45-57, 69-92, and 124-128 of the approved Tentative Map. 6. The Secretary to this ~ission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-114A MOD. TO TT 13566 - ROCKFIELD DEVELOPMENT February 26, 1992 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Emef'ald NTurserv' , F'L.~",~ '! , "", 8551 Mandrone · Ranch. Cucamonla, CA 9).7a0 FEB (714) 946-5144 February- 19, 1992 Re; Planning Committee meeting January 14, 1992 Councilwoman Susan Chitiea; We are turning to you in high frustration; the last two Plan amendment meetings we have artended continue a long history of problems. For background, in 1973 we bought our current property on Madrone ("F") on map, to start a nursery, and at that time were furnishing plants to the Farmer Jack Nursery on Foothill. The area was then still part of San Bernardino County. During this same period of time there was a petition' circulated to change the east side of Madrone from agriculture to commercial which we signed. However, when it was resolved, only the areas covered by the people originating the petition were zoned as commercial. We were disappointed to say the least, but hopeful when the City of Rancho Cucamonga was formed in 1977. Now we are told the Master Plan will "solve all our problems" No such thing. We tend to be far too believing; as when, ~n conversation by then Mayor Michaels, we were told that our zoning would be the same as the apartments he was building across the street from us on Madrone. (This resulted in a compleX'of 96 units on 4.5 acres. These units were originally set at 750 sq.ft., but we suggested 1000 and 1100 sq. ft., and this was done. The area to the east of us is now rentals, and included in the specifications was a wall on the east line of our property, 6' tall and to be plastered; a much shorter wall was built, and of course, never plastered. Specifications seem to be enforced on a rather hit or miss level. Page 2 We are puzzled by the effort to down zone our property; in conversation at one time with Mr. Sty, whom we believe owns the property used by the Cask and Cleaver, he stated that he would like to see the area down graded in order to lower his tax base. We feel down zoning the area would cut our personal property value in half; the property we have held as an invest- ment toward, hopefully, our reti.~ement, while the suggestion of permitting two homes per acre in an area of condos is ridiculous. Instead of down zoning, why not carry out the original Master Plan; serious amounts of time and money were spent asoning generate at that time developing the plan, and the re is still appropriate. Sincerely, C :c- - ~2-~': i 7/z/ ~o R. Brent & ArzEtte Hoff~.~n 24 Brj;~rg].e~ Irvire, ~1 ~ fc~lia 92714 (714) 733-9951 F~b~uary 12, 1992 Mr. Jack Lam City Manager The City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Proposed Down Zoning Parcels 208-291-01 and 07 NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway Rancho Cucamonga, California I recently read the City Council's General Plan Amendment 92-01 dated Jan-~y 8, 1992, reoam~ending the down zoning of 10 different parcels to a lower density (from RD 10-14 to single-family dwellings). I agree with the City's attempt to avoid any future development of high-density apartment and condcminium projects as a result of the stereotypical occupants this type of housing seems to attract, and I applaud the City's effort to rectify the current problem areas higher-density housing b~-~ generated. Although I agree with the City Council's direction in general, I believe very strongly that down zoning is completely inappropriate for the above- referenced parcels. In fact, to down zone the above parcels would impact the current land owners economically. In addition, I believe the proposed zoning would render the project virtually useless. The other properties which the City proposed down zoning are located mostly around and in residential areas where lower density for residential development makes sense. However, the pro--~es referenced abo~ are located in a oa~.~ercial area. Three of the four corners located at the Archibald and Arrow Highway intersection are currently zoned and developed as c~mtercial/light industrial. To develop hcanes with large lots would not be attractive to the potential home buyer in this area, as those types of home buyers usually are attracted to more rural surroundings. In addition, the traffic count on Arrow Highway is about 20,000 to 30,000 car trips per day--not a very safe area for a young family to reside with small children. CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ADMINISTR~'TION FEB 18 199Z ,,it 8 ,.,' Mr. Jack Lain February 12, 1992 Page 2 Hence, retail-type use makes the most sense for this property. Presently, the residential c~,~nity located around and south of the property does not have a convenient neighborhood shopping center where they can shop. In 1987, a major southern California retail developer, Diversified Shopping Centers, who developed Haven Village, wins interested in acquiring the property. Diversified had shown the site to Palphs Grocery ~, who was very interested in locating a store at that location as they were not represented in the marketplace. If Ralp~s Grocery Company were to open a store there, then the City would benefit frc~ sales tax dollars generated by the "store. Ralp~s generally develops a 40,000- to 50,000-square-fcot store which generates sales of $400 to $600 per square foot annually. This would provide a good, steady stream of sales tax dollars for the City. In conclusion, I believe the down zoning would render the property virtually worthless, which would not be in the City's best interests. In addition, I believe demographically the people would support a neighborhood shopping center--a shopping center that would greatly benefit the City frc~ the tax revenue generated from retail sales. Therefore, I believe it is in the best interest of the City to reject the down zoning of the parcels referenced above and consider rezoning the project to retail use. Thank you for your consideration of this request. CHAMPION DEVELOPMENT OPTION AGREEMENT THIS OPTION AGREEMENT is made by and among ROBERT K. KIDDER and ROBERT HOFFMAN (collectively "Seller") and CHAMPION/LBS ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California joint venture ("Buyer")- A- Seller is the owner of certain real property located north and east of the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Highway ~n Rancho Cucamonga, described more specifically on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the ,,property"). The property is commonly known as Assessor's parcels Nos. 208-291-01 and 208-291-07 and contains approximately ' n to urchase the yroperty . Buyer P nt the sum of One Thousand ~(~ ' covenants an agreem ~ as follows: 1. ~. Seller hereby grants to Buyer the right (the .,Option") to purchase the property for a total purchase price of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) as adjusted, and in accor- dance with the other terms and conditions of this Option Agreement and of the escrow instructions attached hereto and incorporated This Option will expire at 5:00 p.m. e×ecuted ond doted documents transaction contemplated hereby shall be 2. E_~qcrQ_~. The at Commerce Escrow (the uhe consummated thro g scrow (the ,,Escrow") ,,Escrow Holder"), utilizing appropriately dated escrow instructions in the form of Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the ,,Escrow instructions"). , li ations Durin~ T~m of Option. Within ten (10) 3- ~O~~~he~eC~ti~n hereof, Se~ler shall deliver, business days or cause to be delivered, to Buyer a current preliminary title report for the property issued by Stewart Title Company (the "Title ComRany-), together with copies of all items shown therein. [{Se][e~doesnotde]iverdocuments, the 8u~erconconce[theesc[ow ondSe[[ersho]] return Option money- [~ 2()() ( }~'i'au~a{c. ~ 21 b F]~ol. [.ou~ [~cadL('a]i{oru[a 90802 {2 ~ 3) 437 aO46 I.)EVtiL()I'M L: N"I' (;, I~{,)UP July 14,1989 Mr. Robert Hoffman 502 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Aprox 6.25 acres at NEC Archibald Ave. & Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucuamonga, CA Dear Mr. Hoffman, Benco Development Group would like to make the following offer to purchase the above referenced project. 1. Price: $3,000,000 (three-million dollat,s) 2. Deposit: $25,000 upon opening of escrow. 3. Term of Escrow: 180 days with two (2) sixty (60) day extentions. 4. Escrow ltolder: Fidelity Title lnsuancc Company, Irvine, CA. 5. Contingencies: Architectural and soil studies performed at Buyer's expense. Seller warrants that subject property is free of 'all toxic soils or materials and agrees to perform any and all remedies necessary to satisfy governing agencies at Seller's expense prior to the close of escrow. 6. During the first 60 days, in the event Buyer disapproves of any of the contingencies ~vithin the prescribed period of time, the Buyer shall have the unilateral right to cancel escrow, and any deposits therein shall be immediately released to Buyer. 7. Buyer to obtain site plan approval from the City 9f Rancho Cucuamonga prior to close of escrow. 8. Buyer to have signed leases on a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of total leaseable square footage prior to close of escrow. 9. Seller to allow 120 days after site plain approval from the City of Rancho Cucuamonga to close escrow. 10. Vesting shall be in Benco Development Group or assignee. 11. This offer shall be valid until July 18, 1989. Z/,, .... . ,-~ .:' 4201 LONG BEACH B!VD . C, UITV 4~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92- 02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map as described below: 1. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 5.71 acres of land located in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek - APN: 207-211-18 through 21, 32, and 34. B. For 1.84 acres of land located in Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN: 208-091-36, 56, and 57, and 227-091-72. C. For 13.12 acres of land located in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: Portion of 208-321-24. D. For 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 Dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 207- 591-21 through 35. E. For 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 through 24, 27, 28, and 37, and 38. F. For 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow ~Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-262-01 through 05, 38, and 39. G. For 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-01 and 31. ITEMS E,F,G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J February 26, 1992 Page 2 H. For 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36. I. For 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner' of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-291-01 through 03, 05 through 07, and 208-311-03 04, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 through 27. 2. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 'the following subarea: J. For 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will also consider including this property in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan as an alternative land use designation - APN:~ 208-331-24 through 26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 9~-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map From Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 5.71 acres of land located in Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek - APN: 207-211-18 through 21, 32, and 34. B. For 1.84 acres of land located in Subarea 2 of the Specific Plan on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN: 208-091-36, 56, and 57, and 227-091-72. C. For 13.12 acres of land located in Subarea 3 of the Specific Plan on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4. dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: Portion of 208-321-24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J February 26, 1992 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Development Districts Map as described below: 1. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 207- 591-21 through 35. B. For 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 37, and 38. C. For 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-262-01 through 05, 38, and 39. D. For 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, and approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-01 and 31. E. For 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36. F. For 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-291-01 through 03, 05 through 07, and 208-311-03, 04, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 through 27. 2. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for the following subarea: G. For 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel. The Planning COmmission will also consider including this property in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan as an alternative land use designation - APN: 208-331-24 through 26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J February 26, 1992 Page 4 ACTION REOUESTED: Approval of a General Plan Amendment, Foothill Boulevard' Specific Plan Amendment, and Development Districts Amendment and issuance of a negative declaration. BACKGROUND: The subject applications are a result of public workshops held by the City Council on August 9, 1990, and January 31, 1991, regarding multiple family housing development in the City. These workshops were the result of citizens' concerns relating to the increase in multiple family dwelling unit developments and the decrease in single family dwelling unit developments which was perceptually changing the community's residential character. City staff reviewed the status of multiple family housing prior to the workshops. Using various scenarios, staff identified the effects on City revenues and services if vacant and underdeveloped multiple family land were rezoned to single family or to lower density multiple family designations. During the workshops, citizens and City Council members expressed concern over increased traffic volumes, increased demands on City services, and overcrowded conditions in local schools which were all perceived to be linked to the increase in multiple family dwelling unit development. The Council determined that a reduction in the anticipated total housing unit count would lessen the negative affects of residential growth on the community. As a result of the workshops, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop recommendations to reduce the community's amount of vacant multiple family land and to reduce the density allowed on that land using the City's formal amendment process for the General Plan, Development Code, Etiwanda Specific Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and Victoria Community Plan. The Council's goal was to ensure, at the time of the City's build-out, that multiple family dwelling units would comprise no more than 32 to 35 percent of the City's total dwelling unit count. The Council directed the Planning Commission to investigate all vacant and underdeveloped, uncommitted multiple family 'land for potential land use changes to single family, lower density multiple family, and other non residential designations which may be appropriate on a site-by- site basis. The Planning Commission and City Council have previously reviewed land use designations in the Etiwanda and Victoria areas for density reductions and the Council has redesignated 272.83 acres of undeveloped multiple family designated land. This includes 118.81 acres of land in the Etiwanda Specific Plan changed from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and 18.64 acres in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan changed from Medium Residential PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J February 26, 1992 Page 5 (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to commercial and office designations. Within the Victoria Community Plan, 48.97 acres was changed from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), 76.06 acres changed from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and 10.36 acres changed from Medium-High Residential (14- 24 dwelling units per acre) to non residential uses. On January 14, 1992, staff conducted a meeting with the affected property owners. The intent of the meeting was to give the property owners an opportunity to ask questions of staff regarding the proposed amendments. Many of those who attended the meeting were opposed to the staff recommendations as outlined in this report. ANALYSIS: A. General Issues - A review of issues which apply to all of the subareas within. the application and a review of the cumulative effects of the proposed land use amendments are provided as follows: 1. Land Use: Staff's initial analysis concluded that the land use amendments would stay within residential land use categories. It is anticipated that the least amount of land use conflicts will result from this approach. Therefore, staff's initial evaluation of land use amendments reflects a change from the subject site's existing density range to the next lower density range. If the Planning Commission wishes to consider land uses other than residential for any of the subject properties, then staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue a portion or portions of this item to a later meeting so that staff could provide an analysis. 2. Non Conformina Development Standards: When the General Plan and Development Code Land Use Maps are amended, there are instances when existing structures are no longer in conformance with the new development standards. The General Plan does not prohibit the land use map to be modified in such a manner; in fact, when the General Plan was adopted in 1983, there were many instances when properties no longer conformed with the new uses and or development standards. The Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan restrict non conforming uses and structures from being expanded; however, they are allowed to be maintained with certain restrictions. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J February 26, 1992 Page 6 3. Housinq: The effects of the proposed land use amendments on City housing policies are as follows: a. The dwelling unit reductions should not conflict with any specific policies, goals, or objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element provides for programs which aid in the development and improvement of the City's housing stock. The dwelling units required by those programs which list specific numbers of dwelling units to be built or to be aided would be included within the remaining units expected to be built under the amended dwelling unit totals. Reductions in the total number of dwelling units at the build-out date would result in marginally greater proportions of low and very low income units, program-aided units, etc. b. The revised cumulative total of approximately 10,000 dwelling units conforms with the Housing Element's anticipated range of dwelling units proposed for development for the period up to 1994 (Program 3.A.1). B. Subarea Analysis - A review of the subarea recommendations, alternatives, and site-specific issues relating to each proposed amendment is attached to the staff report. CUMULATIV~ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEH2: Staff has completed Part I and Part II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and Development District Amendments. The issue for consideration is a reduction of proposed land use intensity; therefore, staff believes the impact of development should not be more significant than originally described in the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the Development Code. In addition, staff analyzed the individual properties and found that the changes would not have a significant environmental effect upon them. Further, the reduction in potential future housing units does not affect the City's ability to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. CORRESPONDENCE: The Planning Divz[sion has received seven letters of opposition to the proposed land use changes from some of the affected property owners. These items have been advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin with an eighth page advertisement, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to all affected property owners. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J February 26, 1992 Page 7 Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Amendment Subareas Map Exhibit "B" - Subarea Analysis Exhibit "C" - Letter from Carol and Don Hart Exhibit "D" - Letter from Vincent Szeto Exhibit "E" - Letter from Judy K. Matthews Exhibit "F" - Letter from R. Brent and Annette Hoffman Exhibit "G" - Letter from Robert K. Kidder Exhibit "H" - Letter from Mr. Robert and Ilene Hoffman Exhibit "I" - Letter from Joe Dianat with the Mobil~ Service Station Exhibit "J" - Pete and Lori De Jager GPA 92-02, Subarea A, Resolution of Denial FSPA 92-01, Subarea A, Resolution of Denial GPA 92-02, Subarea B, Resolution of Denial FSPA 92-01, Subarea B, Resolution of Denial GPA 92-02, Subarea C, Resolution of Approval FSPA 92-01, Subarea C, Resolution of Approval GPA 92-02, Subarea D, Resolution of Approval DDA 92-01, Subarea A, Resolution of Approval GPA 92-02, Subarea E, Resolution of Denial DDA 92-01, Subarea B, Resolution of Denial GPA 92-02, Subarea F, Resolution of Denial DDA 92-01, Subarea C, Resolution of Denial GPA 92-02, Subarea G, Resolution of Denial DDA 92-01, Subarea D, Resolution of Denial GPA 92-02, Subarea H, Resolution of Denial DDA 92-01, Subarea E, Resolution of Denial GPA 92-02, Subarea I, Resolution of Approval DDA 92-01, Subarea F, Resolution of Approval GPA 92-02, Subarea J, Resolution of Approval DDA 92-01, Subarea G, Resolution of Approval GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUBAREAS MAP kll,,,l u I IIIo / 0 500 1000 ~ 500 I~XHIBIT ,BALD AV ~. SUBAREA A North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Offices and vacant land, Office in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan South - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)' East - Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, Flood Control West - Mobile home park, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan b. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Medium Residential '(8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Office South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 2 c. Site Characteristics: The property has an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are no structures on the site; however, there are native grasses, shrubs, and mature eucalyptus trees. 2. LAND US~ ANALYSIS: The project site is bordered by Foothill Boulevard to the north, an existing mobile home park to the west, and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel to the east. Currently there are no Low-Medium Residential designations in the immediate area. The site limitations of the subject properties would make it difficult to develop a single family project that would be compatible with the mobile home park to the west. Also, a single family designation could create a neighborhood isolated by Foothill Boulevard, the flood control channel, and the mobile home park. The subject properties total 5.71 acres of land which alone may not be enough land to develop a cohesive neighborhood. Other land use designations were not analyzed because it was believed that any densities lower than Low-Medium would not be feasible given the above-described conditions. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium would not be the most appropriate land use designation for the subject properties and that the existing Medium Residential designation should be retained. 3. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and with related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea A of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the mobile home park, flood control channel, and major boulevard bordering the subject properties on three sides. In addition, there are no existing single family land use designations in the immediate vicinity, therefore, the proposed land use designation of Low-Medium Residential would create an isolated neighborhood. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 3 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea A, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92- 01, Subarea A, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 4 Noah 1. PROJECTED SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Apartments (existing, nonconforming), Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East - Single family residences and vacant land, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Office/Professional West - Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, Flood Control b. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Commercial East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Office West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 5 c. Site Characteristics: The properties have an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are three single family homes on the north side of San Bernardino Road with ornamental plants and trees planted around them. The property on the northern side of the site is vacant with native scrub vegetation and alluvial rocks. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: Vineyard Avenue to the northeast, the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the northwest, the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel to the west,, and the General Commercial designation to the south, all create an isolated condition for the subject properties. The project site totals 1.84 acres of land which in itself would be difficult to develop a cohesive single family neighborhood. Also, the configuration of the subject properties and their proximity to Vineyard Avenue would make it difficult to develop the properties to the Low-Medium development standards. The existing Medium Residential development standards allow for less private open space and more common open space which allows for greater flexibility in designing a project compatible with the surrounding conditions. Other land use designations were not analyzed because it was believed that any densities lower than Low-Medium would not be feasible given the above- described conditions. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would not be an appropriate land use designation for the subject properties and that the existing Medium Residential designation should be retained. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and with related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea B of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the subject properties' relatively small size and proximity to Vineyard Avenue which is a secondary arterial. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREA ANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 6 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea B, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92- 01, Subarea B, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 7 S~EA C Foothill Blvd.. · Noah 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. SurrOundina Land Use and Zonina: North - Vacant, Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific: Plan South - Apartments, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Single family residences, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per, acre) West - Mobile home park, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific: Plan b. Genera~ Plan Desiunations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Commercial South -.Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 8 c. Site Characteristics: The property has an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. The property is vacant with native grasses and alluvial rocks; however, there are no trees or shrubs. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the following land use options. a. Low-Medium Residential: The property to the west is designated Medium Residential and is developed with a mobile home park. The properties to the south are also designated Medium Residential and are developed with an apartment complex that is primarily one story. The properties to the east are designated Low Residential and are developed with single family residences. The most intense land use in the area is the property to the north which is designated Community Commercial and is vacant. Given the low intensity of the developments to the south, east, and west, and the relatively large size of the subject parcel (13.12 acres), a single family project could be developed at the Low-Medium standards. This designation would be compatible with both the Medium Residential and Low Residential developments and could act as a transition between the two developments because the Low-Medium development standards allow for flexibility for building setbacks and clustering under the optional development standards. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would be the most appropriate land use designation for the subject properties. b. Low Residential: Low Residential may not be compatible with the existing mobile home park to the west because the Low Residential development standards require greater building setbacks and fewer options for building clustering than Low-Medium Residential allows. This would create an isolated neighborhood that may not be compatible with the Community Commercial designation to the north because it would not act as a transition like the Low-Medium Residential would. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low Residential would not be an appropriate land use designation for the subject properties. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This ~mendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for deyelopment, within the district, in a manner consistent GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 9 with the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea C of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the existing developments to the south, east, and west between which Low-Medium Residential could act as a transition. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92- 01, Subarea C, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea C, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 10 SUBAREA D .. Foothill Blvd7 Arrow __ · ~ I r'~r l ~- ~, '"'-'North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Condominiums, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Single family residences, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Single family residences and vacant land, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Single family residences, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) b. Genera; Plan Desianations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South , Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) c. Site Characteristics: The property has an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are six GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREA ANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 11 single family residences 'which front on Arrow'Route and Baker Avenue. Ornamental Plants and shrubs have been planted around these homes. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the following land use options. a. Low-Medium Residential: The properties to the west and south are designated Low Residential and developed with single family residences. The properties to the north and east are designated[ Medium Residential and are developed with a condominium project and vacant land, respectively. A Low-Medium designation would be compatible with both the Low and Medium designations and could act as a transition between the two densities due to the Low-Medium development standards which allow for flexibility in building setbacks and clustering under the optional standards. The subject properties are irregularly shaped and would be difficult to develop at either Medium Residential or Low-Medium Residential development standards andt in either case would require considerable lot consolidations. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would be the most appropriate designation for the subject properties. b. Low Residential: A designation of Low Residential would allow for the. continuation of the same land use that exists to the west and south. However,.it may not be as compatible as Low-Medium Residential would be with the Medium Residential to the north and east because Low Residential would not provide for a transition between the two densities. Low-Medium Residential would allow for more flexibility in open space, setbacks, and building orientation under the optional development standards which could provide greater compatibility with the adjacent developments. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low Residential would not be the most appropriate designation for the subject properties. 3. FACTS FO~ FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not, conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 12 c. The properties located in Subarea D of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the ability of the Low-Medium Residential to act as a transition between the existing Low Residential and Medium Residential designated land. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92- 01, Subarea D, and Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea A, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREA ANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 13 North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Condominiums and :single family residences, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Single family residences, Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units per acre) b. ~eneral Plan Desicnations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) c. Site ~haracteristics: The properties have an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are nine GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 14 single family residences, all of which front on Arrow Route. In addition there is a motel and market on the eastern most property. Ornamental shrubs and trees have been planted around most of the homes. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: The property to the north of this subarea already has an approved subdivision map that will allow for the development of 115 condominiums on 10.27 acres of land (11.2 dwelling units per acre) and the properties to the south are already developed with condominiums. The intensity of the land uses already developed and approved to the north and south of the subject properties may make it difficult to develop a compatible project on the subject site at the Low-Medium development standards. Further, standard single family developments may be difficult to develop given the long, narrow properties (averaging 300 feet in depth and 76 feet in width) within the project site. Other land use designations were not analyzed because it was believed that any densities lower than Low-Medium would not be feasible given the above- described conditions. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would not be an appropriate designation for the subject properties and that the existing Medium Residential designation should be retained. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea E of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of land developed or approved for Medium Residential projects to the north and south of the subject properties. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea E, and Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea B, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 15 SUBAREA F · North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surroundin~ Land Use and :Zoning: North - Single family residences (existing, nonconforming), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Single family residences (existing, nonconforming), offices, and a restaurant; General Commercial East - Condominiums, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Condominiums, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) b. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Commercial East - MediUm Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 'EG GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 16 c. Site Characteristics: The properties have an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are four single family residences which front on Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue. There is also a nursery on Madrone Avenue. Ornamental trees and shrubs have been planted around the homes. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: The property to the south of the subject property is designated General Commercial and the properties to the west and east are designated Medium Residential and are developed with condominium projects. In addition, there are no Low- Medium residential designations in the immediate area and this designation would create an isolated single family neighborhood. In addition, there could be potential vehicular access problems if the properties are developed under the Low-Medium standards while the Medium standards would allow for shared access. Other land use designations were not analyzed because it was believed that any densities lower than Low-Medium would not be feasible given the above- described conditions. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would not be an appropriate land use designation for the subject properties and that the existing Medium Residential designation should be retained. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclus ions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea F of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district. and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use des ignations as evidenced by the proximity of General Commercial land to the south and existing condominiums to the west and east. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning COmmisSion recoSmend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea F, and Development District Amendment 92-01., Subarea C, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREA ANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 17 SUBARF.,A G Arrow Route _ · I I I I I_J_"'r I 1 [ North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Condominiums, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, Flood Control West - Market and motel, mobile home park, and vacant land; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) b. General plan DesiGnations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 18 c. Site Characteristics: The property has an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are no structures; however, there are native grasses, shrubs, and mature trees including eucalyptus and cypress. There is a former flood control levee on the northeastern portion of the property. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: The subject properties form a linear configuration which, along with Subarea "A", extend from Arrow Route to Foothill Boulevard on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. The only property in the vicinity that is currently designated Low-Medium is to the west of the subject properties and is developed with a mobile home park. Given the linear nature of the properties (327 feet average width and 1,956 feet in depth) and the absence of any single family residential development adjacent to the properties, a Low- Medium designation may create an isolated single family neighborhood. The configuration of the subject properties may also be difficult to develop to the Low-Medium Residential development standards because they do not provide as much flexibility as Medium Residential does for common open space, building orientation, and vehicular access. Other land use designations were not analyzed because it was believed that any densities lower than Low-Medium would not be feasible given the above-described conditions. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would not be the most appropriate land use designation for the subject properties and that the existing Medium Residential designation should be retained. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea G of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the linear configuration of the subject properties which may be difficult to develop to the Low-Medium Residential development standards. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 19 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea G, and Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea D, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 20 SUBAREA H · North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. SUrroundinq Land Use and Zonina: North - Vacant land and a single family residence, Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Single family residence (existing, nonconforming) and condominiums, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Condominiums, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, Flood Control b. Genera~ Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Commercial and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 21 West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor c. Site Characteristics: The property has an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are no structures on the property; however, there are native grasses, shrubs, and two mature eucalyptus trees. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: The subject property is south of an existing Community Commercial designation and is north and west of existing condominium projects. There are no single family designations in the vicinity and a single family designation would again create an isolated neighborhood. Medium Residential allows for greater flexibility in building setbacks and clustering that would allow development on the property to be compatible with surrounding development. Other land use designations were not analyzed because it was believed that any densities lower than Low-Medium would not be feasible given the above-described conditions. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would not be the most appropriate land use designation for the subject properties and that the existing Medium Residential designation should be retained. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea H of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by absence of single family zoning designations in the vicinity and the higher intensity land uses surrounding the site. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea H, and Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea E, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 22 SUBAREA I , ~ , IIIIIII1 I"] North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninu: North - Single family residences, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Commercial shopping center, civic building, and single family residences; General Commercial and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Apartments and church, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Vacant, Office/Professional b. General Plan Desiunations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Commercial, Civic/Community, and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Office GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 23 c. Site Characteristics: The properties have an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. There are 16 single family residences,. all of which front on Arrow Route, and there is also a church and motor home campground on one of the properties. There is an existing automobile service station on the corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route which was approved. by the Planning Commission on October 1, 1978, and was completed by November, 1981. Ornamental shrubs and trees have been planted around the residences, church, and automobile service station and the northwestern most parcel is vacant with native grasses. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: Staff acnalyzed the following land use options. a. Background: Since staff began the analysis of the multiple family unit reductions, a project consisting of 35 condominium units on 3.5 acres of land has been approved by the Planning Commission for the four eastern most properties in this subarea. The properties have been included in the project site and advertised for consideration; however, they have not been included in · the attached resolutions. b. Low-Medium Residential: The. subject properties are located south of existing single family homes that are designated Low Residential, west of an apartment complex and church designated Medium Residential, east of vacant land designated Office/Professional, and north of a shopping center and single family homes designated General Commercial and Low Residential, respectively. Due to the proximity of single family neighborhoods to the north and south of the subject properties, a Low- Medium designation would be compatible with those two uses and provide enough area (18.56 acres) for single family developments to be built conforming with the Low- Medium development standards. The more intense nearby land uses are not as dominating as the less intense uses. For instance, the apartment complex to the east (build at a density of approximately 3.8 dwelling units per acre) of the subject properties is one story and the property adjacent to the east is a church. Churches are typically compatible with single family neighborhoods. Also, the shopping center to the south across Arrow Route that is designated General Commercial comprises only 1.86 acres of land and the Office ]Professional designation to the west totals only 6.12 acres of land. A Low-Medium designation for the subject properties could act as a transition between the Low Residential to the GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 24 north and the General Commercial to the south, similar to the function of the existing Medium Residential designation. In addition, a Low-Medium Residential designation would be more compatible with the existing single family homes than the existing designation and would allow for flexibility in building setbacks and open space requirements. The Mobile Service Station on the corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route is presently an existing, non-conforming structure and would retain the same status. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low-Medium Residential would be an appropriate land use designation for the subject properties. c. Low Residential: Although this designation would be a continuation of the uses that exist to the north and south and may be compatible given the existing developments, it may not provide an appropriate transition between the Low Residential and Commercial developments. Low Residential development standards do not allow for the variation in building setbacks and clustering that are allowed under Low-Medium standards which would provide flexibility in developing compatible projects. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low Residential would not be the most appropriate land use designation for the subject properties. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea I of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of single family developments to the north and south of the subject property. 4. R~COMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92- 01, Subarea I, and Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea F , to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREA ANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 25 SUBAREA J Foo BIrd. · North 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zonina: North - Vineyards and existing single family residences, Haven Overlay District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan South - Apartments, Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East - Vineyards, Haven Overlay District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan West - Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, Flood Control b. GeDeral Plan Desianations: Project Site - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) North - Industrial Park South - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East - Industrial Park West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 26 c. Site Characteristics: The properties have an average natural slope of less than 10 percent. Vineyards occupy the entire properties. 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the following land use options. a. Medium Residential: The subject properties are bordered on the north and east by vacant land in the Haven Overlay District (Subarea 6 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan) and to the south by existing apartment complexes designated Medium-High Residential. The subject properties total 10.91 acres of land and would allow for 87 to 153 apartment or condominium units under Medium Residential development standards. Medium Residential would be compatible with the surrounding uses while lowering densities because the development standards are similar to Medium-High standards. Therefore it is staff's opinion that Medium Residential would be an appropriate land use designation for the subject properties. b. Haven Overlay District ~Subarea 6 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan): This designation would be a continuation of the land uses that exist to the east and north and would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. However, a need for additional office/industrial uses has not been identified. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this would not be the most appropriate land use designation for the subject properties. 3. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Planning Commission could make the following findings regarding this Subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea J of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the existing multiple family residential development to the ~outh and the ability of Medium Residential to be compatible with the industrial uses allowed for the properties to the north and east. E GPA 92-02, A THROUGH J EXHIBIT "B" - SUBAREAANALYSIS February 26, 1992 Page 27 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92- 01, Subarea J, and Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea G, to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions. P.O. Box 1056 Upland, CA 91785 The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Raancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ~i' I;i- Attention: PLANNING COMMISSION JAN Z Re: Parcel #20726205 '~.Ci~.;~,'f.~ Area "F" ,:~ ~l--i--~-i.. Gentlemen: On January 16th I received your letter advising that there would be meeting on January 14th, regarding the subject property. It was upsetting not to receive the letter in time to attend the meeting. Please update your records to reflect our new Post Office Box mailing address above. My husband and I have owned the SouthEast corner of Arrow and Madrone since 1985 and as a Real Estate agent I was instrumental in the sale of property in Area "F". Over the years, there have been several meetings with some of the neighbors and it is our general feeling that since the adjoining ten acres is zoned Commercial and the nursery on Madrone in area"F" is zoned Commercial, it makes sense to sweep the Commercial zoning to include area"F". In my opinion, once the large development on Baker is built- out there will be a necessity for the neighborhood Commercial zoning to support perhaps a dry-cleaners, doughnut shop, deli, etc. The bigbest an~ ~est use for area "~" is Commeroial. Most of the neighbors have indicated they would sell as a group if they could get the Commercial price since this would enable them to either relocate or make comparable purchases elsewhere. In any event, we would not understand a decision to down- zone the property to lower-multiple density. It just doesn't make any sense to have a small enclave of lower density amidst the surrounding higher density. Such a zoning of low-medium density would make it that much harder for us to sell the property which would prolong it's non- conforming use. The non-conforming use of single family residential on multiple zoning precludes anyone from being able to obtain loans on the property and also prevents us from investing any more money into enhancing the property. Although we have made every effort to keep the property as attractive as possible, one does not spend large amounts of money on property that is eventually going to be torn down to build units. As it is, we are in limbo. We need a large developer to invest in the approximate 5 acres. EXHIBIT "C" As long as we are unable to sell, the area does not conform with the new, updated, positive look of the rest of Rancho Cucamonga. The high standards and concern of the Planning Division is apparent everywhere one looks in the Development of Rancho Cucamonga. It is a model and an excellent example of what careful and diligent planning can accomplish. I'm sorry that our particular property remains unenhanced. However, as stated, the situation probably will not change until we are able to sell to a large developer who buys the entire area for either units or a neighborhood shopping center. Before this recession, several developers did express an interest in buying the majority of area"F". I strongly believe that if the zoning is changed to allow less density, we'll never be able to make a lateral investment. Unfortunately this would not be in the best interest of your beautiful city, since the small, older homes are out of place and will continue to be more so as the Baker area improves and Area "F" is forced to deteriorate. Please do not down-zone area "F" to low-medlum residential. Your careful attention to our problem would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 714-982-8352. Sincerely, Carol Taverna Hart, Trustee Don A. Hart, Trustee - 2 - "~ (~ P~'CHO CUCAMONGA ~LANNING DIVtS~ON JAN ? ~ Vi Vincent Szeto TIBI I 111~1~1~1~|6 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 I (714) 861-2684 Office (714) 567-2631 January 22, 1992. Planning Commisioners c/o Mr. Vince BetconY, Assistant Planner Community Development Department Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Re: my property on 8565 Madtone Ave., Rancho Cucamonga your General Plan Amendment 92-01 F Sir/Madame, I am a structural engineer and a small investor. I acquired the above property on February 1990 with the condition that the property is zone for medium density with the designation of 8-14 dwelling units per acre. I wish to develop the property for my retirement program. I had attended the neighborhood meeting on January 14, 1992 and learned that the City may downzoning my property to low- medium of 4-8 dwelling units per acre. If the City decide to downzoning my property, I have no choice but to seek legal means to protect my interest because of economic lost. I hope you will reconsider the downzoning of my property. Thank you. Yours truly, Vincent Szeto EXHIBIT "D" "I ' t 3' 12 Deer Creek Road Pomona, California 91766 ~ February 10, 1992 The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho CucamonSa, California 91729 Attn.: City Planning Commission Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow me the courtesy of presenting to you my opinions regarding a City-initiated proposal to amend the General Plan and re-designate certain properties currently zoned medium-high residential. I am owner of one of the properties under consideration for a land use change. Specifically, the acreage I own is located at 9760 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, on the north side of Arrow Route near the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route, and adjacent to the Mobil 6as Station. There is a single family house on my land which is rented out to tenants. Forty years ago, my aunt and uncle moved to California from Indiana and purchased the property I am referring to. They built the home which exists there now and lived there until my uncle's passing in recent years and my aunt's stroke which has her confined to a convalescent hospital. In the late 1950's, as a young child, I remember coming to my aunt and uncle's house "in the country" and looking across the street at the tall, thick eucalyptus trees that lined the south side of Arrow Route. Not much was around there at that time--just a little old one pump gas station where the modernized Mobil Station now sets, and one lone neighbor. My uncle would drive off each day to his Kaiser Steel job going down that lonely Arrow Highway where his car was usually the only one on the road. Through the years, it has been of great interest to me to see the changes that have taken place on that street and with "Rancho" Cucamonga in general. I marveled at the new 3ack-in-the-Box being built here. I took pride when the Neighborhood Center was opened right across from my uncle's house where he had access to hot meals and social activities. I took surprise at the building of a commercial strip center with a market and restaurant, and I took action when I learned a video arcade was to be opened at that location which I felt was detrimental to the area. Thus, through the years I have been a part of that corner in my own way, and because of my protectiveness towards it, it seemed only fitting that I purchase the property after my uncle's death. FC q O EXHIBIT "E' page two-- Though still not a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, I follow with interest the happenings of the city. I have reviewed Resolution No. 91-060 recently sent to me with its intent to reduce the total amount of multiple family designated vacant land. I must say that I concur with the city's goal to maintain and promote a high standing of housing and residential sites. I, too, see that an over-abundance of multi-family dwellings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be of detriment to the excellence being sought. Each site must be scrutinized to consider its highest and best use. In light of that, it is my firm belief that the eight acres on the Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route should not be down-zoned to a single family designation, but rather should be looked at as a ~otential commercial site. Keeping in mind that land usage is the issue here, one should analyze the advantages and disadvantages of both designations. 1. The area in question is not appropriate for a single family home site. There is commercial development directly across the street, there is an industrial business complex diagonally from it, and there is a business complex on the Northwest side of Archibald. A single family complex is totally incompatible with all of that. The Mobil Gas Station on the Northeast corner already lends itself to a commercial site and again would be out of place with single family homes surrounding it. 2. The area in question is an opportunity to meet the needs of Rancho Cucamonga both economically and socially. Many residents south of Foothill Boulevard and in the western part of the city need somewhere they can shop and eat. Currently, many persons go over into Ontario (Fourth & Vineyard, Grove Ave., etc.) when that revenue should be coming into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This portion of the city has been neglected and is a prime opportunity for meeting the needs of local residents and at the same time keeping city money in the city. 3. The eight acres of the Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route is owned by five different owners who represent a united front. All are in agreement that multiple family dwellings are not appropriate for that site. All are in agreement that down-zoning the area is not appropriate, either. All agree that a general commercial designation would achieve the highest and best land usage, achieving both the city and owners' goal at no cost to the city. The over-all goal of reducing multi-family units in the city is still met, while at the same time a better usage of the area has been gained. page three-- 4. Down-zoning the area to a single family designation not only is inappropriate for the area, it also has an economic impact on the owners--owners who have paid taxes on that property for years. It reduces the value of the land, restricts its marketability, and paralyzes what can be done with a beautiful, underdeveloped location. It is my contention that consideration should be given to redesignating the north corner site of Archibald and Arrow Route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to General Commercial, and that no action should be taken to down-zone its current designation of Medium-High Residential. Respectfully , Judy K. Matthews Owner cc: Jack Lam, City Manager Dennis Stout, Mayor City Council Members Irvine, Ca.l.i.Esx,4~ 92714 (714) 733-9951 FE9 131~92 F~~ ~, 1992 ' ': Mr. Larry McNeil The City of Rancho C~ Planning C~.assion P.O. Bc~ 807 Civic Center Drive Rancho O,c~m~lcJa, California 91729 Parcels 208-29101 and 07 Dear Mr. McNeil: I recently ~ the City Ccuncil's General Plan Amex]ment 92-01 dated Jar.~v7 8, 1992, rec~mm~xE~ the doM1 zc~/l~ of 10 differexit parcels to a lower density (free RD 10-14 to sin~le-f~mily d~ellirr/s). I agree with the city,s attempt to avoiU any future ~ of ~ity aparumnt and ~~nium projects as a result of the ~ical oco4mnts this type of very sircoyly that down z~drr/is c=~lete~y ~iate for the above- zcnin~ wou~d render the project virtually useless. loca~a~ in a ~ area. ~hmee of the f~ur curneTs located at the the traffic c~unt m Arrc~ Highway is akxx~ 20,000 to 30,000 car tripe per day--not a very safe area for a ycun~ family to reside with small children. EXHIBIT "F" l~'uary' ]2, 3.992 Larry HcNiel Robert K. Kidder The Planning Commission Property Owner City of Rancho Cucamonga Raneho Cucamonga, CA 10500 Civic Center Drive Raneho Cueamonga, CA 91729 RE: Proposed Down-Zoning Parcel 020829107 NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway Dear Mr. MeNiel: I Just learned two weeks ago of the proposed down-zoning on my property (5 1/2 acres) NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway. I must say I cannot understand the rationale of placing single-family dwellings on a very busy intersection, perhaps one of the four heaviest travelled intersections in Raneho Cueamonga, and surrounding a. Mobile Filling Station, further three (3) of four (q) corners at Archibald and Arrow Highway already zoned commercial/light industry. As a property owner and tax payer in Rancho Cucamonga for 38 years I strongly oppose the "down-zoning" on NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway rot rollowing reasonst 1, NEC Archibald and Arrow west 9 acres should not be combined with the 9 adjoining acres east of subject block as Archibald is 2rid most heavily travelled North/South highway in the city; therefore, undesirable for single family dwelling, whereas the east 9 acre8 does not front on a major North/South highway and with a natural separation from west 9 acres with a.church sitting in middle between west 9 acres and east 9 acres. 2, Economic impact on the city itself of low-priced single family homea'eoml}mres most unfavorably with commercial light industry letivit~ ms only low cost housing can be developed if said beulinl is to be surrounded on three (3) corners by commercial aettvtty at NEC Archibald and Arrow plus existing Mobil Stm$i'on on NEC Corner of proposed down-zone block. 3. Please be advised on Parcel 020829107 that in the past four years we have received many inquiries from realtors and developers to purchase subject corner for commercial purposes, whereas, we have received no inquiries for single family home.use. Realtors/Developers advise reason for interest in NEC Archibald and Arrow is lack of commercial services below EXHIBIT 'G' Page 2 Foothill Blvd. on Archibald and people living below Foothill must drive up to Baseline or west to Ontario. We suggest inquires made by professionals :should be considered as significant guide to future dew.-lopment for NEC Archibald and Arrow as Commercial location and not single family homes. In 1990 Champion Development held an option on our property (Parcel 020829107) and on several oceassions discussed a commercial zone change for NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway with the City of Raneho Cueamonga planning department. The Champion proposal was for a commercial development and at that time no mention was made of "down-zoning" but encouragement from planning department for commercial use, therefore the proposed "down-zoning" on NEC Archibald and Arrow is a real "shock" - first because the location doesn't make any sense in my opinion for single family homes, and secondly, the drastic negative economic impact on both myself and the City of Raneho Cucamonga. We rspectfully submit that "down-zoning" must be rejected for NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway on basis of front 9 acres west of the church as being a separate and distinct area from 9 acres east of church on Arrow Highway. With reference to Resolution No. 91-060 I wish to quote B.2.(h) "That some existing residential land may be better suited for non-residential purposes based upon existing General Plan policies and generally accepted land use principals," We strongly believe and therefore suggest that Parcel 020829107 (5 1/2 acres) :located within west 9 acres NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway fits precisely into above reference as quoted. Thank you for your consideration to our request for general commercial zoning on west 9 acres NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway, Very Truly Yours,:, Robert It. Kiddot / Mr. Robert and Ilene Hoffman 502 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 675-5629 February 14, 1992 ,~ITy~ mr. zarry McNeil I 8 159 City of Rancho ~camonga 10500 CiViC Center Drive P.O. ~x 807 Rancho ~camonga, Califomia 91729 Re: ~neral Plan ~en~ent 92-01 Dated Janua~ 8, 1992 ~ar ~. McNeil, We have o~ed two parcels of land, 12081291-01 and -0~ since 1965. We oppose doe-zoning our pro~ny from its present 8-14 ~it zo~ to single f~ily dwellings. four comers being co~ercial developments and a ve~ busy intersection. -. Not only would ~is ~ a financial pitfall affecti~ city revenues, but a personal loss as well. We agree wi~ ~e pla~i~ coBission a~ ~o not want either a multi-dwelli~ or single resident. We, in co~ection wi~ other lando~ers, have an agreement for approxi~tely nine acres on the corner to pursue a general co~rcial zoni~ - a development ~at would ~nefit ~e co~ity, city ~d neig~rs who have e~ressed a desire for ~ts zoning. ~er ~e years we have ~en contacted by mostly develo~rs who are confident ~at ~ts is an ideal location for a shopping center. Contt~ous to o~ pro~ is ~ ~ur~ en~ nine acres of f~ily dwelli~s to ~e east. ~ese profiles are l~ated in a residential setting, ~erefore, doe-zoning would ~ considered appropriate. H~ever, our pro~y should ~ excluded from this considerati~. We have o~ pro~y i~ ~e City of ~n~o ~onga an~ paid taxes for over twenty-seven years. We res~ctfully ask ~at do~- zoni~ must ~ reJect~ for ~e no~emst comer. ~a~ you for your consideration of ~is re~est. Res~ctful ly, X IBIT E EB 18 1992 Honorable Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 RE: Justification and suppo~ of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the Noaheast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route. And opposition to Downzoning of the Mobil Gas Station. Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Joe Dianat and I arn the business operator of the Mobil Gas Station located at 8477 ,Archibald Ave. and Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. I am extremely opposed to downzoning of my property which vvould severely impact my future ability to meet the needs of the changing automotive · service industry. The property around the Mobil station should be General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, to mutually benefit each other. To construct single family next to a gas station is ridiculous at its face. These uses are not compatible in any way, shape, or form. Given the opportunity, the property should be rezoned to benefit the community, which is opposed to multi-family, not to General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial. These uses could cohabit without inherent conflicts. I run a clean and efficient service station that is both a visual asset with quality landscaping and significant setbacks that maintain a high level of quality in a commercial setting. It is most appropriate for the adjacent properties to develop with reasonable features and scale, typical around the intersection. We would hope that the commission believes as I do, that we have a significant investment in our propera/, and we would like 1:o continue the ongoing EXHIBIT "1" relationship with our patrons to service the needs of the automotive community, without the impediment of non-compatible single family uses next to our property. It just doesn't make very much sense, Thank You, j~e Dianat Mobil Service Station/ Archibald/Arrow Route fEB 18 1992 The Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga ""' '~':" :" '"':' '" 10500 Civic Center Dr. R~ncho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 RE: OPA 92- 02 The Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route Deer Planning Commission Members: We the owners of one of six properties located at the intersection described above are exlremely disheartened and outraged by the proposal and the recommendations of the staff to fezone our property. We feel there are substantial negative ramifications associated with the City's proposal. These issues have not been adequately addressed in the staff's reportsnor have they integraled our comments that we brought forward in the workshops. We have had two successful businesses in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the past 2 1/2 years, Arrow Plaza Market and Checks 4 Cash. We have a vested interest in the City, our. businesses ,are a valuable asset to ourselves and to the City, our combined monthly sales taxes are in excess of $6000.00 per month, just on our two businesses alone. Most all of our employees are local residents who commute relatively short distances [o work, and most of our patrons are also local residents. We would like [o be able to develop our additional popefly to a general commercial or neighborhood business use. We know our experience, we know the quality of the citizens around, and we know the property in question is well suited for commercial businesses. With your support of general commercial we know we can make a quality business successful again. Please support us in our efforts to rezone our properties [o General commercial or neighborhood comrnercial. There are substantial reasons that would make our property more suitable for commercial use, rather than single family use. The existing land uses to the Soulh and Southwest are both heavily used commercial sites. In addition, the adjacen[ Mobil gas station [o the immediate West of my property is a very EXHIBIT "J" intense commercial use. No one in their right mind, given all of these factors, would want to live there with all of lhese negative fealures, which are ~s follows: traffic congestion, security, noise, health issues, visual diversity, poor socioeconomic mix, and a lack of residential consitency. We urge the Phanning Commission to make ~ strong recommendation for the following: Redesignate our properties from 8-14 dwelling units per acre to general commerci~al and or neighborhood commercial. There are obvious benefits to the community, [o the City financially, and to the future employees of a commercial center if developed. The American business way is to let business succeed or fail on its own. Please let us go into business, it is our right, while at the same time we are meeting the goals of the City to reduce multi-family invenlory. Our hard earned dollars can be put [o work benefitring all without 'negatively impacting our neighbors. We believe the citizens are backing our proposal and we have obtained quile a few signatures in support of our proposal. Thank you very much, Pete and Lori De Jager, our phone number at our store is 980-4740. If you have any questions, please call me. We are willing to work with the staff [o create a quality gener~al commercial development in the future, I give you my word. Sincerely, PeJ, e ~'Lori De Jager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI FORN IA, RECOMMEND I NG DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA A, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 5.71 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-18 THROUGH 21, 32, AND 34. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea A, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to' as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 5.71 acres of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Creek and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Office and are partially developed with offices; the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the property to the east is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; the property to the west is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a mobile home park; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment Conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for develolMnent within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan .and with related development~ and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea. A of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the mobile home park, flood control channel, and major divided arterial bordering the subject properties on three sides; in addition, there are no existing single family land use designations in the immediate vicinity, therefore, the proposed land use designation of Low-Medium Residential would create an isolated neighborhood; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project fs approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea A, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 5.71 acres of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Creek as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this ConMission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANC}{O CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Co~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Con~nission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~:00 / / , A North EXHIBIT 'A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA A, TO AMEND THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 5.71 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-18 THROUGH 21, 32, AND 34. A. Recitals. (i) On September 16, 1987, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 87-505. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea A, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution- NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 5.71 acres of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Creek and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Office and are partially developed with offices; the.property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the property to the east is designated Flood Control and is pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 92-01, SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 developed with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel~ the property to the west is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a mobile home parks and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and with related development~ and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea A of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the mobile home park, flood control channel, and major divided arterial bordering the subject properties on three sides$ in addition, there are no existing single family land use designations in the immediate vicinity, therefore, the proposed land use 'deSignation of Low-Medium Residential would create an isolated neighborhood~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment~ and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea A, to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 5.71 acres of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Creek as shown in Exhibit 'A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 92-01, SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Con~ission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES: COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS= ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I::oo " C North 'EXHIBIT 'A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02 , SUBAREA B, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 1.84 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND CARNELIAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-36, 56, AND 57, AND 227-091-72. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea B, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution- NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 1.84 acres of land located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way; the property to the south is designated Commercial and is developed with an existing, non-conforming apartment complex; the properties to the east are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Office and are developed with single family PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 residences and vacant land; the property to the west is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea B of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the subject properties' relative small size and proximity to Vineyard Avenue which is a secondary arterial; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea B, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 1.84 acres of land located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. A North EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA B, TO AMEND THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ( 8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) FOR 1.84 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND CARNELIAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-36, 56, AND 57, AND 227-091-72. A. Recitals. (i) On September 16, 1987, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 87-505. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea B, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 1.84 acres of land located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject si~e are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way; the property to the south is designated Community Commercial and is developed with an existing, non- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 92-01, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 conforming apartment complex; the properties to the east are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Office/Professional and are developed with single family residences and vacant land; the property to the west is designated Flood Control and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan,, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and with related development; and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea B of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the subject properties' relative small size and proximity to Vineyard Avenue which is a secondary arterial; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assee~sment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea B, to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medi~m Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 1.84 acres of land located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BYz Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 92-01, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. Noah EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA C, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 13.12 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 208-321-24. A. Recitals.- (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea C, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 13.12 acres of land located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Commercial and is vacant; the properties to the south are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with apartments; the properties to the east are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed ~ith single family residences; the property to the west is designated MediUm Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a mobile home park; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA C - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea C of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the existing developments to the south, east, and west between which Low- Medium Residential could act as a transition; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the ,California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs i, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea C, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 13.12 acres of land located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard as shown in Exhibit-"A-" 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA C - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. Noah EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA C, TO AMEND THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 13.12 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 208-321- 24. A. Recitals. (i) On September 16, 1987, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 87-505. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea C, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 13.12 acres of land located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial and is vacant; the properties to the south are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with apartments; the properties to the east are designated Low Residential (2-4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 92-01, SUBAREA C - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family residences; the property to the west is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a mobile home park; and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and with ~elated development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea C of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the existing developments to the south, east, and west between which Low- Medium Residential could act as a transition; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding pro[erties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01, Subarea C, to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Mediu~ Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 13.12 acres of land located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TI~ DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTE ST: Brad Bullet, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 92-01, SUBAREA C - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS.: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. i~111,~ North EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA D, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8) DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 8.63 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND BAKER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-591-21 THROUGH 35. A. RecitalS- (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea D, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal .prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue and is developed with single family residences; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property to the south is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelliag units per acre) and is developed with single family residences and vacant land; the property to the west is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA D - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea D of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the ability of the Low-Medium Residential to act as a transition between the existing Low Residential and Medium Residential designated land; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the ,California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea D, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route an~ Baker Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- ApPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA D - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd:. Arrow A · ,~-r-Tnr"'mr l,~-~, '"'-';North' EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA A, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ( 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) FOR 8.63 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND BAKER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-591-21 THROUGH 35. Ao Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Development Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea A, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution- NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue and is developed with single family residences; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property to the south is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 acre) and is developed with single family residences and vacant land; the property to the west is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea A of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the ability of the Low-Medium Residential to act as a transition between the existing Low Residential and Medium Residential designated land; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea A, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992- PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. Arrow A ~7-:'f'Fll mr: -k : ~. t---,North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA E, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACHE) FOR 8.02 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND BAKER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-201- 01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 THROUGH 23, 27, 28, 37, AND 38. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea E, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning COmmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts' set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue and is developed with single family residences; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped; the properties to the south are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with condominiums and single family residences; the property to the east is Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped; the properties to the west are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA E - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea E of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and[ adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of land developed or approved for Medium Residential projects to the north and south of the subject properties; and (f) This amendment would. not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea E, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION'OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST:. Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA E - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 'OW e. North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA B, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-HEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ( 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) FOR 8.02 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND BAKER AVENUE, AND MAKING FIND INGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN .' 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 THROUGH 23, 27, 28, 37, AND 38. A. Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the DeveloA~nent Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea B, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On Februar~ 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. BI. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows= 1. This Com~ission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows= (a) The application applies to 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue and is developed with single family residences~ said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)~ and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped~ the properties to the south are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with condominiums and single family residences~ pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 the property to the east is Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped; the properties to the west are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family residences; and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and with related development; and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea B of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of land developed or approved for Medium Residential projects to the north and south of the subject properties; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of Development District Amendment 92-01,, Subarea B, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of ~:row Route and Baker Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I,' Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= NOES= COMMISSIONERS= ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: pW ;e- / North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA F, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 4.95 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND MADRONE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-262-01 THROUGH 05, 38, AND 39. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea F, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue and is developed with single family residences and a nursery; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium Residential (8~14. dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family residences; the property to the south is designated Commercial and is developed with single family residences, offices, and a restaurant; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property to the west is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; and pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA F - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district~ in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development~ and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea F of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of Commercial land to the south and existing condominiums to the west and east~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding pro[~rties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment~ and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration- 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recon~nend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea F, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26T1{ DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA F - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Co~unission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS= ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: oute '~l:h Street I!1111 Illl I I I A North EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA C, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ( 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) FOR 4.95 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND MADROHE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-262-01 THROUGH 05, 38, AND 39. A. Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Development Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea C, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madtone Avenue and is developed with single family residences and a nursery; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family residences; the property to the south is designated General Commercial and is developed with single family residences, offices, and a restaurant; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA C - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property.to the west is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the GeneralI Plan, Development Code, and with related development; and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Elements and (e) The properties located in Subarea C of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and. adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of Commercial land to the south and existing condominiums to the west and east; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assesement~ and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project £s approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings amd conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea C, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Cor~nission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST z Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA C - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES= COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ill North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDHENT 92-02, SUBAREA G, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 19.07 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CUCAMONGA CREEK, NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 207-211-01 AND 31. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea G, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows= 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as followez (a) The application applies to 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped; the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property to the east is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is developed with the Cucamonga PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 Creek Flood Control Channel~ the properties to the west are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with a market and motel, mobile home park, and vacant lands and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for develolMnent within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related develolMnent$ and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea G of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the linear configuration of the subject properties which may be difficult to develop to the Low-Medium Residential develoEMnent standards~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment~ and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to reconxnend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea G, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of the Cuc,amonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L Ar! I North EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA D, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-M~DIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 19.07 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CUCAMONGA CREEK, NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-01 AND 31. A. Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Development Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea D, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a} The application applies to 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)~ and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped~ the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums$ the property to the east is PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA D - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 designated Flood Control and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel~ the properties to the west are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with a market and motel, mobile home park, and vacant land~ and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, .Develo~nent Code, and with related development~ and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea D of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the linear configuration of the subject properties which may be difficult to develop to the Low-Medium Residential develo~nent standards~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Co~enission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Co~nission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings snd conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Co~nission hereby resolves to recommend denial of Develo~nent District Amendment 92-01, Subarea D, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Com~ission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA D - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA H, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 12.14 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VINEYARD AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-06 AND 36. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through th.e adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea H, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Commercial and are developed with single family residences and vacant land; the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences and condominiums; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property to the west is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA H - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related develop~nent~ and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea H of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the absence of single family zoning designations in the vicinity and the higher intensity land uses surrounding the sites and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment~ and 3. This Con~nission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Co~nission hereby recon~nends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Co~nission hereby resolves to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea H, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)' for 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY= Larry T. McNlel, Chairman ATTEST= Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA H - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. A North EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA E, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ( 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) FOR 12.14 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VINEYARD AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-06 AND 36. A. Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Development Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development DistriCt Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea E, as described in the title of this Resolution. Mereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby spmcifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Community Commercial and are developed with single family residences and vacant land; the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA E - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 residences and condominiums; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with condominiums; the property to the west is designated Flood Control and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek FloOd Control Channel; and (c) This amendment conflicts with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and with related development; and (d) This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea E of this application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the absence of single family zoning designations in the vicinity and the higher intensity land uses surrounding the site; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, if the project is approved, this Con~nission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1., 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend denial of Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea E, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTE ST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA E - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS: Foothill Blvd. E~B E;rn~ Nonh EXHIBIT 'A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA I, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 18.56 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-291-01 THROUGH 03, 05 THROUGH 07 AND 208-311-12, 13, 15, 17, 23, AND 25 THROUGH 27. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea I, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue and is developed with an automobile service station, single family residences, a church, and a motor home campground; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family residences; the properties to the south are designated Commercial and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with a commercial shopping center, civic building, and single family PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA I - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 residences$ the properties to the east are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with apartments and a church~ the property to the west is designated Office and is vacant~ and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the.Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related develo~nent~ and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea I of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of single family developeents to the north and south of the subject property~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment~ and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3'above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea I, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA I - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i ~A rowRoute w IIIII1,~ A North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA F, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 18.56 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-291-01 THROUGH 03, 05 THROUGH 07 AND 208-311-12, 13, 15, 17, 23, AND 25 THROUGH 27. A. Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Development Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea F, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue and is developed with an automobile service station, single family residences, a church, and a motor home campground; said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units per acre); and (b} The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family residences; the properties to the south are designated PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA F - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 General Commercial and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with a commercial shopping center, civic building, and single family residences; the properties to the east are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with apartments and a church; the property to the west is designated Office/Professional and is vacant; and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea F of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the proximity of single family developments to the north and south of the subject property; and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea F, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST -' Brad Bullet, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA F - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Con~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that ~he foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS= ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A North EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02, SUBAREA J, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL ( 14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACHE) FOR 10.91 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-331-24 THROUGH 26. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02, Subarea J, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive and on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel and is undeveloped; said property is currently designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and are undeveloped; the properties to the south are designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with apartments; the property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is undeveloped; the property to the west is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is developed with the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA J - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related develo~nent; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e) The properties located in Subarea J of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the existing multiple family residential development to the south and the ability of Medium Residential to be compatible with the office/light industrial uses allowed for the properties to the north and east~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessments and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2~ and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02, Subarea J, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive and on the eas= side of .the Deer Creek Channel as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretar~ to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 92-02, SUBAREA J - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~oothill BIrd. A North EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01, SUBAREA G, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL ( 14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ( 8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ) FOR 10.91 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-331-24 THROUGH 26. A. Recitals. (i) On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Development Code through the adoption of Ordinance No. 211. (ii) On November 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 92-01, Subarea G, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." _ (iii) On Februar~ 26, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a} The application applies to 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive and on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel and is undeveloped$ said property is currently designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)~ and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and are undeveloped~ the properties to the south are designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with apartments~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 2 the property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is undeveloped~ the property to the west is designated Flood Control and is developed with the Deer Creek Flood Control Channels and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and with related development~ and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element~ and (e} The properties located in Subarea e'of this application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the existing multiple family resident.~al development to the south and the ability of Medium Residential to be compatible with the office/light industrial uses allowed for the properties to the north and east~ and (f) This amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding pro[~rties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment~ and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to reconwnend approval of Development District Amendment 92-01, Subarea G, to amend the Development Districts Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive and on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel as shown in Exhibit 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 92-01, SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C. February 26, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: m A North EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 1992 TO:airman an~ Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller City Planner BY nce Berto 1 Assistant Planner : . ., . SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92- 02 A THROUGH J, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 A THROUGH C, AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01 A THROUGH G Attached, you will find a copy of the environment assessment for the above-described project. Property owners opposed to the land use changes may challenge aspects of the environmental review and staff's recommendations. This packet has been provided so that you will be able to follow along with the anticipated discussion regarding the environmental issues. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important .that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: GPA 92-02 A thru J, FSPA 92-01 A thru C, and DDA 92-01 A thru G Project Title: Name & Address of project owner(s): See Attachment "A" Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: City 0f Ranch0 Cucam0nga 10500 Civic Center Drive Ranch0 Cucam0nga, CA 91730 Contact Person & Address: Vince Bert0ni, Assistant Planner 10500 Civic.Center Drive Ranch0 Cucam0nga, CA 91730 Telephone Nt,-~er: ('~14) 989-1861 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): same as above Telephone Number: n/a C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CLTPms unless otherwise requested by staff. *l) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X ~l) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and wests views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the sites and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): The various properties are .~enerally ]0cared north of 9th Street, south of F0othi]] 8puleyard, east of Grove Avenue, and west of Haven Ave. (See Attachment "B"). 4) Assessor's Parcel N-m~ers (attach .additional sheet if necessary): See Attachment *5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.)= 102.95 acres *6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications)= i02.95 acres 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the proJe~ site (attach additional sheet if necessary)= The sub.iect applications are for a General Plan Amendment. Development District Amendment, and Foothill BoUlevard Specific Plan Amendment. 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: The sub3ect applications are for land use amendments only - no specific projects are proposed with these applications. Therefore, no additional permits are necessary at this time. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i-e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): See Attachment "C" 30) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): See Attachment "D" 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: See Attachment "E" Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: The applications propose to redesignate 92~04 acres of land from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and also proposento redesignate 10.91 acres of land from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per ac~e). There are no development proposals included in these a~)~8~tions. 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc-) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): See Attachment "F" 14) Will the proposed project change 'the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The applications would remove 92.04 acres of land from a multiple family residential land use cateqo~y and place it in a single family residential cateqory% therefore chanqinq the residential character of the general area. 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? : The applications would not generate short-term or long-term noise that is greater than what is expected for the existing land use designations. · 16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: ' No mature or scenic trees would be removed as a result of these proposals. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: The subject properties drain to the Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek flood control channels which drain (via the Cucamonqa Creek Channel)~o the Santa Ana River and the Prado Dam south of Chino, 18) Indicate expected amount of water' usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. _ a. Residential (gal/day) n/a Peak use (gal/aay) n/a b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) n/a Peak use= (~l/min/~c)' l~/a 19) Indicate prol~sed method of seeage disposal. n/a~Septi~ Tank n/a Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, atta&h Per~lat~;~tests. discharge to a sanitary sewage system is propose~ indicate expec~-~d daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for us&3% ft=ther clarification, please contacit th. District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) ~/a b · Industrial/Com~rcial ( gal/day/ac ) ~/a 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate,.~z~.ge~ of~'el s,z~., minimum l~'=~ze and maximum lot size: -= ,:~!~ ._ ,.:-. Attached (in~tcate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ n/a to $ Rent (per month) $ n/a to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: n/a 24) Indicate the expected number of ~chool children who will be residing withi~ the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High: C(MM~CIAL, T~D~STRIALAMD INSTIT~TIOMAL PMOu'ECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: n/a 26) Total floor area of comw~rcial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: n/a 27) Indicate hours of operation: _ n/a 28) N-m~er of employees: Total: n/a Maximum Shift: n/a Time of Maximum Shift: n/a 29) P*ovide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): n/a 30) Estimation of the n.m~er of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: n/a · 31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the proJec~c been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. Yhe above agencies have bees=contacted by ~he Planning Sta{[ durin9 the City Council Workshop regardin9 Multiple [ami]y Housin9 completed January 1991. Yhere agencies determined that a proposed vadan~:{or underdeveloped) land [rom multiple [ami]y to s~ngle would not have a sign[icant adverse impact on present or services. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. There is an existing automobile service station on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue with underground fuel storage tanks. The station has been in operation since November 1981. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal- The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. N0. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: January 30, 1992 Signature: · Title: Assistant Planner ATTACHMENT A Water Usags Average use per day Residential Single F~m41y 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Cemezctal/Znafi~:ztal General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac Industrial Park 3000 gal/~ay/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use X 2.0 Setmr Flmm Residential Single F~m41y 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Cemsrctsl/In~mtrttt General C~rctal 2000 9al/~y/ac Netg~rh~d C~rctal ~000-~500 gal/day/ac ~neral In~s~ial 2000 gal/~y/ac Hea~ In~Uial 3000 gal/~y/ac ~urce= ~c~n~ C~ty Water District ~ster Plan, 9/86 Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study) Attachment 207-201-01 Paul Aparicio , 207-201-38 9831 Palo Alto St. Jennie, Riccardo, and John Chioni Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8598 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-201-03 Khosroo Esfahlani 207-211-01 650 South Sunkist St Fu Mai Limited Partnership Anaheim, CA 92806 867 South Atlantic Blvd. Monterey Park, CA 91754 207-201-06 Abayomi Owei 207-211-06 & 36 P.O. Box 973 Albert D. Stephens Tr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 92730 P.O. Box 6324 San Pedro, CA 90734 207-201-07 Riccardo Chioini 207-262-01 8598 Arrow Route Enoch Thornbury Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8583 Madrone Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-201-110 Arrow Route Estate 207-262-02 335 South New Avenue Ste. J Vincent Y. Szeto Monterey Park, CA 91754 2503 Razzak Circle Diamond Bar, CA 91765 207-201-113 Nick Mallas 207-262-03 13714 East Valley Blvd. John R. March La Puente, CA 92746 8551 Madrone Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-201-20 Chun-Hsien Chen 207-262-04 2201 La Deney Way Deborah A. Lefebvre Ontario, CA 91764 2320 Santa Cruz Court Torrance, CA 90501 207-201-21 Howard King 207-262-05 17700 Castleton St. # 268 Don A. Hart Industry, CA 91748 P.O. Box 1056 Upland, CA 91785 207-201-23 Chun-Che Chen 207-262-38 2201 La Deney Way Roseanne King Ontario, CA 91764 ' 1205 Monteverde 'Upland, CA 91786 207-201-27 Jerrold E. Ewing 207-262-39 8570 Arrow Route James E. Graham Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8653 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-201-37 Wanpen Post 8604 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-591-21 Darell D. Reed 207-591-34 8410 Baker Ave. Salvador E. Ledezma Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8420 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 207-591-22 Lois M. Lighther 207-591-35 8430 Baker Ave. Orbun Murphy Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8410 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-591-23 John A. Luce 208-091-36 8446 Baker Ave. Terry M. Gott Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8812 San Bernardino Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-591-24 Donald C. Webster 208-091-56 8456 Baker Ave. Chyi-Chen Hong Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 1472 Bibiana Way Upland, CA 91786 207-591-25 George L. Lutterman 208-091-72 P.O. Box 1382 William Hordyk Hesperia, CA 92345 8870 San Bernardino Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-591-27 Julia Jensen, Tr. 208-291-01 8466 Baker Ave. Robert Hoffman, Jr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 502 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, CA 92663 207-591-29 William and Maurandia Clayton 208-291-02 8488 Arrow Route Donald P. Graber Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9786 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 207-591-30 Gwendolyn Meyers 208-291-03 8474 Arrow Route Cleotis Matthews Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 12 Deer Creek Rd. Pomona, CA 91766 207-591-31 Thoma Wilson 208-291-05 8458 Arrow Route · Mobil Oil Corp. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 P.O. Box 290 Dallas, TX 75221 207-591-32 Stone Chen 208-291-06 765 Silver Valley Trail August H. Rieter III, Tr. Walnut, CA 91789 3151 Airway Ave. B#A-3 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 207-591-33 John A. Hubbs 8432 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-.291-07 208-331-24 Robe!rt K. Kidder Frank De Ambrogio, Tr. 502 Via Lido Nord 10385 Foothill Blvd. New ,ort Beach, CA 92663 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208.311-03 Ceda.r Villas 245] West Main Alhambra, CA 91801 208-311-12 Tho~ias S. Sanchez 9814 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-311-13 Federico S. Salazar 9824 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-311-15 James D. Harrell 9846 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-311-23 Bible Missionary Church California-Arizona 9525 61st St. Riverside, CA 92509 208-311-25 Julia M. Priego 9832 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-311-26 Gloria Raad 9850 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-311-27, Richard W. Fielder 9864 Arrow Route Ranc~o Cucamonga, CA 91730 208-]21-24 John F. Anderson c/o Mel Mack Co. 6971-A Lincoln Ave. Buena Park, CA 90620 '3AV N:JAVH \ Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study) Attachment "B" 500 ~ o00 500 SCALE IN FEET Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study) Attachment "C" 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrological studies, biotic and archaeological surveys, traffic studies): All of the properties are located on a plain sloping to the south with an average natural slope of less than ten percent. The following is a detailed description of the properties by subarea. A. The soils belong to the Hanford-Greenfield association, which is deep and well drained. There are no structures, however, there are native grasses, shrubs, and mature eucalyptus trees. B. The soils belong to the Ramona-Arlington association, which are well-drained, medium to moderately fine- textured, and have a slight to moderate erosion hazard. There are three single family residences on the properties on the north side of San Bernardino Road. Ornamental plants and trees have been planted around these homes. The property on the north. is vacant with native scrub vegetation and alluvial rocks. C. This soils belongs to the Tujunga-Delhi association, which is deep and well drained. There are native grasses and alluvial rocks on the property; however, there are no trees or shrubs. D. The soils belong to the Tujunga-Soboba association, which is deep and well drained. There six single family residences Which front on Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. Ornamental plants and shrubs have been planted around these homes. E. The soils belong to the Tujunga-Soboba association, which is deep and well drained. There are nine single family residences all of which front on Arrow Route. In addition there is a motel and market on the eastern most property. Ornamental plants and shrubs have been planted around the homes. F. The soils belong to the Tujunga-Soboba association, which is deep and well drained. There are four single family residences which front on Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue. There is also a nursery on Madrone Avenue. Ornamental plants and shrubs have been planted around the homes. G. The soils belong to the Hanford-Greenfield association, which is deep and well drained. There are no structures, however, there are native grasses, shrubs, and many mature trees including eucalyptus and cypress. There is a former flood control levee on the northeast portion of the property. H. The soils belong to the Hanford-Greenfield association, which is deep and well drained. There are no structures, however, there are native grasses, shrubs, and two mature eucalyptus trees. I. The soils belong to the Tujunga-Delhi association, which is deep and well drained. There are 16 single family residences, all of which front on Arrow Route. There is also a motor home camp ground and church on one of the properties. There are ornamental trees and shrubs have been planted around the residences and church and the northwestern most parcel is vacant withnative grasses. J. The soils belong to the Tujunga-Delhi association, which is deep and well drained. Vineyards occupy the entire properties. Sources: Field survey conducted by City staff on December 5, 1991. Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Planning Network, adopted by the City Council on January 4, 1989. Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study) Attachment "D" 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): . The following is a description, by subarea, of the subjects properties cultural and historical aspects. I. There are two Designated Local Landmarks in subarea I, both of which are single family residences. The Beverly Hills House is located at 9786 Arrow Route and is significant because it is a particularly good representative of the Spanish Colonial Revival style which flourished in Southern California in the 1920's and 30's after the 1915 Panama Pacific Exposition in San Diego revived interest in this type of architecture. The Crosswell House is located at 9874 Arrow Route and is significant because it is a good representation of this type of Spanish Eclectic architecture, it is in good condition, it has not been altered on the exterior, and it was the home of a long-standing member of the community. J. The vineyards located in Subarea J are owned by the De Ambrogio Family and are noteworthy because they are the last working vineyards in the City. Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Historic Preservation Designated Site files. Hartig, Anthea. Personal interview. December 10, 1991. Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study) Attachment 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: The following is a description, by subarea, of the noise impacts on the subject properties. A. These properties are located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek. In a 1979 noise study, the northern 200 feet of the properties was exposed to more than 60 decibels of noise from Foothill Boulevard; however, in the City build out estimate, the rest of the properties would be exposed to between 60 and 70 decibels of noise. B. These properties are adjacent to Vineyard Avenue which produced 60 decibels in the 1979 survey and is projected to produce 65 decibels at the City's build out date. C. This property is located approximately 300 feet south of Foothill Boulevard. This property was not exposed to 60 decibels or more of noise in the 1979 survey; however, it is projected to be exposed to between 60 and 70 decibels at the City's build out date. D. These properties are located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. In both the 1979 survey and City build out estimate, these properties would be exposed to less than 60 decibels of noise from the adjacent roads. E. These properties are located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Baker Avenue. In both the 1979 survey and City build out estimate, these properties would be exposed to less than 60 decibels of noise from the adjacent roads. .F. These properties are located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route .and Madrone Avenue. In both the 1979 survey and City build out estimate, these properties would be exposed to less than 60 decibels of noise from the adjacent roads. G. These properties are located on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard. In the City build out estimate, the northern 100 feet would be exposed to between 60 and 70 decibels of noise. H. This property is located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard. In the 1979 noise study, the eastern 200 feet of the property was exposed to 60 decibels of noise from Vineyard Avenue and in the City build out estimate, the eastern 700 feet would be exposed to between 60 and 70 decibels of noise. I. These properties are located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. In the 1979 noise study, the properties within approximately 100 feet of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue were exposed to 60 decibels of noise and in the City build out estimate, all of the properties would be exposed to between 60 and 70 decibels of noise from Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. J. These properties are located approximately 300 feet south of Foothill Boulevard and six hundred feet west of Haven Avenue. According to the 1979 noise study, these properties were exposed to less than 60 decibels of noise from Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue; however, it is projected that these properties would be exposed to 65 to 70 decibels of noise from Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue at the City's build out date. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Noise Element, amended January 4, 1989. Environmental Information Form (Part I - Initial Study) Attachment 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear year, etc.): The following is a description, by subarea, of the surrounding properties. A. North: Existing offices and vacant land; office land use designation. South: Vacant land with native grasses, mature trees, and a former flood control levee; multiple family residential land' use designation (Subarea "G" of this application). East: Existing single family residences (One story) and vacant land, past the Cucamonga Creek flood control channel; flood control and commercial land use. designations. West: Existing mobile home park; multiple family residential land use designation. B. North: Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, Cucamonga Creek flood control channel, and vacant land; flood control land use designation. South: Existing apartments (two story) and vacant land; commercial land use designation. East: Existing single family residences and vacant land; single family residential and office land use designations. West: Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, Cucamonga Creek flood control channel, and vacant land; flood control land use designation. C. North: Vacant land with native grasses; commercial land use designation. South: Existing apartment complexes (one and two story); multiple family residential land use designation. East: Existing single family residences (one and two story); single family residential land use designation. West: Existing mobile home park; multiple family residential land use designation. D. North: Existing condominiums (two story); multiple family · residential land use designation. South: Existing single family residences; single family residential land use designation. East: Existing single family residences (one story) and vacant land with native grasses and a few mature trees; multiple family residential land use designation. West: Existing single family residences (one story); single family residential land use designation. E. North: Vacant land with native grasses and a few mature trees; multiple family residential land use designation. South: Existing condominiums and single family residences; multiple family land use designation. East: Vacant with native grasses, shrubs, and mature eucalyptus and cypress trees; multiple family residential land use designation (Subarea "G" of this application). West: Existing single family residences (one story); multiple family land use designation (Subarea "D" of this application). F. North: Existing single family residences (one story); multiple family land use designation (Subarea "E" of this application). South: Existing single family residences, commercial and office buildings, and vacant land with native grasses and eucalyptus trees; commercial land use designation. East: Existing condominiums (two story); multiple family land use designation. West: Existing condominiums (two story); multiple family residential land use designation. G. North: Vacant land with native grasses and alluvial rock; multiple family land use designation (Subarea "A" of this application). South:. Existing condominiums (two story) and single family residences; multiple family residential land use designation. East: Existing condominiums (two story), past the Cucamonga Creek flood control channel; flood COntTO1 and multiple family residential land use designations. West: Existing market and motel (one story), mobile home park, and vacant land with native grasses and a few mature trees; multiple family residential land use designation. H. North: Existing single family residence (one story) and vacant land with native grasses and a few mature trees; commercial land use designation. South: Existing condominiums (two story) and single family residence (one story); multiple family residential land use designation. East: Vacant land with native grasses, mature trees, and alluvial rock, past the Cucamonga Creek flood control channel; flood control and multiple family residential land use designations (Subarea "G" of this application). West: Existing condominiums (two story); multiple family residential land use designation. I. North: Existing single family residences (one and two story); single family residential land use designation. South: Existing commercial shopping center, civic building, and single family residences (one story); commercial and single family residential land use designations. East: Existing apartment complex (one story) and church; multiple family residential land use designation. West: Vacant land with native grasses; commercial land use designation. J. North: Vineyards and existing single family residences; industrial (office) land use designation. South: Existing apartments (three story); multiple family residential land use designation. East: Vineyards; industrial (office) land use designation. West: Vacant land with native grasses and former vineyards, past the Deer Creek flood control channel; flood control and single family residential land use designations. Source: Field Survey conducted by City staff on December 5, 1991, and on January 29, 1992. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1) Project Name: GPA 92-02 A thru J, FSPA 92-01A thru C, and DDA 92-01A,~thru G 2) Related file No.(s): none 3) Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cuoamonga, CA 91730 Telephone No.: (714) 989-1861 4) Representative: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner Address: 10500 CiViC Center Drive R~ncho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone No.: (714) 989-1861 5) Project accepted as complete (date): November 15, 1991 II. ENVI]~OMM~TAL IMPACT~ Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential project impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" are required on attached sheets. Explanation shall also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No". *Signifies an exp]anati0n 0f the response is ]0cared in the attacbemnt. Yes Maybe No 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures (including slope f~ilures, subsidence, falling rock, etc.)? X b) Substantial disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c) Major change in topography or ground surface relief features, so that the general slope and lay of land will be significantly modified? X C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Yes '.Maybe No d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either or off the site? X f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ~round failure, or similar hazards? X 2. AIR. Will the proposed result: in: a) An increase in air pollution levels in the area in excess of existing air pollution standards? (Particulate matter (dust) as well as chemical pollutants should be considered.) X b) The creation of objectionable odors? X c) The alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either' locally or regionally? X 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) The possibility Of contaminating a public water supply system or adversely affecting ground water? X b) The construction of structures or disturbance of a flood plain, marsh or watercourse? X c) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X d) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X e) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawIs, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X Yes Maybe No g) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? h) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal. result in: a) A substantial change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plans (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic plants)? X b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or results in a barrier the normal replenishment of existing species? X d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X e) The removal of any trees? X 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) A significant change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish .and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique~ rare or endangered species of animals? X c) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d) Deterioration to the existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Significant increase in .ambient noise levels for adjoining areas? X b) The creation of dwelling units for which the interior and/or exterior ambient noise levels exceed Federal, State or City noise guidelines? X * c) Exposure of people to serve noise levels? X 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the prf~osal result in: a) The generation of light or thermal pollution detectable from adjacent properties? X b) The generation of new light or glare? ..... X 8. LAND USE. Will the project result in: a) A disruption in the orderly, planned development of the area? X * b) An inconsistency with the plans and goals that have been adopted by the City? X * c) A significant change in t]he present land use, pattern, scale or character of the general area? X * 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) The displacement or alteration of any unique natural or man-made featur47 X b) An alteration in the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce or unique natural resource? X c) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X d) Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resources? Yes Maybe No 10. COMMUNITY. Will the project result in: a) The displacement of community residents? X b) Opposition or controversy within the neighborhood or the community as a whole? X * c) A detrimental effect on the community due to an insufficient market? X * d) An undesirable precedent which would promote or facilitate other projects that would create significant impacts on the environment? X e) An alteration in the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? X * f) A detrimental effect on the existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X * 11. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a)' Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ~X * b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X * d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X * e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Yes Maybe No 12. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the project result in: a) The premature provision of public services to the extent that service costs exceed benefits derived from the project? X b) An alteration in existing and/or proposed services for any section of the City? X c) The on-site disposal of solid or liquid wastes? ~ d) A change in or a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1) Fire Protection? X * 2) Police Protection? X * 3) Schools? X * 4) Parks/recreational facilities? X * 5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X * 6) Other governmental services? X 13. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a) The use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 14. UTILITIES. Will,the proposal result in: a) A need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 1) Power or natural gas? X 2) communications systems? X 3) water? X 4) Sewer and sewage treatment? X Yes Maybe No 5) Storm water drainage? X 6) Solid waste disposal? X 15. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE. Will the project result in: a) An encroachment into any recreational area or an area proposed as open space by the City or any other jurisdiction? X b) An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing or planned recreational opportunities? × , 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b) Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a historic building, structure, or object? X * c) The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact areas? X 17. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in: a) The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 18. SAFETY. Will the proposed project result in: a) The creatioA of an adverse or hazardous conditions should a landslide~, earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster occur? X b) The application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? X Yes Maybe No c) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X d) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X e) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 19. MANDATORy FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time whi].e long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact ~n two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively smell, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. DETEIMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, January 30, 1992 Date F ~ ~- For Assistant Planner Environmental Checklist Form {Part II - Initial Study) Attachment Explanation of the Potential Project Impacts 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: b) The creation of dwelling units for which the interior and/or exterior ambient noise levels exceed Federal, State or City noise guidelines? No. Noise guidelines are the same for single family and multiple family dwelling units. 8. LAND USE. Will the project result in: a) A disruption in the orderly, planned development of the area? No. If the subject properties are developed as single family residential subdivisions, then the City's current growth management policies would ensure that the area would develop in an orderly manner. b) An inconsistency with the plans and goals that have been adopted by the City? No. The proposed land use changes are consistent with the goals of the general plan and the goals of the City Council to reduce the amount and density of multiple family housing. The General Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the Development Districts Map would all be modified to provide consistency with these goals. c) A significant change in the present land use, pattern, scale or character of the general area? Maybe. The proposal to change the land use designations from Medium&High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units-per acre), respectively, is being reviewed through the established City application and review process. The proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of dwelling units on the subject properties by 576, increase the number of single family dwelling units by 598, and decrease the number of multiple family dwelling units by 1,174. 10. COMMUNITY. Will the project result in: b) Opposition or controversy with the neighborhood or the community as a whole? Yes. The land use amendments were 'the result of City Council action to reduce the number of multiple family dwelling units at the City's build-out. This action was due to concern voiced in the community-at-large in regards to increased traffic volumes, increased demands on City services, and overcrowding in local schools which were all perceived to be linked to the increasing numbers of multiple family dwelling unit developments. Many of the subject property owners have expressed their opposition to the proposed land use amendments; however, there has been no significant opposition to date from surrounding residents. c) A detrimental effect on the community due to an insufficient market? Maybe. However, the significant amount of vacant residential land (both multiple family and single family) in the City does not indicate that a reduction in potential future units will negatively affect the market. e) An alteration in the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? Maybe. The proposed amendments would reduce the number of dwelling units and the density on the subject properties. The number of dwelling units on the subject properties would be reduced from 1,302..4 to 726.51 units, a reduction of 575.89 units. There would also be a reduction of 1,173.49 multiple family units and an increase of 598.32 single family units. f) A detrimental effect on the existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Maybe. The General Plan Amendment, Development District Amendment, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment proposals, which are presently under review, are the result of City Council direction to ensure a multiple family dwelling unit percentage of between 32 and 35 percent of the total City dwelling unit count at the City's build-out. Therefore, the anticipated future housing unit counts will be significantly lowered if approval is given to these land use proposals. (1) The cumulative effects of the density reductions (city-wide) on the anticipated number of new dwelling units yet to be developed is as follows: (a) The reduction in future multiple family dwelling units represents a 19~ percent loss in the percentage of total multiple family dwelling units at the City's build-out from what is presently anticipated with the existing land use designations. (b) The total unit reduction, at build-out, will be between 2,400 and 2,500 units, assuming development at 62.5 percent of the allowable density range. The decrease in multiple family dwelling units will be just over 4,300 units and the increase in single family units will be approximately 1,800 units. (c) In regards to the General Plan Housing Element, the dwelling unit reductions should not conflict with any specific policies, goals, or objectives. The Housing Element provisions include programs which aid in the development and improvement of the City's housing stock. Generally, programs which list specific numbers of dwelling units to be built or aided fall within the anticipated number of dwelling units expected under the amended build-out totals. Reductions in total build-out dwelling' units will result in greater portions of low and very low income dwelling units, program aided dwelling units, etc. within the lower total of dwelling units yet to be developed. (2) At the site level, the number of potential dwelling units which may not be realized is very small when compared to the City as a whole. 11. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? No. The City's Traffic Engineering Section analyzed the Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model Land Use and Trip Generation Summary given a scenario of the subject properties (among others city-wide) being redesignated to single family land. The analysis indicated that the relative changes in single family and multiple family units would be equivalent to the differences in traffic generated by the different housing types. Single family housing generates 13 trips per day per house in Rancho Cucamonga and multiple family housing generates an average of six trips per day. The effect of this was to "cancel out" the changes from a traffic standpoint. c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? No. The impacts upon the existing system will be either the same with single family residences or will be even less of an impact. d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? No. Same as question ll.a above. 12. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the project result in: d) A change in or a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1) Fire Protection? No. The present fire facilities are adequate to serve the subject properties, whether they are developed as multiple family complexes or single family residences. 2) Police Protection? No. The Police Department has indicated that their manpower is allocated.. by the number of calls for service based on past history; it is not based on population. City staff conducted a survey of the number calls for service the Police Department receives from multiple family housing compared to single family housing. The survey indicated that there was no significant difference between the two types of housing. Therefore, this application should not have a significant effect on Police services. 3) Schools? Maybe, for the following reasons: (a) The City requires the affected school districts, at the time of development, to indicate whether they can serve the additional students generated by the project. (b) The area that the subject properties are located is stabilizing in terms of school population. (c) The school districts may anticipate additional revenue due to new students and increased property tax because the subject properties are either vacant or underdeveloped. 4) Parks/recreational facilities? No. The area of the City that the subject properties are located does not have a significant amount of vacant land from which to collect park land dedication and/or in lieu of fees. Therefore, the proposed land use changes would not have a significant effect on parks and recreational facilities. 5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Maybe. Overall street maintenance costs would be expected to increase because single family developments have significantly more public street miles than multiple family development of similar size (area). Extensive on-site interior roadway and walkway systems are provided within multiple family developments while with single family developments, nearly all such improvements are within the public right-of-way and therefore, the responsibility of the City. An estimate of how much maintenance costs will increase is difficult to forecast due to the differing development proposals for each scenario. 15. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE. Will the project result in: b) An impact upon 'the quality or quantity of existing or planned recreational opportunities? No. The area of the City that the subject properties are located does not have a significant amount of vacant land from which to collect park land dedication and or in lieu of fees. Therefore, the proposed land use changes would not have a significant effect on any planned parks and recreational facilities. 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: b) Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a historic building, structure, or object? No. There are two designated local landmarks on the subject properties. However, any development proposal would require a review by the Historic Preservation Commission, whether the development is single family or multiple family. III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION All of the current land use designations for the .properties included in these applications were evaluated under the city- wide Master Environment Assessment (1988-89). During the 1990-91 City Council review of potential City-wide multiple family density reductions, staff analysis did not reveal any potential sianificant environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the anticipated density reductions. Because the primary issue for consideration is the reduction of proposed land use intensity for each site, staff believes the impacts of development should not be more significant than originally described in any previous environmental analysis. Further, staff has not discovered, nor has been provided, any factual information which would support concern for increased environmental impacts as a result of the density reductions. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - A request to modify the hours of operation and to expand the permitted uses within an existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial. use located within the General Industrial District ( Subarea 10 ) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-262-28. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is requesting a continuance for the review of the modifications to Conditional Use Permit 91-03, in order to address Engineering concerns- Staff reco~nends that the Planning Commission continue the item to the March 25, 1992 agenda. Respe y submi , BB:AH:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant ITEM H Carntval Malls February 1~ 1~ ANN~-~/aA OltV of RahCho Cucamonga la~che ~Clum}nga~ caA~fornla Dear cxty o~ Ranabe Cucamonga sraA/~ age, TZ~a lNCORP, oeneraA Partne~ JRP/Za CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ;~ STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 ~ TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9 t-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of a 131,451 square foot retail building (Wal-Mart) within a conceptually approved 60-acre commercial retail center within the Regional Related Commercial desi gnation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between I- 15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of the conceptual site plan, conceptual landscape plan, and building elevations- B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Mixed-use; Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4 - Regional Related and Community Commercial) South - Water transmiss ion facility, industrial plant, and vacant; Industrial Sp{;cific Plan ( Subarea 8 - General Industrial ) East - Vacant and single family residential; Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4 - Community Commercial) and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - I- 15 and vacant; Victoria Planned Community (Regional Related Commercial ) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Commercial and Industrial Park North - Commercial South - General Industrial East - Commercial, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Commercial D · Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Retail 131,451 1/220 598 844 (Expansion area) (30,000) (1/220) (136) TOTAL 734 844 ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS February 26, 1992 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. Background: On June 26, 1991, the Planning Con=nission approved the conceptual master plan and Phase I development plans for "Foothill Marketplace." The Phase I development plans consisted of the site plan and building elevations for the Price Club building. The Master Plan established general building sizes and locations, parking area, and circulation isles. Each additional proposed building requires separate reviE;w and approval by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission for the architecture and the detailed site plan. B. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 131,451 square foot retail building. In addition to the retail sales, the building will also include a garden center and automotive center. The applicant has set aside a 30,000 square foot area to the rear of the building for future expansion opportunities. This future expansion would be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to its construction. Both the building proposed and the future expansion area are consistent with the Master Plan for the center that was approved by the Planning Commission. C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiei, Chitiea, Kroutil) reviewed the plans originally on December 19, 1991, and subsequently on January 16, 1992. At this most recent meeting, the Committee reviewed the plans and recommended the following changes to the plans: 1. Medallions should be provided on the east elevation (at the garden center) consistent with the other elevations. 2. A secondary cornice should have more articulation than the cornice proposed by the applicant. The cornice need not be as ornate as the primary stone cornice but should provide sufficient detail/relief. 3. The roof pitch of the tower elements and arcade areas should be the same. 4. The applicant should review how the arcade area interfaces with the tower elements. The large span between the towers and the first column is awkward and some type of supporting element is needed at the tc~er. 5. Alternatives to the cast stones storefront should be pursued. While the Committee had not seen the revised plan incorporating the above-mentioned comments, the Committee felt that this item could be scheduled for the Planning Commission and that the revisions could be reviewed by the Design Review Committee during the interim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS February 26, 1992 Page 3 period. To date, the Design. Review Committee has not seen revisions to the plan- As a result, Conditions of Approval have been included in the Resolution to address the Design Review Committee's comments. If, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant resolves the design issues, the conditions can then be removed from the Resolution. D. Environmental Assessment: In approving Conditional Use Permit 90-37, the Planning Commission issued a Negative Declaration for the project that included plans for a 155,584 square foot Wal- Mart building (including the expansion area). While the building being proposed is slightly larger than that originally anticipated, staff feels that the project is in significant compliance with the original approval and, as such, the previous Negative Declaration adequately addresses the environmental issues. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code, Foothill Boulevard :~pecific Plan, and City standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 91-22 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Overall :Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Resolution of Approval RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA., APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-22, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 131,451 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN A CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED 60-ACRE COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER WITHIN THE REGIONAL RELATED COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 4) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, BETWEEN 1-15 AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-031-03 THROUGH 13, 15, 16, 20, AND A PORTION OF 59. A. Recitals. (i) Foothill Marketplace Partners has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 91-.22 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the applicat]~on." (ii) On the 26th day of Februa2:y 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites p~:ior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to an approximately 60-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue, with a street frontage of approximately 2,175 feet along Foothill Boulevard and approximately 600 feet along Etiwanda Avenue. The site is presently designated for Regional Related Commercial uses and is predominantly vacant; however, it does include single family residences, a winery complex, and a converted gas station; and (b) The property to the north is designated for commercial uses and is improved with a mix of uses including a church, single family residences, retail stores, and a converted winery. The property to the south is designed for industrial uses and is developed with an industrial business, is being developed with a water transmission facility, and is vacant. The PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS February 26, 1992 Page 2 property to the east is designated for commercial and residential uses and is vacant and developed with single family residences. The property to the west, opposite the 1-15 Freeway, is designated for commercial uses and is vacant~ and (c) The project will comply with all minimum standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and (d) The development of a 131,451 square foot retail building is consistent with the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Commercial designation of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan~ and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located S and (c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Codes and (d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and a Negative Declaration was issued by the City Council on August 21, 1991. Further, this Commission finds that the application is in substantial compliance with the original approval for which the Negative Declaration was issued. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) All pertinent conditions of Conditional Use Permit 90-37 and Parcel Map 13724 shall apply. 2) The future expansion area shall be landscaped and irrigated including trees and ground cover for erosion control. The final plans shall be PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS February 26, 1992 Page 3 reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) The following items shall be included in the final building plans which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits: a) Medallions shall be provided on the east elevation (at the Garden Center) consistent with the other elevations. b) The secondary cornice shall have more articulation than the proposed cornice. The cornice need not be as ornate as the primary stone cornice but shall provide sufficient detail/relief. c) The roof pitch of the tower elements and arcade areas shall be the same. d) All roof drain down spouts shall be internal to the building. 4) The following items shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Rev~ew"Con~nittee prior to the issuance of building permits: a) Alternative plans shall~ be submitted to address the interface between the tower elements and the arcade areas. Some type of supporting element is needed at the tower to eliminate the awkward appearance of the span between the tower and the first column. b) Alternative storefront designs shall be provided. 5) Within the outdoor storage area, no material (other than plants) shall be stacked above the height of the solid wall. 6) No overnight storage of trucks shall b~ permitted other than those within the loading dock area. 7) All colors, finishes, materials, lighting, and street furniture shall be consistent with those. approved for the center. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS February 26, 1992 Page 4 8) All bardscape materials, textures and colors shall be consistent with those approved for the balance of the center. The locations shall be consistent with the locations indicated on the conceptual landscape plan with the inclusion of a hardscape area in front of the garden center. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Enqineerinu Division 1) All pertinent conditions of Conditional Use Permit 90-37 and Parcel Map 13724 shall apply. 6. The Secretary to this Conmission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAN~tO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST= Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS= NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= I =.. ,, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: (~y'~-~'Z,C~,~_,y'./"/~F/.E'/,V ~;;~/' Z~.~ AP~ICANT: ~/~ ~~[~~ LOCATION: ~ ~~/~ ~ Z'/~ ~ ,~~ ~o~ items c~ are ~~ of ~vl. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 981-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. TIme LImits v'/ 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the clme of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall he approved petor to I / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of 4. The cleveioper shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, / / participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Cornmunity Facilities Dislrict (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Proteclion Districl Io fkiLqCe cor~Iruction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The slatton shall blfocated, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Proleclion District, and shall become the Districts property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the Distdct in accordartce with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applical~e laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer bythetime recordationofthe~nalrnapoccum. 5. Prior to recordation of the finl map or the Issuance of building permits, whichever comes __/ / first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and rnNntenlnce of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Fadlities District, the al~)licant shall, in the Item alive, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the racordation of the final map or the issuance of building parre.its, whichever comes first. Further, it the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of appr6val of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. SC- 2/9 ! I p~,cct ~ ~ion shall ~ waN~ ff the C~ r~eNes noti~ that the a~l~nt a~ all affed~ ~1 d~d~s Mve emer~ into an agreeram to p~me~ a~mmdme any a~ all ~1 imps u a rem~ of this m~. / 6. Pr~r to m~rdation of the final m~ or ~r to issua~ of ~ildi~ ~s when ~ ~p is / / involved, w~en cedff~t~n from the afi~ wmer di~ thin ad~uate s~er and wmer facil~ies are or will ~ availle to sere the m~s~ proj~ shall ~ subm~ to the Deanmere of CommnRy Deve~pmem. ~ch IUer mum have ~en iHu~ by the water dimr~ w~hin ~ days p~r to fil ~ a~mval in t~ ~se of su~Nis~n or pr~ r to issua~e of ~ms in the ~se of all other res~emial ~j~s. B. Sa Deveament / 1. ~e s~e shall ~ deve~ a~ maintai~ in ac~~ w~h ~e ~mved p~ns wh~h / /.~ i~de ~e pla~, a~e~ural elevat~, e~e~r ~e~ls a~ ~bm, la~ng, s~n prOram, aM grMi~ on fil in the Planni~ DNi/n, the ~MR~ ~mal~ herein, Deve~pmem ~e r~ulm~, a~ ~/~: ~~ S~ff~ Plan a~ Plann~ Commune. 2. P~r to any use of the pm~ s~e or ~si~ a~N~ bei~ ~mm~d ther~n, all / / Co~ions of ~mval sh~l ~ ~mp~t~ to t~ ~~n of t~ C~ Pl~r. 3. ~~oft~fadl~s~ll~t~m~umil:~htim~allUn~o~i~i~a~ / / State Rm Mam~ll's r~lm~ Mve Nen ~~ w~h. P~r to ~~, N~ shall ~ subm~ to t~ Ra~ C~m~a Rm P~:~ D~ a~ m ~i~i~ a~ SafeW D~is~n ~ m ~i~. T~ ~i~i~ rail N i~~ for ~i~ p~r to ~~y. ~ 4. Revis~ s~e plans a~ ~i~ elevm~m i~mi~ all ~~ of ~va shall ~ / / subm~ for C~ Planner re~ a~ ~vi I~r ~ ~a~ of ~i~i~ ~ms. ~ 5. AII s~e, grading, la~m, ~n,a~mretl~vemm~sM~ffiinat~for / / ~nsistemy p~rto ~a~ d any ~ (m~ as g~i~, ~e remvN, e~m~hmem ~i~, etc.), or ~r to fi~ ~ ~vl in~ tN l ol a ~om ~t ~~n, or ~~ use has ~mm~, wheNvet m~s tim. / 6. ~val of th~ r~ffi s~l ~ wa~e ~m ~ ~1 s~m of tN ~ve~mnt / / ~, all other a~~ C~ ~~, Plans in eff~ m tN t~ of ~i~ Pe~R / 7. A ~tail~ on~Re ~i~ ~ ~11 N ~w~ ~ ~~ ~ tM C~ P~n~r a~ / / S~s ~amm (~11 ) p~r to tM ima~ of ~t~i~ H~. S~ pan shall i~e ~e, illumi~n, ~n, M~M, ~ ;~t~ of shi~ ~. ~t to ~ersely aff~ a~m ~m. 8. If ~ cem~ tr~h ~~. am ~~, ae ~h ~p sMII M for iMi~al unRs / / w~h all r~ms mi~ tram ~ v~. / 9. Tr.h r~i(s) am rlW~ ~ sMII mN C~ ram. h ~ ~, ~t~ / / a~ ~e m~r ~ tr.h ~~ sMII N ~ to C~ Pmr ree ~ ~val ~r to issuan~ of ~i~i~ ~Rs. / 10. All gm~-~m~ util~ a~deM~s ~ as tran~o~m, AC ~~e~, etc., shall / /- N ~Mt~ out of publ~ view a~ ad~uateW ~ree~ th~h tN u. of a ~nation of ~rete or m~n~ walls, N~i~, an~or ~~i~ to the ~tMa~n of the C~y Planner. ~ - 2/9 1 2 11. Street ~s shall ~ subm~ for C~ Planner review a~ approval in a~a~e w~h / /.__ t~ a~ Sr~t Nami~ Pol~y p~r to ~mval of the final m~. 12. All ~i~i~ ~m a~ i~tv~al un~s shall ~ ~entffi~ in a clear a~ ~ise manner, / / i~di~ ~r illuminat~n. 13. A detailed plan ind~ti~ trail w~hs, ~i~m s~pes, ~ys~l ~bns, fendS, a~ we~ ~mml, in a~a~ w~h C~ Ma~er Trail draings, shall ~ ~bm~ for C~y Planner m~ a~ a~val ~rto ~mval a~ remffiat~n of the Final Tra~ Map a~ p~r to ~mval of ~reet improvemere a~ gr~i~ plans. ~ve~r shall u~ra~ a~ ~n~m~ all tr~ls, i~ding fe~i~ and dmina~ ~v~s, in ~n~n w~h strut i~vemnts. 14. The ~venants, ~ ~b~ a~ Re~bns (CC&Rs) s~ll ~t animls where zoni~ r~uim~ms br the kee~ of ~ animls have been met. I~i~al ~t ownera in ~bns ~all have t~ ~n of ke~ B~ animl wff~m t~ n~ess~y of ~aling to ~a~s of dir~om or ~m~wne~' as~bns for amnd~ms to the CC&Rs. 15. ~e ~ve~nts, ~ns, a~ Re~bns (CC&Rs) a~ An~es of I~raion of the / /.__ ~wnem' ~iatbn are ~ ~ t~ ~vl of t~ Pinni~ a~ E~ineed~ D~isb~ a~ t~ C~ A~o~y. They shall ~ m~ ~ffe~y w~h t~ R~I M~ or p~r to t~ ~sua~e of ~i~i~ ~s, whoever pmv~ed to t~ C~ Engin~r. / 16. *Nl~ays, o~namas, a~~~sMII ~~m~imain~ byt~ope~ / / ~r, ~~m' as~bn, or ot~r ma~ a~i to t~ C~. Pmf of this land~ maimena~e s~ll ~ mb~ for C~ Plan~r ~oval ~r to issua~ of ~i~i~ ~. 17. ~lar ~ss easemems s~ll ~ d~ for t~ ~ of a~umi~ thin e~h ~t or / ~elli~ unit shall have the ~ffi to r~Ne ~nl~M ~ ~m ~ts or un~ for use of a ~mr ene~ symem. ~e easerams my ~ ~mj~ m a ~Irmbn of Re~bns for t~ ~iv~bn wh~h shall ~ ~ffi~ ~ffem~ ~ ~ r~~n of t~ ~al ~ or is~m of ~Rs, whmver ~ms tim. ~ erarams ~all mh~ the ~ing of shins by v~tm~n, m~ures, fmr~ or a~ omr ~, ex~ for simimr ~s, ~mm to ~emm ~ ~n 17.~.~2. 18. ~ m~ ~mai~ a ~s~ Hi~o~ U~m~. h s~e s~ll ~ ~~ a~ / / mimai~ in ~m~ Hh t~ Himo~ La~m ~embn Pe~ . A~ fu~r ~ff~ to t~ sRe i~i~, ~ m ~R~ to, e~e~r aRerm~ a~or ime~r a~era~ ~h ~ t~ e~e~r ~ t~ ~iMiV ~ ~um, m mv~ of i~mam trees, ~ml~bn, m~m~n, r~~n of ~iMi~ or toNSure, or c~es to t~ s~e shall rlim a ~r~ t ~ H~o~ ~mm ARermbn Pe~ ~b~ to H~oric Presew~ ~mbn r~ a~ mvi. C, Building ilgn 1. An aRe~e e~ symem i r~imd to ~vl ~m~ ~t wmer for al ~elli~ un~s / / a~ for ~ati~ a~ ~im~ ~ ~ ~, unMu ~ aReme e~ symem are dem~m~ to ~ d ~i~Mm ~ ~ e~. NI ~~ ~i i~i~ m the tim of inRil devemm s~ ~ ~~m~ w~ ~ir i~ in t~ ~i~i~ ~ a~ shall ~ ~m~ for C~ Ran~r r~ a~ ~mval _. ~r to t~ ~a~e of ~iMi~ ~s. 2. All ~elli~ s~ll have t~ from, sl a~ rear e~vm~ns u~r~ w~h ar~it~ural / tramram, detaili~ a~ imreB~ ~li~m~n of ~d~ tramram ~ to C~ Planner mv~ a~ a~mval p~r to ~a~ of ~i~i~ ~ - 2/91 3 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for / / City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. v/ 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate {letella on building plans) v/ 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / / contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). v/ 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / / provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. V/ 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / / entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in / / defXh from back of sidewalk. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles / / on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulmion aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be subrnittedl for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and alqYoval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, reler to Section N,) v/ 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- / / ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed I~ architect and submitted for City Ranner review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existingtreesrequiredt~be~eservedinp~acesha~pe~t~ctedwithac~n~tructionbarrler / J in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.06.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. 'The al)plicam shall follow all of the artodst's recommendations regarding preservation, transl}lanting and trimming methods. 3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,comprtsedofthefoliowingsizes, shall be Provlded / / within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon, and __% - 5 gallon. v/ 4. A rninimum of ~' % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - / /- 24-inch box or larger. v/ 5. W'rthin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every. three ./ /___ parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. SC - 2/9 1 4 Proiect .%.:Z:~'~Z/': 6. Trees s~ll ~ plam~ in areas of publ~ ~ew adjacem to a~ a~ng stm~ures at a rate of one tree ~r 30 li~ar feet of ~i~i~. / / 7. A!l~mes~~5l~tor~ssinve~l~hta~of5:l orgmaters~,~t~than ~ / 2:1 s~, shall ~, m ~ni~m, i~at~ a~ la~~ w~h ~dme gmu~ ~ver for emsbn ~1. ~ ~ami~ rffiuir~ by this s~n shall i~lu~ a pe~nem i~m~n sy~em to ~ i~al~ by the ~ve~r p~r to ~~. 8. AIIp~mes~sinexcessofSf~t,~lessth~8'feet inven~l~ffia~of2:l orgremer / / s~ shall be la~md a~ iffi~t~ for ems~n ~mml a~ to ~en t~ir a~ara~ as folbws: o~ 15~albn or i~er s~e trH ~r each 1 ~ ~. R. of sl area, 1 ~al~n or la~er s~e shrub ~r each 100 ~. ~. of s~ area, a~ ~m~e gr~ ~ver. In a~R~n, s~ ~n~ in ex~ss of 8 feet in ved~l ~ a~ of 2:1 or gremer s~ s~ll al~ i~u~ 5~albn or lair s~e tree ~r ea~ 2~ ~. ~. of s~ area. TrHs a~ shm~ shall plam~ in m~md c~em ~ ~en a~ va~ s~ ~e. S~ ~ami~ r~uir~ by this s~n s~ll i~l~ a ~nem iff~t~n symem to ~ inmall~ W t~ ~ve~r ~r to 9. For si~i fa~ reslmial devebpmm, all s~ ~i~ a~ i~bn shall ~ ~mim- / / ous~ mim~n~ in a ~aR~ a~ thdvi~ ~Rbn W ~ ~ve~r umil e~h i~i~al unR is ~ ~ ~~ W t~ ~yer. P~rto miBi~ ~~ for ~ unRs, an i~bn shall ~ ~~ ~ t~ Ranning D~i~n to ~em~ t~ t~y m in ~dmoW ~n. 10. For mRHami~ reslm~l a~ ~n-ms~entil ~vemm, pm~ ~m ~e resin- / /-- s~ for t~ ~minual mimena~e of all ~i ~eas on-s~e, u well as plam~ areas w~in the ~M~ ~M~f-way. NI la~ are~ s~a ~ k~ free from we~s a~ ~ a~ mimi~ in a hea~ ~ ~ ~n, a~ s~l r~e r~lar ~ni~, feffil~i~, ~i~, a~ ~mm~. ~ ~~, ~, d~eas~, or d~yi~ prom ~e~l s~l ~ r~ ~ 30 ~ys from t~ le of ~. 11. Front y~ la~~ s~ll ~ rli~ ~r t~ ~ve~mm ~ ~ Ior / / . ~is rlimmm s~a ~ in ~in to t~ r~uir~ ~met ~ees a~ s~ ~ami~. 12. ~e fin~ ~s~n of tM ~dmter ~ays, wll, i~~, a~ s~ s~ll ~ / / i~b~ ~ t~ rii~ I~ ~s ~ i ~ ~ to C~ Pm~r mv~ ~val ~ =ffi~ for mm~e~ dh a~ ~ay ~~ ~n wh~ my r~i~ by t~ E~i~q DNibn. 13.~li~fea~r~l~~,~~,~ns~etr~,ma~er- / / i~ slwab (w~ ~~ ~e), a~ ~e~ff~ m~, · ~ir~ ab~ 14. La~~ ~ i~bn ~e~ ~ m ~ i~ wb~ t~ ~ ~M~f-way on / / t~ ~d~er d t~ pm~ ma s~l ~ ~m~us~ ~~ ~ t~ ~vemr. 15. All wall s~B M pm~ w~h ~r~ tm~. ff ~ ~ ~ ~men=e ainu. / / t~ ~s~n ~ ~ ~ffimmH w~ t~ ~~ D~. 16. Tr~ mime~ ~e~ s~g ~ ~~ a~ ~~ for C~ P~r m~ a~ / / ~1 ~r to i~m ~ ~i~ ~s. ~ ~eda sll mr~ ~e ~tural g~h ~ar~edm~ of the ~1~ trH ~. 17. La~i~ a~ iqm~n ~all ~ ~s~ '~ ~n~we wmer th~h ~ pdm~es of J Xe~ as defi~ in C~er 19.16 of ~ Ra~ ~m~ Mun~l SC - 2/9 1 5 Pro~ .~'o. :,,~ ~'/,~e' F. Signs c,:,,,,~,uo,, ~,..: 1. ~e ~ i~ on the su~ plans are ~e~ual only and ~t a ~, of this ~val. / / A~ s~ ~~ for this ~ve~p~m shall ~ w~h the S~n Offiina~e a~ shall r~im ~rme ~mion a~ ~mval by t~ Pinni~ D~is~n p~r to instal~n of any s~ns. 2. AUnffo~S~nPr~mmforthis~ve~mmshall~m~forC~Planner mv~wa~ / / ~mvai p~r to issua~e of ~i~i~ ~Rs. 3. Dir~oW ~mem s~n(s) s~ll ~ pmv~ for ~d~m, ~n~m, or town~s / / p~r to ~~ a~ shall r~im sUrme a~n a~ ~mv~ by t~ Pl~ni~ D~n p~r to ~sua~e of ~i~i~ ~Rs. G. Environmental 1. ~e ~ve~r s~ll mv~e ea~ pm~ive ~yer w~en mt~ of ~ F~nh Street Ro~ / / Cms~r m~ in a maU~ fo~m B ~te~ by ~e C~ P~r, ~rto m~i~ a ~sh ~sa on a~ ~. 2. ~e ~ve~r s~ll pm~ ea~ ~~e ~yer ~en ~t~ of ~ C~ ~ / / S~il S~ies Zo~ for the R~ Hill Faun, in a ~aUffi f~ a ~e~i~ by t~ C~ Planner, ~r to m~i~ a ~ ~s~ on ~N ~. 3. ~e ~ve~r shall mvl e~ m~e ~yer ~ mt~ of t~ F~thill Fr~ay / / m~ in a ~a~ffi fo~ u ~te~i~ ~ I~ C~ Pm~r, ~r to a~i~ a ush ~ on a~ ~. 4. A fill ~~ m~d s~ll ~ ~m~ for Ci~ Pmner m~ ~ ~val ~r to the / image of ~i~i~ ~s. T~ finl r~rl s~ d~B t~ ivel of ime~r ~ise a~enum~nto~45CNEL, t~i~i~edai~ ~nm~ntUn~ues~v~, a~. ~me, ve~ t~ ~~ of t~ ~~ ~mm. ~ ~iffi~ ~ will ~ c~ for ~o~u ~ t~ ~n m~res ~mai~ in t~ fi~ r~d. H. ~her Agencl / 1. Em~~a~m~s~ll~mv~ffia~~hRm~~Fire / /.-- Pmtffi~n Dit~ Sa~. / 2. E~~~s~lN~~,~e~~~ar, a m~mof261~tw~e / / m a~ rims ~q ~~~ in a~ffim dh Rm ~ Fke Pmt~n D~ r~immnt. / 3. P~r to ~ of ~i~ ~ f~ ~/~~n, e~ sMII N / / s~te to tN Rm ~~ Rm P~m ~ t~ tem~ wmer m~ for fire pmt~ ~ ~i, ~ ~~ ~ ~ fire ~~n s~em. / 4. ~e ~~ i ~ N U. S. P~N ~ i ~e~ tN ~~e ~ a~ / / ~ of ~ ~xes. Mue~f~ reiffii ~e~s sll ~ a ~ ove~M ~ure for i ~x~ ~ lle ~. ~ ~ ~ d N i ~x~ ~ tM ~s~n of tN ovemM ~re ~ N ~ to C~ ~r r~ ~ ;val p~r to tN ~e of ~i~i~ 5. For projects using septic tank iacilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / /- suptx~rtive infof:mation, shell be oblained from the San Bernardire County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. PT~ No.:,z:~ c.~._d-.o. APPLICANTS SHA~ CONTACT ~E BUILDING AND SAF~ DIVISION, ~14) ~1~, FOR COMPLIANCE I~ ~E F~LOWING CONDIT~NS: I, S~e ~ve~m ~ 1. ~e ~m emil ~y w~h t~ Ime~ a~t~ Unffo~ Bui~i~ ~, Unffo~ M~hani- / / cal ~, Unffo~ P~mbi~ ~, Nm~nal Elffi~ ~e, a~ all ot~r ~i~ble ~des, ordinates, a~ r~lmb~ in eff~ ~ t~ tim of ~a~ of mirage ~s. Please ~ma~ the Bui~i~ a~ Safe~ D~is~n for ~ies of t~ ~ ~n Offiina~e a~ ~le han~s. 2. P~r to issua~ of ~i~i~ ~ms for a n~ resi~l ~elli~ unR(s) or m~r a~R~n / / to existi~ un~(s), m ~m ~all pay ~ve~mm fHs m t~ e~ll~ rote. ~ fees may i~e, bm am mt limR~ to: C~ ~~n F~, Pam F~, Dm~ Fee, Symems Deve~mm Fee, Pe~ a~ P~n C~ Fees, a~ ~1 F~s. / 3. P~r to i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~s for a n~ ,~m~l or i~mdal ~ve~m or / / a~n to an ex~i~ ~ve~m, t~ ~m s~ ~ ~~m fees m t~ em~ rme. ~h fees my i~e, ~ are mt li~ to: Syme~ De--ram Fee, Dmin~e Fee, ~1 Fees, Pe~ a~ P~n Ch~ Fee. / 4. Stret a~mBes eMIl ~ pm~ by t~ Bui~i~ ~, ~ertr~ml ~ r~ffim~n a~ ~r to i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~. J. Exl~lng 1. Pmvl ~lia~e w~h tN Unffo~ ~i~i~ ~ for ~e ~ li~ clla~es / / ~m~d~ use, area, ~ fim~esim~e~. d ex~ ~i~s. 2. ~imi~ ~i~i~ eMIl N ~e to ~ w~h ~ff~ ~i~i~ a~ zoni~ r~u~ns for / / t~ ime~ use or tN ~i~i~ eMIl N ~mli~. 3. ~i~ s~ di~s~ fadl~s s~ ~ m~, fil~ a~or ~ to ~y w~h t~ / / UnHo~ P~mi~ ~ a~ UnHo~ ~i~ ~e. / 4. U~;mu~ om~e rollera am to ~ ~ aM m ~ ~i~ ~s ~mm~ for / / K. G~lng / 1. GrMi~ ol tN ~ m ell N ~ ~ dh ~ U~ ~ ~, C~ / / · G~ ~a~, aN ~N FM~ ~s. ~ INI ~ ~ eMIl N in su~ ~~ dh tM ~~ grM~ ~. / 2. A ~ils r~ i N W~N ~ a ~alir~ ~ ~ ~ tN ~me ~ CaI~om~ to / ~do~ ~ e. / 3. ~e ~vemm · ~ w~hin tM ~H em~n ~ ~m; a ~il D~me / / Pe~e · ri~. Pim ~mm ~ h~ ~ ~~ of ~~ m (714) ~7-2111 for~~~n. ~m~ofm~~IN~N totMC~ ~r ~ tM ~m of ~ grNi~ ~. 4. A ~~ r~d eMIl N ;~rN ~ a qualH~ e~r or g~ a~ ~mm~ at / tM tim of ~l~n for F~i~ ~an c~. / 5. ~efiMigrMi~Nns~allN~t~a~vN~rto~mof~i~t~Rs. / / ~- 2/9 ~ 7 CiTY OF .: ',': :,;.:A November 27, 1991 DEC 091991 Planning Commission ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 398. Dear Planning Commission Members: As members of the I.C.A. International Carwash Association, it has come to our attention about an ordinancein your City that we feel is not necessary and is extremely unjustified. In reviewing your ordinance,.we have noticed a series of issues that should be readdressed at this time because there is no emergency as before. The lang~uage of the ordinance appears to be hastily drafted and withLOut merit on certain issues. We are especially concerned because your ordinance was specifically generated for one situation, and it is now being used to di:scriminate.throughout your City. PoSsibly, unbe- known to the Planning Commission and the City Council itself. The ordinance was origina].ly drafted in response to a Conditional Use Permit on a property at Lemon and Haven, and the language within the ordinance is too specific to that one property, and not well thought out within the realm of self service carwashes in general. Specifically, "Section I: (c) An on site attendant shall be provided at all times during business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances." This statement within the ordinance was a response to a specific agreement between the proposed developer and the property owners, and should not be the language within the ordinance. It entirely restricts the basic concept of basic self service carwashes. Understanding the meaning of self serve itself clearly states the obvious, that an attendant need not be present to wash the car or to assist. While this requirement is common practice in an auto- matic carwash or in a conveyor carwash, it is seldom the policy of a self service carw.ash to have a full time attendant. We feel this section was a carryover from the individual case that was being reviewed at the time and should be re- examined at this time. ITEM J Section I: (d) Specifically, hours of operation should be dealt within the Conditional Use Permit not within the ordinance. Clearly, this was an exact carryover from the individual case again, where the developer had agreed to operate within specific hours of operation to appease this specific neighborhood- Hours of operation within the ordin- ance ~estricts trade without showing just cause, if cause exists- For example~ 'if the neighbors complain, let the conditional process establish the fair operational hours if the concerns cannot be mitigated by the site development itself- Section I: (e) Minimum lot area within the ordinance is entirely without support in comparing it with any other city within the Southern Ca]~ifornia area. To requi~e i Acre is entirely without justification- Based on the average size of a self service carwash, it is typically less than 1/3 of an acre. We feel the ordinance should address the issue of tangency with 1 Acre parcels and not 1 Acre by itself. The City Planning Department should do research now to study the sizes of self service carwashes in the industry throughout Southern California and come up with a more realistic lot size than 1 Acre. The ordinance was drafted hastily and without a great .lt shows very c ear y- These ' sues deal of research, and I I ~s that we have pointed out clearly are trying to restrict development of self service carwashes within neighborhood commercial zones. We are sure that the City wants self service carwashes, and the Community wants them. They save water. They are energy efficient, and they provide a service necessary in the Commun- ity. We formally request a hearing to discuss Emergency Ordinance 398 before the Planning Commission, so the ordinance can be discussed and potentially modified. Sincerely, Autowash Concepts, Inc. Larry Young ORDINANCE NO. 398 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CAR WASHES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 17.10.030..F.6 is added to Chapter 17.10.030 to read as follows: 6. Car Washes (Neighborhood Commercial District}. To ensure that the goals and objectives of the General Plan are implemented, a Conditional Use Permit shall be required for car washes within Neighborhood Commercial District. Car washes shall comply with the following criteria: {a} Such business shall be located at least 200 feet from any residential district. (b) Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. {c} An on-site attendant shall be provided at all times during business hours to control noise, litter,, and other nuisances. {d} Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a condition of approval. Automatic shut-off of water and electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shall be provided during non-business hours. (e} Minimum site/lot area for car wash shall be 1 acre, provided it is contiguous to, or a part of, an approved or existing neighborhood shopping center. SECTION 2: This Council finds that this amendment will not adversely effect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any peempttve legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen {15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rencho Cucamonga, California. Ordinance No. 398 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 1989. AYES: Alexander, Brown, Stout, Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Buquet ~ Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J~ Acheins, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of August, 1989, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of August, 1989. Executed this 17th day of August, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, Cali forni a. Debra J. A~ms, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 2, 1989 TO: r4ayor and ~4embers of the City Council gROf~: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONFENTAL ASSESSNENT AND DEVELOPF(ENT CODE ANENDNENT 89-01 - CITY OF RANCHU CUCAJqUNGA - Establishment of criteria for car washes wlthin Nelghbornood Conmerctal Districts. I. RECOI~ENDATION: The Planning Conmission reconmends approval of the attached Ordl nance. II. BACKGROUND: The City's existing zoning regulations define a car wash as a Conditional Use within the office and comercial zones. This is a land use activity that is not permitted by right, but one which requires a special permit (Conditional Use Permit). At a recent City Council meeting, a resident requested that the City's codes be modified to prohibit car washes altogether in the Neighborhood Conmnercial District. This request came about as a result of public concern involving a design review application for a "coin-op car wash at Lemon and Hmven. The basic premise of all zoning is to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate uses of land in a given area. In a Neighborhood ConmMerctal District, some uses, such as retailing, are clearly appropriate and are permitted by right. Other uses, such as manufacturing, would not be considered appropriate and are prohi bi ted. Hewever, some uses, because of the nature of their business activity, cannot be so neatly defined as appropriate or inappropriate for a given district. These are uses that require special consideration in order to operate in a manner compatible with a surrounding neighborhood. Auto,mbile service stations hc urches, or day care facilities are uses that would typically not be permitted by right within any district, but would require special review and consideration. The Conditional Use Pemtt (CUP) is the process used in most cities in California to determine if an activity is compatible with surrounding uses. The CUP process is intended to afford an opportunity for broad public review and evaluation, and to provide mitigation of any potentially adverse impacts. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: DCA 89-01 August 2, I989 Page 2 The City Council and Planning Conmission felt that car washes should continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis under the Conditional Use Permit process. The Council also determined that standards were necessary to form a basis for reviewing car washes, and directed staff to prepare such an Ordinance. Similarly, the City has in the past established criteria for the review of shopping centers, gas stations, arcades, and fast food drive-thru restaurants. The Neighborhood Conmartial District is intended to provide areas for inmmdiate day-to-day convenience shopping and services for the residents of the intoradiate neighborhood. Typical uses would include such activities as, food stores and supermarkets, general retail (clothing, florist, beauty shops), pharmacies, offices and banks. Coin-operated car washes and automatic car washes fall under the category of automotive services i n the zontng regulations. Other auto-related uses include, gas stations, repair shops, and parts sales. All automotive service uses require a CUP within the Neighborhood Conmercial District, except for sales of parts and supplies. A major consideration in reviewing the compatibility of a car wash with surrounding residential land uses is location and orientation to the neighborhood. More intense uses, such as a car wash, can be "buffered" from 1 ess tntense uses th rough a combi nati on of elements, including setback, butldtng orientation, screening by other buildings, screen walls, and heavy landscaping. Fast food/drive-thru restaurant is another land use that requires a CUP. Zn 1988, because of the nmier and frequency of new applications, the Planning Commission established criteria for fast food restaurants which address compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. These guidelines may provide some assistance in addressing the compatibility of car washes with residential areas. I I I. ANALYSIS: The attached Ordinance would establ i sh the fol 1 owl ng criteria for developing car washes within Neighborhood Conmmrcial Districts: A. Location - Car washes shall be located at least 200 feet away from any residential district. Requiring an increased setback for the .more intense car wash use from residential areas provides a physical separation which addresses nuisance issues associated with car washes. These nuisances include noise, visual, trash, air pollution from car exhaust, and traffic. This 200-foot setback is adapted from the fast food drtve-thru policy' which was developed in response to these same neighborhood compati bt 1 i ty issues. The 200-foot setback al so CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: DCA 89-01 August 2, 1989 Page 3 encourages other types of retai 1 bui 1 dings to be placed as a buffer between residences and car washes. B. Site Planning/Building Orientation - Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. This criteria is intended to address the visual appearance of the car wash activity and minimize impact upon the character of residential areas. The City has a similar policy regarding screening of automotive service bays. All new automotive service stations are required to orient the service bays away from the primary street frontage. C. Supervision - One on-site attendant shall be provided during business hours. The purpose of this requirement is to provide adequate supervision and management of a car wash facility to control noise, litter, loitering, and other nuisances. D. Hours of Operation - Hours shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 1u:uu P.M., unless otherwise specifically established as a Conditional Use Permit Condition of Approval. This criteria would prohibit car washes from operating in residential areas during sleeping hours. During the evening and early morning hours, ambient sound levels decrease; therefore, any noise associated with a car wash use would be perceived as much 1 ouder. E. Site Area - The miniman site area within the Neighborhood Con~nercial District is 5 acres. The proposed Ordinance would require a miniman site/lot area for a car wash of 1 acre, provided it is contiguous to, or a part of, an approved or exi sting net ghborhood shopptng center. This site area requirement is intended to 1) encourage car washes to locate within neighborhood shopping centers, and 2) encourage car washes to be combined with related facilities. The proposed Ordinance would apply to both automated and coin- operated car washes only wi thin the Neighborhood Conmnerci al Districts. The attached Exhibit "A" shows the location of all Neighborhood Coemercial Centers. There are six centers which have not yet been constructed or approved for development. IV. PLANNING CONMXSSION: The Planning Conmaission conducted a public hearing on duly Z~ regarding the proposed Ordinance. A nanbet of concerned residents spoke in favor of the proposed Ordinance. Jerry Gruebel, applicant for a car wash at Lemon and Haven, and his architects, spoke against the proposed Ordinance. One tenant within the acUoining retail center spoke against the proposed Ordinance. After considering the public testimony and staff report, the Planning Conmaission voted unanimously in favor of the proposed Ordinance (see attached Resolution). CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: DCA 89-01 August 2, 1989 Page 4 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and has determined that the approval of this A~endment will not cause significant adverse impacts. If the City Council concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. BB:DC:ko Attachments: Exhi btt "A" - Location of Neighborhood Conmmrci al Centers Resolution of Support from Planning Conmission Ordi hence RESOkUTION NO. 89-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COhfMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCN4ONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOHHENOING APPROVAL OF OEVEI. OPHENT COOE ANENOHENT 89-01, AHENOING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCliO CUCAMONOA HUNICIPAL COOE REGAROING CAJ~ WASHES WITHIN NEIGHBORHO00 COHHERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND HAKING FINOINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. WHEREAS, on the 26th day of July, 1989, the Planning Con~nission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Plann!ng Conmnission has made the following findings: 1. That the Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban conmnuntty within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and 2. That the Amendment will provide for development within the District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and 3. That the Amendment wi 11 provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required with the District. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Conmnission has found that this amendment will not create a significant adverse effect on the environment and hereby reconmends to City Council the issuance of a Neg at i ve Dec 1 arat I on. NOW, THIERE~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1, That. pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby reconmends approval of Oevelopnent Code ANndment 89-01. 2. The Planning Conmission hereby reconmnends that the City Council approve and adopt Oevelopment Code Amendment 89-01 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance, PLANNING CDMMISS[D" ~ESOL~TiDN NC. B!}-iS5 DCA 89-01 July 26, 1989 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED i'HIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 1989. AI'rEST~ L~ n~ /x~a~r~ , Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Conmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pas:sed, and adopted by the Planning Con~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Con~nission held on the 26th day of July, lgBg, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: CO)ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director BY: Jeff Barnes, Parks/Landscape Maintenance Superintendent and Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: REVIEW OF STREET TREE SELECTION, PLANTING, AND PLACEMENT CRITERIA BACKGROUND: At the January 8, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Vallette questioned the degree of tree removals occurring after storms. In response, a field tour was conducted on January 22, 1992 to explain how tree damage occurs and what can be done to minimize it. Staff was then directed to summarize issues affecting tree survival and to suggest strategies which would promote tree survival. As a result of the ambitious tree planting policies adopted by the City in its early years, the City currently maintains nearly 60,000 street trees. To assist in this effort, a detailed tree survey was conducted to analyze tree species and conditions. Data supplied by the inventory, coupled with a developing "history" of the City's tree management program, indicated patterns of tree loss for recurrent reasons. To the extent possible staff has omitted "risky" trees from the approved Street Tree List. Also, to assist in reviewing public landscape areas, landscape staff now participates at the Planning and Engineering (P & E), Technical Review, and Design Review Committee levels. Although these efforts have been valuable in improving tree survival, there are planting practices still in effect which can contribute to tree loss. ]~L~: Tree losses are most often due to the influence of one or more of the following limiting factors described below: 1. Gale Force Winds: Our local gale force winds can bring down the healthiest of trees. Wind damage however is amplified when trees are already weakened by other limiting factors such as poor root development. ITEM K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: STREET TREES February 26, 1992 Page 2 2. Poor Root Development: Root development is affected by container size, growth rates, and water management. Container plants by their nature have restricted root systems. The larger the container, the poorer the root development. This is especially prevalent with fast growing trees such as Eucalyptus. Fifteen gallon container root balls are often restricted and unable to grow any structurally supportive roots. Proper root growth is also discouraged when trees are overwatered during establishment, or are located in turf. 3. Inadeuuate Growin~ Space: Tree growth is influenced by available growing space, both above and below ground. Physical limitations imposed by walks, curbs, walls, utilities, and other trees are contributing factors. 4. Diseases or Pests: Trees stressed by the urban environment are more vulnerable to insects and disease. Once weakened by these fnfestations, the trees are more susceptible to damage by winds or cold spells. 5. Severe Freezes: The periodic severe winter freezes with below normal temperatures can cause widespread loss in species with moderate cold tolerance. Damage assessment and replacement efforts often take a year or more to complete, since recovery can occur slowly. Ideally, these limiting factors should be the basis for tree siting and selection, but aesthetic goals such as instant visibility and continuity still influence such decisions. To minimize unnecessary tree loss and to promote optimum growth and management of publicly maintained trees, staff is proposing the following strategy: 1. Establish an Ad-Hoc Tree Advisory Group comprised of various Council and Commission representatives, staff, and local "green industry" professionals. Use this group to assist in evaluating the following suggestions: A. Re-eValuate and recommend updates to Tree Plantin~ Guidelines in: · the Street Tree List/Planting Guidelines PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: STREET TREES February 26, 1992 Page 3 · the General Plan, Development Code, and various Specific Plans · inspection and establishment criteria B. Identi~y trees which will need replacement · estimate costs and identify possible funding sources · recommend replacement schedule C. Explore means to bette~ inform the public and development community RECOMMENDATION: If the above strategy is found acceptable, staff recommends that the Community Development Director proceed as proposed and return to the Planning Commission as soon as possible wit follow-up recommendations. Res ec~ bmitted, o opment Director / LB: ko CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 92-01 - A request to determine if an industrial medical clinic: can be classified as Business Support Service. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report. is for the Planning Commission to consider the applicant's request in determining that an industrial medical clinic can be classified as Business Support Services, within the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP). BACKGROUND: A multi-tenant industrial project located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Hermosa Avenue was completed recently (see Exhibit "B"). The applicant, FORMA, representing the developer, contacted staff regarding a potential industrial medical clinic tenant for one of the buildings. However, Medical/Health Care Services is a prohibited use for Subarea 5. Business Support Services is listed as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 5. Therefore, the applicant requested a Use Determination that the proposed use meets the criteria of Business Support Service- Attached for the Commission's review is a letter from the applicant describing in detail the unique operational characteristics of an industrial medical clinic and how the use fits in this Business Support Service use category (see Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: A. Business Support Services versus Medical/Health Care Services. Does the proposed use meet t]he criteria to be classified as Business Support Services? To assist the Commission in making this determination, staff has included in this report the Industrial Specific Plan definitions of Business Support Services and Medical/Health Care Services, as shown in Exhibit "C-" The definition for Medical/Health Camre Services is all-inclusive and is intended to address all types of medical facilities ranging from small dentist offices to large full-service hospitals. The applicant contends that this type of use, industrial medical clinic, has operational characteristics different from a regular medical clinic. Industrial medical clinic provide a serVice to business firms, ~n that, it does pre- and post-hiring screening, emergency treatment, and follow-up care for on-the-job accidents. ITEM L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 92-01 - FORMA February 26, 1992 Page 2 It does not provide medical services for the general public or family practice- The applicant states, that "all appointments will be scheduled in groups · · · there will be no walk-in medical services," but he also states that the clinic will provide "emergency treatment for on-the-job accidents," which clearly necessitates walk-in patients- In reviewing the detailed description of the proposed use, and the two related use definitions, staff determined that it fits into the Medical/Health Care Services category rather than the Business Support Services category. Staff determined that it would be indistinguishable from a standard medical service- Further, such a broad interpretation of Business Support Service would be inconsistent with the way the Industrial Specific Plan categorizes other land uses. Staff recommends that Business Support Services be narrowly interpreted in this case as the use in question so clearly falls under a different land use type ( i.e., Medical Health/Care Service. ) B. Should Medical/Health Care Services be added as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan? To provide medical services for industrial users is a valid concern. Staff reviewed the Industrial Area Specific Plan to find out the number of Subareas that permit or conditionally permit Medical/Health Care Services- All the areas designated as Industrial Park (Subareas 6, 7, 12, and 17) permit or conditionally permit this use. Most of the areas designated as General Industrial District ( Subareas 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 ) conditionally permit this use, except for Subareas 2, 5, and 10. The heavier industrial areas (Subareas 9 and 15) do not permit Medical Health/Care Services because its office nature is more appropriately located in other areas · In summary, Medical Health/Care Services are permitted or conditionally permitted in 13 out of 18 Subareas (including the Haven Avenue Overlay District). However, if the issue is to locate this type of use close to the industrial users, perhaps it is appropriate to study the need of expanding the number of Subareas that ordinarily permit this use- C. Options for the Commission to consider: 1. Determine that the proposed use, Industrial Medical Clinic, is under the category of Medical/Health Care Services and deny the Use Determination. 2. Deny the Use Determination and direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Medical/Health Care Services as a conditional use to Subarea 5- 3. Approve the Use Determination. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 92-01 - FORMA February 26, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Use Determination and direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Option 2). Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Definitions of Medical/Health Care Services and Business Support Services Resolution of Use Determination January 29, 1992 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Request for Use Determination Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 of the City Development Code -- For a Medical Industrial Clinic in Subarea 5, Industrial Area Specific Plan Dear Mr. Buller: As you suggested at our recent meeting, we are providing information for Use Determination of a new type of Business Support Service. We are requesting your assistance in making an administrative determination based on the information provided that this new type of industrial clinic fits the Business Support Services category. The Hermosa Medical Industrial Clinic is an industrial service medical facility which requests to locate on the northeast corner of Hermosa and Sixth Streets in Subarea 5 of the Industrial Area Specific_Plan. The proposed use is not specific to those traditionally associated with Subarea 5. It is not a manufacturing, warehousing or distribution type of facility. It is an entirely new type of use, created to address recent changes in workers compensation legislation and its associated business impact. It will provide an increasingly necessary service for those businesses which are identified with Subarea 5 in that it is designed to assist the industrial user with very limited and distinct medical services. The medical industrial clinic is targeted to providing workers compensation related medical screening and emergency treatment for on the job accidents. It will provide only those services and to only industrial businesses. The. clinic will not provide assistance for walk-in or family practice medical service. Business owners will contract directly with Hermosa Medical Industrial Clinic. All appointments will be scheduled in groups of up to 20 employees, who will be transported to the facility in a company or facility-provided van. Appointments will normally be scheduled for pre-hire and post-hire screenings. There will be no walk-in medical services, nor will the facility service employee family members. Medical conditions other than those specified above will be referred to other facilities, as will all surgeries. The Medical Industrial Clinic does not service medical insurance carriers, nor is it related to any HMO or PPO. The facility will generally operate on normal business days on a 24 hour basis, coinciding with industry needs, with a staff of two doctors, one nurse and approximately three clerical workers. Due to workers compensation costs, this type of facility has become necessary to service industrial-related businesses. It must be conveniently located within the industrial area to limit travel' time to and from the facility, and to provide prompt treatment in the event of an accident. 10790 Clvlc Center Dnve. Suite 100. IRancho Cucamonga. CA 91730. (714) 989-2232' FAX 1714194~-0244 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga January 29, 1992 Page 2 The facility differs from standard medical operations in that it services select businesses rather than the general public. It provides a very limited range of workers compensation-related medical services. There are no walk-in patients, no pharmacy and no major surgeries. The facility invoices businesses directly rather than depending on standard sources of medical reimbursement. The traffic generated on site derives from a limited number of van trips. This allows for a much less intense level of site usage than that of standard medical or office activities. The preceding analysis demonstrates the strong association between this facility and the industrial community. The Hermosa Medical Industrial Clinic should be compatible with the intent of business support services. Surrounding communities have already acknowledged the importance of these specialized clinics and have addressed the needs of their industrial businesses by allowing the use within the industrial spectrum. Should you or your staff desire to tour similar facilities, the California Occupational Medical Group operates an industrial based medical facility in Rancho Cucamonga on Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Highway, with a satellite office on Milliken Avenue in the City of Ontario. Both of these facilities operate in the same manner as will the Hermosa Medical Industrial Clinic. We appreciate your consideration of this request. The use will benefit your industrial community and business environment. Enclosed please also find photographs of similar facilities now functioning in the area. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 989-2232. Sincerely, Senior Director HAL:rod (610/01.000) Attachments Business Support Services: Acttvttfes typically inc]ude, but are not limited to: services which support the activity of firms," such as, clerical, ~loyment, protective, or rotnor pr~ess~ng, ~nclud~ng blueprint services, and multi-copying of pathlets and smal 1 reports for another fi n~. Actf v~ ti es not included in th~s cat~ory are the printing of bo~s and services of a personal nature. Hedtcal/Health Care Services: Activities typically include, but are not 11mtted to therapeutic, preventative, or correctional personal treatment by physicians, dentists, and other practitioners, as well as the provision of medtcal testing and analysts services. Health care uses ~yptcally include those performed by: - Hedtcal Clinics - Famtly Planning Cltntcs - In-Patient Health Care Facilities, including hospitals and convalescent hoGes. · ~l'I'Y OF UCAMONGA PLANE~I'~': ION = :ii i."'-.:,...~:: ..~. F.XHBiT: O_~ SCALE: -:.. ":. ':.....< .... ~ ~ l~d" : .............. ............ - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING USE DETERMINATION NO. 92-01, REQUESTING TO CLASSIFY INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL CLINIC AS BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals- (i) FORMA has filed an application for the approval of Use Determination No. 92-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Use Determination request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the of 26th February 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranch6 Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on February 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application contemplates classifying industrial medical clinics as a Business Support Service land use type within the Industrial Area Specific Plan~ and (b) The applicant has described an industrial medical clinic as one which provide medical services exclusively to industrial area employees, which said services would include medical screening and emergency (non- surgical) treatment for Job-related accidents~ and (c) The Industrial Area Specific Plan includes a Medical Health/Care Service land use type, which is defined as including the full range of medical services for the purpose of -therapeutic, preventative, or correctional personal treat~ment," including by specific reference, medical testing, medical cl£nics, family planning clinics, and hospitals$ and (d) The Industrial Area Specific Plan defines Business Support Services as those "services which support the activity of firms," including by specific reference such activities as ,clerical, employment, blueprinting, and copying~ and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. UD 92-01 - FORMA February 26, 1992 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows.- (a) The use in question is of similar intensity as in a medical clinic under the use category of Medical/Health Care Services~ and (b) The use in question does not meet the purpose and intent of the district in which it is proposed$ and. (c) The use in question does not meet and conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. MeNial, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co~nission held on the 26th day of February 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES= COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commission ~. City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Re: Neighborhood Commercial Development Amendment Dear Planning Commission Members: Recently we were reviewing the development code Section 17.10.030 on behalf of one of our clients to determine if he might construct a recreational vehicle storage and community storage facility in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. While it is conditionally permitted for' recreational vehicles and boats, it is not listed. permitting mini-storage or community storage facilities within your (NC) zones. Analyzing this, we believe it would be more appropriate to include within your (NC) zones to permit mini-storage or community storage facilities because they are so similar to and are substantially compatible to recreational vehicle storage yards~ which is a conditionally permitted use within the (NC) zone. After discussing this with Planning=Staff, they recommended to us that we seek your evaluation on this issue and possibly amend the Development Code to conditionally list this type of building within the (NC) district. ITEM M In light of the strong feelings about recreational storage and boat storage in the neighborhoods of Cucamonga, we believe it is necessary to provide both recreational storage facilities and community storage facilities near and easily assessable to the neighborhoods that create the demand. The community storage buildings as a part of a recreational storage yard canbe designed as visual physical barriers for both aesthetic and security for the vehicles being stored. Typically in similar zones throughout the Inland Empire, Los Angeles County, and the City of Los Angeles, these types of uses are permitted in conjunction with each other. We would urge you to make a recommendation to the Planning Staff to bring forward a development amendment amending these code sections to conditionally permit these uses to occur together in your (NC) district. Sincerely, m Craig S ith CCHARLES J. HUGHES INVESTMENTS CITY OF P ' -:=~ CUCAMONGA H . February 17, 1992 Hs Anna-L i sa Hernandez C i ty of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cuca~nga, CA 91729 Dear Hs Hernandez: You asked for soothing in writing. I do not wish to go forward on the Conditional Use Permit 91-]6 APN 208-261-56. Sincere]y, CJH:mgs 1101 Fulton Avenue, Suite C · Sacramento, CA95825 · 916-485-6515 PROPOSAL FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL - THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVE. AND ARROW ROUTE - APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES DONLEY- BENNETT ARCHITECTS 12821 NEWPORT AVE. TUSTIN, CA. 92680 (714) 731-6033 PREPARED BY: GREGORY D. BENNETT INTRODUCTION PAGE 1 LAND USE PAGE 2 TRAFFIC PAGE 2,3 PROPERTY VALUES PAGE 3,4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS PAGE 4 VESTED INTEREST PAGE 5 JUSTIFICATION PAGE 5 CONCLUSION PAGE 6,7 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. ZONING MAP B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM C. TRAFFIC STUDY D. ECONOMIC REPORT E. NEIGHBORS' PETITIONS F. COMMUNITY PETITIONS G. OWNER'S LETI'ERS H. GENERAL PLAN APPLICATIONS Honorable Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Re: Justification and support of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route. Dear Planning Commissioners: The property at the above-referenced intersection is comprised of six different ownership groups, they are all in support of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from the ,existing land use designation of medium residential, eight through fourteen units per acre, to general commercial, or alternatively neighborho~xl commercial. As you are aware, on August 9, 1990, the City Council held public workshops about multi- family housing development in the city. During these workshops the citizens and the City Council members voiced concern over increased traffic volumes, increased demands on city services, and over crowding in local schools; which were all perceived to be linked to multi-family development. The City Council then directed to reduce and study the existing inventory of multi-family properties. We, the ownership group, of the above six properties, concur with the City Council that multi family is an inappropriate zone for the above re'ferenced properties. The subject properties are largely surrounded by intense general commercial, industrial park, and office professional uses. The property itself includes a commercial use, an existing Mobil gas station, that the City proposes to downzone to single family development. This is a planning disaster in the making. Land Use It is our assertion that the planning staff was limited by its direction from the Council. With only a vocabulary of downzoning given to them they could not adequately study the best possible land uses for the properties in question. Given the great deal of properties they were asked to study, they did not have the manpower to look at the appropriateness of multi-family itself, nor the appropriateness of single family at that intersection. To study this issue further would be more appropriate; and to consider for example the surrounding uses as follows: to the South, a general commercial strip center; diagonally across the intersection, a large industrial park with largely general commercial uses; to the West, vacant land zoned office professional; to the East, a church with an underlying zoning of multi family zoning with eight to fourteen units. And, part of the subject property has a commercial use- the Mobil gas station. It would be highly inappropriate from a land use perspective to put single family houses next to the intensity of the interse, ction and intensity of the physical mass of the adjacent commercial, industrial, and office uses. The land use pattern clearly indicates a more intense use would be more compatible to the contextural setting. All factors taken into account, in the absense of contrary direction the City Council would probably zone this property neighborhood commercial, or general commercial ,based on land use issues alone. Traffic The existing intersection at Archibald and Arrow Route is a busy and complex intersection. By creating the tools for lot consolidation by re- zoning to general commercial, traffic patterns could be helped by reducing the amount of access points, both on Archibald and Arrow Route. Currently, the properties contiguous to Arrow Route number five, therefore requiting at least five access points within a relatively short distance. A neighborhood commercial or general commercial designation would restrict access points to two or three versus five on that same Arrow Route dimension; therefore reducing curb cuts and potential conflicts. In discussions with neighbors to the North of the property who are generally in support of the commercial designation, (please see attatched petitions of support) the view expressed was that additional single family or multi- family development would more severely impact their properties than general commercial. Additionally, the residents on Placer St. are opposed to increased traffic on Placer to serve Malven Ave., potentially resulting from additional single family development. Malven Ave. deadends against the property and would be needed to serve residential development and was planned that way. Malven would not be utilized if a general commercial designation was approved. No accesss would need to take place via a residential community. The street could be vacated to the benefit to the adjacent property owners at no cost to them. The engineering department is receptive to that idea. Traffic studies indicate that while trip generation might increase slightly between multi-family designation versus general commercial, studies also indicate that the distance traveled by providing commercial at this intersection will typically reduce total miles traveled within the community, therefore generally reducing congestion city-wide by reducing the distance traveled to an alternate commercial destination. The City staff has indicated that to receive a general plan designation of general commercial we would have to fund and independent traffic study, which we are willing to do. To confirm our beliefs in our proposal we have already engaged a professional trafffic engineer to study these impacts, and a copy of his report is included. (Carl Mastro- Traffic Report) Property_ Values There are significant property value considerations in support of a general commercial designation. In comparing values between multi- family, single family, and general commercial, there is a huge disparity in values, which also relate to a significant variation in sales tax and property tax revenue that the City would ultimately receive. Studies indicate that there might be as significant as ten to twenty times difference in value from a tax revenue standpoint. This should be considered crucial to a long term analysis done by the City Planners. This has not been done. The existing three homes on our collective properties would probably remain a long time if this downzoning occurs. The Planning Commission should realize that they are not going to receive new inventory in all cases because there is no economic benefit to :remove a house with a current value comparable to the potential value of a new home on the same property. It is likely that the older properties would remain inde~nately under the city 's proposal therefore adversely affecting the neighborhood to the negative. Further, this existing inventory of generally non-compliance single family development would be strengthened by this proposal. Therefore, it would tend to adversely affect the vacant undeveloped properties, reducing their economic viability for single family development as well. Obviously, there are severe economic impacts on us, the property owners of these six properties in question, and for us, downzoning would be a financial disaster for each of us on a proportional basis. Clearly, our concerns are viable, and our concerns are not being adequately addressed by the City's proposal. The incentive for change needs to be prudent, financially justifiable, and based on good planning principals that would allow the highest and best use of this property to occur without adversely affecting the neighborhood and the community at large. This can occur with our proposal and need not negatively affect adjacent commercial owners. A study of the project' s ability to absorb within the commercial market has been undertaken by ourselves to determine its absorbability and it's marketing desirability. A copy of which is enclosed ( Robert Geiger- PHD,Economic Study). There are numerous, significant features of a general commercial center that would be of great public benefit when comparing economic viability of single family in comparison. Environmental Settings We have prepared an environmental negative declaration form on the City's form to show our proposal would be easily proven to be a negative declaration type project. A copy of which is enclosed ( Environmental Information Form, Part One, Initial Study, City of Rancho Cucamonga). Vested Interest The Mobil Oil Corporation has owned its location and been operating prior to even the City Incorporation. The City originally violated its own General Plan by pre-zoning the property multi-family which violates City Planning codes that prohibit creating a non-conforming use. Mobil Oil Corporation has substantial investment in the property, and is a pleasing visual service station, and is a very well maintained property. To further expose Mobil Oil Corporation and to put multi-family or single family neighbors adjacent to that use aggrivates the possibility of Mobil Oil being able to convert or alter their use by being downzoned. A better solution would be to allow Mobil Oil and the adjacent property owners to convert to General Commercial which would be a conditionally permitted use, therefore creating no need for non-conformity of uses. Mobil in the future could modify within the realm of a commercial center to meet the needs of the auto customers of the future. It is a ..severe detriment to downsize the properties adjacent to Mobil. It impacts Mobil in aggrivating and putting neighbors tangent to a non-compatible use. Whereas, commercial is entirely compatible. Justification of Economic Land Use Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Kidder have collectively owned their seven acres for 27 years. During that 27 years they Zhave received numerous commercial offers of purchase, especially in the last three years. They have received zero single family offers in the past 27 years. To create single family in this area would be substantially less desirable than the larger properties up the hill and to the north where the developers can offer better planning conformity and better master planning of the features desirable for single family development. Our vacant properties could not have similar quality features, basically because of our adjacent commercial uses. Therefore, creating a less desirable place to live which always relates to less value for the property. Conclusion Since it is the desire of the Council to reduce multi-family inventory, we support that. Our proposal meets the,' intention of the City Council' s directive with additional benefits, reducing traffic conflicts, increasing economic viability of the area, substantially increasing property values, maintaining the existing character of the environment, reducing distance traveled to a destination shopping center, increasing sales tax revenue in a short term and for the future, meeting the needs of the adjacent neighbors as evidenced by the petitions by the community. Creating the environment that will plan the orderly change of the older inventories of single family to a more desirable and newer commercial use. Insuring future sensitivity through the conditional use permit process; insuring full support from the property_ owners, a crucial point. The six property owners are very much willing to work with the City staff, your commission and the City Council to insure a sound commercial center in the future. We urge you to make a strong recommendation to the City Council with respect to our properties to rezone to general commercial or neighborhood commercial and to take all the steps necessary to insure community support of what is before you today. Alternatively we request that our project be continued until such time as our formal application to amend the general plan can be heard so that the issues discussed herein can be analyzed in greater detail by the City staff to provide you with all the tools necessary for your formal support of our recommendation for a land use designation of general commercial. We believe we have a clear and convincing argument for our proposal. We believe it to be a rare opportunity that all goals, special interests and community can all be met with a General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial Zoning without adversely affecting any group. The impact on schools would be mitigated, the neighbors are being satisfied, the City coffers will increase two-fold by the increased property tax base and by sales tax revenue, Mobil Oil will now be in conformance, traffic conflicts could be mitigated, the goals of the comtnunity at large are met, the population stabilizes and the planning map becomes logical in its pattern; it appears to be a winner at almost all levels. It also removes the non- conforming residential units that are being used as rental properties which are negatively impacting the surrounding context. Again, we urge you to 6 make the Council aware of all our support of this recommended change and we urge you to make a similar recommendation. Thank you very much for your patience on a complex matter, if you have any questions please contact Gregory D. Bennett, the owners' representative, at: 12821 Newport Ave.,. Tustin, CA. 92680, (714) 731- 6033. :Sincerely, an Robert Kidder/ 7 acres/ Pete D~~/1/2 acre Judy Matthews/3/4 acre Mobil Oil Corp. / 3/4 acre Donley - Bennett Architects Owner's Representative List of Attatchments: Zoning Map Environmental Information Form Traffic Study Economic Report Neighbors' Petitions Community Petitions Owner's Letters General Plan Applications ZONING MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / ZONE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I-Initial Study) Genezxl Informaticm I. Nsme sad address of developer or project sponsor: DONLEY-BENNETT ARCHITECTS, 12821 NEWPORT AVENUEr TUFfIN, CA 92680 2. Address of project: NORTHFAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD & ARROW SOUTE Asseesor's Block and Lot N~aa. er: 208-291-01r 02r 03, 05, 06, 07. 3. Name, address, and telephone number of perso~ ~o be contacted concerni~ this project: DCNLEY-BENNETT ARCH/TECTS, GREGORY BENNEIT, 12821 NEWPORT AVE. 'lvwl'~N, CA 92680 (714) 731-6033 4. Indicate number of the permit application for ~he project to which this form ~er~ains: GPA & ZCNE CHANGE - no other required. 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public zpprovsls required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal a~emciee: SAME 6. Existira6 zoning district: ZCAV/NG D/STR/CT - MED/UM RESIDENTIAL 8 - 14 D U's AC 7. Propoeed use of site (Project for w~ich this form is filed): Project Deecrlpttce 8. Site size. + 10 ACRES 9. Square footage. N A 1(~. Number of floors of constructtom. N A 11. Anx3unt of off-street .re-king provided. N A 12. Attach plans. N A 13. Propoeed scheduling. N A 14. Associated project. SEE PHOTOS OF EXISTING MDB/L FfATIC~. 15. Anticipated increment~l develo~xnent.. N A If residemtial, include the mw-~r of unita, schedule of unit sizes, r~nge of sale prices or re~s, and t]~pe of household size expected. N A CITY O F RANCHO CUCAMO N GA 17. If cr,~ercial, indicate the type, w~ether neighborhood, city or regionaliF oriented, square foota~e of sales area, a~d lcadl~g facilities. N A 18. If industrial, indicate type, est~mted enployment per shift, and loading facilities. N A 19. If institutional, indicate ~he major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loedin~ facilities, and _~-.wm,.~ty benefits to be derived from the pr?.Ject. N A 20. If the project involves a variance, couditlcmal use or ~ applica- tion, s~ate this sad indicate clearly ~ly rJae s4}plicatioe is requiPed. N A Are the followin~ items ~Dplicable t~ ~he ~ToJect or its effectS? Discuss below all it-m~ checked yes (atTach additio~al s~eets as ~eceesary). 21. Change in existln~ features of say bays, tidelands, bee=heM, __X or hills, or substantial zltexltio~ of 8round conTx~u-s. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas fr~ existing residentizl areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or cbamter of general area of proJect. 9.4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, snoks, fumss or odors in vicinity. __X 26. Change in oc_~_-, bay, lake, s~ream c= gro,-a ~ater quality or __X quantity, or alteration of exis%lng drainage pattens. 27. Substantial change in existing noise. or vibration levels in X the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 29. Use of dispoeal of potentially hazardous materials, such as X toxic subsVAnce, flanmmbles or explosives. 30. Subs~antial c~ange in denand for municipal service (police, X fire, water, Me, etc. ). 31. Sub~caatiall? increase foesil fuel cxx~unptton (electricity, X oi 1, natural gas, etc. ). 32. Relationship ~o a lar~er project or series of projects. X Euvll-o~me~tal 33. Describe r. be pmJ~t site s it exists ~fore ~e pmJ~t, imcl~i~ rotion ~ ~~~y, ~il stability, pl~ts ~d M~ls, ~d any historical or scenic asp~ts. ~scribe any existl~ st~tu~ ~. '~ site, a~d the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. S~spshots or ~i~id ~o~ ~11 ~ ~ri~ ~e ~~i~ p~ies, imcludim~ inform~tion om plaints ~md ~mi~ls ~md ~y cul~l, ~ori~l o~ ~c ~s. I~t~e the ~ of l~d ~e (~id~i~l, ~~ial, e~c.), im~emsi~y of la~d ~e (one- f~ily, ~p~r~memt houses, shops, dep~rtm~t s~, e~c.), m~ ~le of develo~ent (height, from~ge, set-~ck, rear y~rd, e~c.). A~ach photographs of ~be vicimi~y. Snapshots or ~laroid photos will be acc~t~. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Planning Division. Date I. Signature ~ " : Title / 33. ~ EXISTING PROPERTY OiNSISTS OF THE SEVEN ACRES OF VACANT LAND SLOPING GENERALLY SOUI~ TO APP~flXIFa~TELY 1%. THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, NO SIGNIFICAMT H/STORICAL FEATURES, AND NO SIGNIFICANT PLANTS OR ANIMALS. THERE ARE NO .CULTURAL OR HISTOR/CAL ASPECTS TO THE PRC- 15 YEARS OLD AND E~S A Q~ALITY IANDSCAPE FOR A -_~:RV/CE S'/RTICN ENV/~N~Eb~. THERE ARE ADDIT/C~niLY THREE SINGLE FAMrr.Y HCM~-~, 34. FROP~ TO THE SOUI!4 IS CCM~RC/AL, RETA/L SHOPS, FAST FOOD RESTURANT, 30% COVERAGE. SEE PHOTOS. P~OPERI"f TO THE WEST IS VACANT, ZENED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROPE~"Y TO THE NORFH IS SINGI~8 FAMILY 4 - 8 UNITS PER ACRE, 1 & 2 STORY CCNSTRUCT/CN. PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS CHURCH PROPER~Y ~.Y UND~PED, LARGELY VACANT, 30 YEARS PLUS AGE. ECONOMIC REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND USE ANALYSIS Prepared for DONLEY-BENNETT .ARCHITECTS February 14, 1992 Prepared by RKG CONSULTING, INCORPORATED Robert K. Geiger, Ph.D. PREAMBLE The purpose of this report is to develop an economic and market study which analyzes the economic effects of a proposed commercial land use for specific properties located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND AND LOCATION OF PROPERTIES It is the intention of the property owners to request a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the properties to secure a "general commercial" land use designation. The properties are located at the intersection of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and consist of approximately nine (9) contiguous acres. EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT As reflected in the Baseline Economic Analysis - Foothill Boulevard Corridor, July 1986, and as set forth in other similar project reports, it has been concluded that the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not currently have enough commercial developement to adequately support its needs. Consistent with this conclusion, and with respect to its economic analysis to evaluate the overall supply of available commercial land in the City, the findings and conclusions of the report prepared by Urban Research Associates, dated April 1991,~ have been found to be substantially accurate and generally applicable, except that these reports neither addresses the specific 2 demographic problems of the neighborhood within which the subject properties are located, nor the advantages posed by the subject properties in resolution of localized needs for "convenience oriented" commercial development, from which the localized neighborhood suffers. GENERAL DISCUSSION This research report analyzes the scope and implications of commercial ]Land use within the rapidly changing City of Rancho Cucamonga, and more specifically within the area of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. As of 1992, Rancho Cucamonga had approximately 600 acres of developed retail, service, and office land uses or approximately one-half of the 1,244 total acres set aside for commercial functions. That allocation implies a ratio of 8.13 acres per one! thousand residents at the City's point of build-out, assuming a maximum population of 153,000 residents. Every neighboring municipality but one has designated a higher ratio of ultimate commercial land use. The median value for six comparison cities exceeds 11 acres per thousand residents. Based on land use demand modeling and this comparative data, we estimate that Rancho Cucamonga could support a higher commercial land use base by the time the city attains its maximum population. A market sensitive allocation would be 3 in the range of 1,280 to 1,380 total retail, service, and office acres. A majority of the city's commercial development can be found along Foothill Boulevard. The subject properties lie on the outer periphery of the market area served by Foothill Boulevard. Today, 206 acres are actually occupied by retail and service uses while almost 400 commercially-designated acres remain vacant along Foothill Boulevard. Key activity clusters are located at major intersections with the most prominent being the Terra Vista Town Center, which serves a community-wide market. According to the State of California Demographic Research Unit of the Department of Finance, the city's 1990 population is estimated to be 114,954, a figure which local officials believe to be more accurate than local estimates. With the addition of residential building permits issued in 1990 and 1991 to the Department of Finance data, Rancho Cucamonga's current housing unit count is approximately 38,300, and the city's population is approximately 121,000. When these figures are projected into the future, actual buildout population, and thus demand for commercial goods: and services will be significantly larger than now anticipated. The next waves of urbanization in Rancho Cucamonga will be concentrated east of Milliken Avenue and south of OI 0 UU UU U UU UU 80 ~ g oo ooooo oooo O0 ~0 O0 0 OO O0 U 0 U ~ ~ o ~ U 0 0 4 Baseline Road, and in areas of in-fill within the developed or partially developed areas of the city. Neither the in-fill development, nor the development in these other areas share or claim any spatial integrity which is dependent upon the others. The neighborhood trade area surrounding the subject properties house an estimated 12,000 residents. Their basic convenience needs are supplied by two small centers located at the intersections of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route and Arrow Route and Turner Avenue. These centers comprise only about 2 to 3 acres. Market potentials, when considering this residential base, and proximity of similar commercial uses to the proposed, for this demographic environment support the development of an anchored retail or convenience oriented center on the subject properties. Rancho Cucamonga has designated a substantial amount of vacant commercial land to satisfy the future commercial requirements- of the city. However, it is expected that without adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Commercial Zoning sought, an inadequate allocation of convenience oriented commercially zoned property within the Market Trade Area of the subject properties will remain a problem to the residents affected. A small segment of residents within the Market Trade Area were 5 polled as to their greatest complaint about the availability of commercial services. Conspicuous among most of them was the complaint that the nearest major supermarket was so far away. The closest were the Albertson's and Alpha Beta Markets, both located at the intersection of Baseline and Archibald; distant some 2.3 miles away. The subject properties are particularly suited to provide the convenience oriented services so badly needed in the Market Trade Area of the subject properties. The site is situated at the northeast corner of the intersection of Archibald and Arrow Route. Both Archibald and Arrow Route are major arterials within the city. On the southeast corner of the intersection is a fast-food restaurant and a very small strip center. Vacant office-professional zoned property exists on the northwest corner, and industrial/multiple purpose offices exist at the southwest corner. An existing Mobil Station is located on the northeast corner and is contiguous to the subject properties. Given the properties location to these other non-residential uses, and their location on major arterial streets, and given the neighborhood demand for "convenience oriented" commercial goods and services, the highest and best use of the subject, as well as the use most suited physically, will be as general commercial. It is not expected that the addition of such commercial uses 6 will adversely affect other similar uses within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The most visible clue to the health of a city's local economy is reflected in its commercial land use pattern. The number, size, and distribution of neighborhood retail centers suggest the degree to which basic shopping needs of a particular neighborhood are met. Larger retail centers anchored by general merchandise or discount stores such as Nordstroms, Mervyn's, K-Mart, Pace, Target, and the like, indicate the aggregate size of the local consumer market along with its level of purchasing power. Office clusters with their supportive service retail centers reveal the diversification in a city's economic base as well as functional links to the broader regional setting. Interspersed among these patterns one typically finds numerous freestanding businesses, unanchored convenience centers, and commercial strips which serve as vivid reminders of individual entrepreneurship nurtured by our consumption-oriented society. The City's allocation of more than 6,400 acres for commercial and industrial activity, impending development of a major regional shopping center, and a current population approaching 121,000 residents all make the community an emerging satellite city within the Los Angeles megalopolis. Future market potentials for commercial development 7 within Rancho Cucamonga are generally imbedded in the residential dynamics of newly-emerging and undeveloped portions of the city, predominently east of the subject. Because the subject is located in the substantially built-out portion of the city, however, additional commercial opportunities are limited, and thus it is incumbent upon the city, through it's zoning authority, to take advantage of such opportunities as are proposed to supply needed "convenience oriented" commercial services and goods to this area. In addition to lacking needed services at this time, there are currently about 30 to 40 acres of undeveloped low-medium, and medium density zoned properties within the Market Study Area of the proposed, which will further contribute to the growing need. for these commercial goods and services. While the Foothill Specific Plan area, and other areas within the city designated for commercial use will provide a portion of the commercial need, these other areas lack a direct and "convenience oriented" link to this market area; a link which can be provided by the subject properties. The commercial properties within the Foothill Specific Plan in the vicinity of Foothill and Archibald are so limited as to use, and so discontinuous with the majority of the trade area which will be serviced by the subject 8 properties, as to no longer be "convenience oriented." Land allocation for "convenience oriented" commercial within the Market Trade Area of the properties consists of only 2 to 3 acres which have been built-out and 3 to 4 additional acres of vacant land set aside for that purpose. Thus, currently there isn't, nor is it expected that upon ultimate build-out, there will be sufficient "convenience oriented" commercial development to serve this area and the needs of these consumers. As was stated above, these residents are located on the "outskirts" of the greater residential area served by the Foothill Boulevard Trade Area, and there is virtually no competing neighborhood or general commercial in close proximity to this Trade Area and the subject properties. As far as proximity to it's potential consumers is concerned, the subject site is ideal for the use proposed. Further, the residents in the vicinity of the proposed who were polled, generally expressed their assumption that the subject properties would someday be commercial, and would provide some of the goods and services they needed. In addition to providing a valuable service, such a zoning will create as many as 300 new jobs in the Market Trade Area, and increase the tax base within the city. These jobs typically employ students, seniors, and others in the $6.00 per hour to $18.00 per hour wage range. 9 Rising concerns over traffic flows within the city also point to a desirability for more localized "convenience oriented" commercial goods and services. By providing such services and goods at strategic locations where they are most needed throughout the community, the city can reduce it's overall traffic miles traveled to obtain these services and goods. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it appears that the Market Trade Area surrounding the subject properties justifies allocation and development of the "convenience oriented" commercial sought. The subject properties, being among the few vacant properties available to fulfill the localized needs for such goods and services, are ideally located for such purpose, will provide a new job market, will reduce vehicular commute times to similar commercial uses beyond the Market Trade Area, and will not adversely affect other commercially zoned properties within the city. SOURCES Califomia Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. · Population and Housing Unit Estimates for Caiifomia Cities and Counties,' Summary Report E-5 (Apdl 1990). Casazza, John A. and Frank H. Spink, Jr. Shoooina Center Develooment Handbook Second edition. (Washington: The'U~ Land Institute, 1985). Jones, Ken and Jim Simmons. Locmion. Location. Location: Ana_~n_a the Retail Environmint. (Toronto: Methuen, 1987). Mayer, Harold M. and Charles Hayes. Land Uses in American Citie-~. (Champaign, IL: Park Press, 1983). Northam, Ray M. Urban GeoqraDhy. Second ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979). Planning Network. City_ of Rancho Cucamon_aa Master Environmental Assessment & Genera! Plan Environmental Impact RePOrt. (Adopted January 4, 1989). Rancho Cucarnonga, City of. · City Coundl Workshops: Multi-Family Development Second Workshop" Staff report. (January 31, 1991). Rancho Cucamonga, City of. Foothill Boulevard SOecific Plan (Adopted September 1987). Rancho Cucarnonga, City of. General Ran for the City of Rancho CucamonaR. (As Amended January ~989). ' Rancho Cucamonga, City of · Multi-Family Development Amendments,' City Coundl Resolution 91-060 (February 26, 1991). Urban Research Associates. Baselins Economic Analysis. Foothill Boulevard Corridor Ri~nChn. ~t.14Gil~;a:iga. (Fullerton, CA.: processed, July 1986). TRAFFIC STUDY CAM ENGINEERING INC. 13~03 Snindn Road L~ Mimdn, CA ~38 (714) 521-9779 · Fax (213) 944-2300 TItAFFIC IIPACT REPOrt Prepared for DOFLEY-BENFETT ARCHITECTS 12821 Newport Avenue Tuetin, California 92~80 (714) 731-6371 Prepared by CA~BNGINKK~INC, INC. February 14, 1992 , CAHE~GI~EERI~G, I~C., is pleased to present the following traffic study in support of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, ("Zone Change"), of six parcels comprising approximately nine (g) acres of property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. LQCATIQ~ OF PROJECT: The property which is the subject of the zone change is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, California. See Pigure 1, Project Location. PIIRPOSE OF REPORT: It is our understanding that the purpose of this report is to evaluate the capability of the above named intersection to handle the traffic expected to be generated by the community and to address the differential in traffic expected to be generated by the zone change. is further our understanding that the property is now zoned Medium Density Residential and is proposed to be designated General Co~mercial. The following represents the impact resulting from the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. KETHODOLOGY: i The City of Rancho Cucamunga has an approved T~affic Model Database which estimates future traffic demand on its roadway network. A post: 2010 model run has been developed to estimate 'the traffic impacts of land use in the General Plan. It is generally recognized by city officials however, that these impacts are significantly overstated. IBased ~ on field data collected at the intersection, and upon the following analysis, we agree that the traffic model is aggressive in this regard. The land use for the site, both existing designation (Medium Density Residential), and proposed use (General Commercial), is eum~rized in Table 1, below. This information form the basis of comparison for the analysis herein. FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION I I I I ~'~'~' L Iv~'~l..~l i; ' i ] I I M. le.P.i ~F~UF'-cH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / ZONE CHANGE TABLE :1.: LAXD USE ACR1KS EXIST* G LAID DKNSITY II!IT~ PROPOSXD IZAR SIZ 7_,OIII[G USX LAID USE 9.0, Med. 8-14 14/Acre 64 General 0.4 150T Dens. to Comm;1. Resid. 112 I1.0 acre is currently developed as a cow-w~rcial Mobil Service Station at the immediate corner of the property. The land use sum~rized in Table I was the basis of analysis in modellin~ the traffic. The initial phase of the analysis involved eetabliehin~ trip ~eneration associated with each type of land use. The trip ~eneration was calculated by usin~ rates ~iven in the Rancho Cucamon~a Traffic Nodal (RCTM), taken primarily from the Institute of Transportation Ih~insers' (ITE) "Trip Generatio~' (Fourth Edition). A eummsry of the trip ~eneration is set forth below in Table 2. TABLE 2: TBIP GIINR~ATION L~_IwD UMIT~/ AIp~Ar HOUR PX pRAr HOUR DAILY U~ TS~ In Out TOt In Out Tot Multiple Fam. 112 DU 12 49 61 52 24 76 : 683 8 Acres plus Serv. Station 16 PS 16 12 28 S1 28 59 2128 1 Acre TOTAL EXIST'G 28 61 89 83 52 135 2811 Comm. Cmml. 150 TSF 127 55 183 300 342 642 7927 Gen. Cmml. 150 TSF 114 4G 163 268 301 570 7125 As summarized in Table 2, the General Co~rcial -2- Land Use represents a gross increase in traffic of 74 trips in the AM Peak Hour, 435 trips in the PM Peak Hour, and 4314 trips on a daily basis, all of which are relatively insignificant increases. These gross increases my be reduced by the fact that a portion of the general commercial trips are not new trips. A decrease of 25% can be experienced, resulting in a gross increase of 33 Trips in the AM Peak Hour, 292 trips in the PM Peak Hour, and 2533 trips on a daily basis. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION: Project traffic was distributed throughout the network using the Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model and the results of field counts taken at the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. The traffic was projected to the year 2010, for both Medium Density Residential and General Commercial, and both on the basis of the Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model and on the basis of actual field counts which are less aggressive and probably more accurate than the Model. These volumes are posted a't the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. Figures 2 and S illustrate the AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes, respectively, for the Medium Density Residential currently designated in 'the General Plan. FigUres 4 and 5 illustrate the AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes, ~ respectively, :For General Comw~rcial, as proposed. Figures 8 and 7 illustrate AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes, respectively, based upon the actual field counts, .and are indicative of the conclusion that the estimates contained in the Model Dataibase are aggressively high. As illustrated by these figures, when assigned to ~he network, the change in land use results in an insignificant increase in traffic. -3- L&J Z bJ > (::) _l 17]_ " 1,/' ARROW ROUTE 1326 > 520 FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ~ AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2 0 10 Z b.I ...J ~ 310 J l ~ < los~ · ~ " 170 AftFt0W I~ol. rl'~ asz~ > 71 c,,I Cfi ,--I FIGURE 3: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ~ PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 IJJ Z · ,J /Z' "* 173 ARROW ROUTE · zzz zzz z z 1340 525 FIGURE 4: GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE ~ AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 Z f'~ 313 J l ~ < 1069 aRROW 8OUTM 40 //~"~C ~ FIGURE 5: GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE ~ PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 ~, ~o8 ( 12o ) J i ~ < 141 ( 154 ) ~_/------~ 162 ( 190 ) ARROW ROUTE ( 24 ) 28 /~l F~T ~7I ( 229 ) 189 > ,~ ( 55 ) 52 ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ) ;1992 MODEL DATA BASE ESTI~TE 'ACTUAL PER FIELD COUNT 2/92. FIGURE 6: ACTUAL COUNT TO DATABASE COMPARISON RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AM PEAK HOUR .YEAR 1992 Z ~ 127 ( 143 ) ~ ~ < 204 ( 210 ) ,, ARROW ROUTE 180 ) 162 178 ) 140 > 15 ) 18 ( ) 1!992 MODEL co co co DATABASE ESTIMATE !'~ ~ ACTUAL PER FIELD COUNT 2/92. FIGURE 7:' ACTUAL COUNT TO DATABASE COMPARISON RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 1992. The critical intersection was analyzed for each land use using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology. The results revealed that the projected level of service does not change significantly because of the proposed zone change, and essentially remains the same as projected in the Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model. ROADWAY The impact attributable to the proposed change in land use will not, in and of itself, alter the roadway geometrice now existing. The analysis reveals that no modifications are necessary to accomodate the increase in traffic resulting from the zone change. The intersection ICU increases nominally but remains at its current projected level of earvice. Austin-Fouet's ICU analysis uses a Clearance Value of .10 and Capacity Value of 1800 vehicles per lane. Documented field studies have shown a Capacity Value of lg00 vehicles per lane and a Clearance Value of 0.5 or lees to be more indicative of actual operations in San Bernardino County. Thus, the actual ICU projections will be better than portrayed in the Model Database. In addition to these general observations, t~e model assumes one 1Gadlog point. Proposed multiple loading points from the subject would further disperse the project tripe thereby reducing 'the project impact at the intersection of Archibald and Arrow Route. CONC _____LUSION: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the G.00 acres on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route will not have a significant traffic impact in the existing or planned roadway network. By diverting tripe and providing local shopping opportunities, the gross impact of the General Plan and Zone Change is reduced. Although there le an increase in traffic, it can be accommodated by the roadway network. -4- Tebta I RCTN PEA~ HOUR ANO AhT T~liP RATE SUMMARY -- AN Peak Kour .... )N PeaksHour '- Land Use Type ._ unite Zn Qj~ Total !n out_. Tq~at 1. singLe-ram Oecached DU ,20 '.5! ,73 .63 ,37 1.00 13~00 ;, ADartment --" DU .10 .A3 .53 ,i6 ,21 .67 6i10 3, Condeminium DU .07 ,38 .45' ,38 .18 ,96. 5;86 4. Mo=iLe Name OU .1; .29 ,41 .35 .,ZlJ .56 5. ELderLy/Retirement OU ,11 .2e ,40 .aS ,lS .AO 3~30 6, General Cewmer¢tei TSF .7a ,33 1,09 1,iq 2,01l 3.80 7, hgioeeL CmrciaL TIF ,50 ,~2 .7Z 1,&2 1,6~ 3,0~ 8, Conmanity CemroleL TSF .M ,3? 1,~ 2.gO ~,;! 4,28 9, Neighborhood ComersteL TSF 1,4Z ,el 2,03 3.66 3.8C 7,~6 8~,5o 1Q, Convenience Caemerelal TiF 2,09 .89 2,98 5.Lq 6,10 11,98 117;90 11. Reetl~jrent TIF ,8Z ,09 .91 s,ao ~.25 7,z.~ 95.j2 12, Feat Food Reltaurmt TIF 27.92 27,9~ 53,8~ 18,96 18,30 33.26 . 632.i13 13. HoteL/MetaL ~ ,;6 ,4& .70 .31 .31 ,62 10.119 1A, Office (0-99 TSF) TSF 2.~3 .30 2,33 .38 1,~8 2.36 15, Office (100 TIt +) TGF 1,6~ .24 1,86 ,Z9 1.51 1,80 16, Medical Office TSF ,91' .72 1,63 ,98 2.65 3,63 3t,.~17 17, Coverteen/office Tar 4.94 .;4 5.88 2.07 8.16~ 11,03 68,~3 18. Office Plrk : TSF 1.~7 ,21 1.88 ,Ig 1,28 1.47 11.40 10, 8uaineaa Park TSF 1.31 .23 1.N4 .28 1.07 1.35 12,+2 20. LiQhC lnClJltrie& Tar .~ ,12 .~6 ,1Z ,92 1.0~ 6,9T ~1, Vatobtuse TSF .39 ,18 .S? ,Z& .50 ,7& 22, Elementary/MIddLe i~,~t STU ,l& .09 ,23 .01 .oi ,02 1.03 23, High IohaaL STU .26 .lI .~0 .01 ,03 .04, 2~. CoLLege iTU .15 .03 .18' ,OA .08 .12 1.55 25. Day Care ~ ITU ' ,30 .27 .57 ,30 .32 ,62 26, Hoe;SiaL f lED ,77 ,30 1.07 ,66 ,76 ' 1;2; -11,75 aT, Nursing/COngregate ~ar~ t[O .Ot ,OZ .06 ,03 ,18 ~Z1 28, Theater ~ SlAT ,01 ,00 .01 ,2~ .02 ! ~2& 1.76 29. HeaLth CLub i TSF .M .M 1,76 .78 .?6 IJ2 ]0, LIbrary TSF ,55 ,53 1.10 2.81 2,31 ~,92 .. ]1. Poa~ Office TSF 2.51 ;.,if 5,30 3.A5 3,31 6,76 8~.~8 32, x~rsery ~ TgF .85 ..37 1.22 1.91' 1,~8 3.89 ]6.1~ 3], Auto Setea/hpsir TSF 1,63 2.25 3.M 1,97~ 2.61 ~.Sa A7,5~ 3A. Servloe Itetten PUMP 1.00 ..7S ~,7"~ 1.89 t.7A 3,63 133.~ 35, C,r ~eeh $TLL 3.GO 3,~0 6,00 2.&O 2,4~ 4,a0 loe.m 36. gank : TIF &.97 3,18 8,15 9.09:11,11 ZO,20 189.9~ 3?, Chur=h ! TIF .08 ,03 .11 .3& .,30 .6& 38, So~-S~oreOe ! UNIT , ,01 .01 ,02 ,01 .02 .03 39, GoLf Course ACRE .21 ,08 .Z7 ,03 ,36 ,39 40, Part ACRE .08 ,00 ,O0 .gO ,O0 ,00 3.66 ~o AgricuLture ACRE ,01 .ca ,01 ,00. .01 .01 42. Ceuncy Jell BED .10 ,09 ,19 ,l& ,16 .28 .9; RCTM Trip Ocncralioe Mg|badololy Z ALmlia-FOUat !ne, 27. Arch ibal d & Arrow 1992 (8-17-19901 AH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR .,. LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 15 .01' 85 .05 NBT 2 3200 370 ,14 1489 ,52' NBR 0 0 70 182 ., SBL I 1600 120 .08 123' .08* SBT 2 3200 1098 .38* 483 .18 SBR 0 0 131 78 EBL I 1600 24 .02 180 .11' EBT Z 3200 229 .09* 178 .06 EBR 0 0 55 15 WBL 1 1600, lg0 .12' 84 .05 WBT 2 3200 154 .09 210 .11' WBR 0 0 120 143 Clearance Interval .10' .10' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70- .92 Post-2010 (8-17-19901 , AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ~. NBL I 1600 21 .01' 205 .13 : NBT 2 3200 493 .18 1351 .48* NBR 0 0 83 199 SBL 1 1600 :351 .22 118 .07* SBT 2 3200 1721 .57* 999 .36 SBR 0 0 105 138 EBL I 1600 415 .26 39 .02' EBT 2 3200 1326 ,58' 354 .13 EBR 0 0 520 71 WBL 1 1600 171 .11' 170 ,11 WBT 2 3200 :189 .08 1058 .43' WBR 0 0 81 310 Clearance Interval .10' .10' TOT/U, CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.37 1.10 NEIGHBOR'S PETITIONS PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · · 78 ACRE D O VACANT VACANT · 60 ACRE 5.64 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. · 4 Q At. RE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . O ' ~ ~ 78 ACRE ~ - DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre· We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. COMMUNITY PETITIONS ~PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · .78 ACRE D O VACANT VACANT .60 ACRE 5.64i ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .4Q AQRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. . 78 ACRE ' - DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind theZMobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS DATE NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS DATE . .. .,., - ~ ~ - .. -.-- ~ _ ,, . I ] PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ · EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY [ESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVE]!UE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · .78 ACRE .o · VACANT VACANT .60 ACRE ~ 5.64i ACRE SINGLE FAMILY · RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .40 A~RE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . o ' ~ 78 ACRE ~ - < DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS DATE NAME ( PRINT ) SIGNATURE ;TREET ADDRESS DATE: v{/'i , . / , ,:-,': :?~.. :: ~.,: ::.....~..: .../ p' ~.: :..,.:.../._ - . , (.q ~/ ,IL ~ n,,z..~_ "'""'" ' "" .- "-,-- . ~? ~-~' ~,:. ~-A--~ ] PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · .78 ACRE O VACANT VACANT .60 ACRE 5.64 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .40 AQRE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . O ' ~ 78 ACRE ~ - < DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route· This land iS largely undeveloped parcels behind the Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS DATE NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ~TREET ADDRESS DATE LJ~' ' J, - _ , , ~, . ~ - _ -.~,.~ / '? IPREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY ~ESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · .78 ACRE D . .. O VACANT VACANT .60 ACRE 5.64 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .40 A[RE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . O ' ~ 78 ACRE ~ · DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre· We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. / NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ~TREET ADDRESS DATE '.. i- ..~ ' PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY ~ESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · .78 ACRE VACANT VACANT .60 ACRE 5.64 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .40 AQRE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . O ' ~ 78 ACRE ~ · < DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the i Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS DATE t ", · NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ~TREET ADDRESS DATE: i ' ' ~ ' ' ~ , ~" ' ~ 7~c 7~ ~' 7~~'' - ,~ - "~~_ :~?: z ~~,.~ ~L . ' p '- / ~ ~~~'~~ ~ ? '~'-' ] PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION · .78 ACRE D O . VACANT VACANT .60 ACRE 5.64 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .40 A[RE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . ~ 78 ACRE ~ - DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. NAME (PRINT) SIG! STREET ADDRESS DA~E NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE I:2E~ ADDRESS DATE: " ,--: ...,,, ..... i ................ ' [ PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY ~ESIDENT.~AL 8 TO 14 AC. .c~.'. '. 'ARCH I BALD AV N, UE EX ~ST ING MOBIL GAS STATION .78 ACRE VACANT VAC NT ·60 ACRE 5.6. ACRE RES I DENT IAL .85 ACRE S~NGLE FAMILY RES. - 49 ~.RE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . .78 ACRE DEAR CITY PLANNING COnfeSSION AND CITY C 'NCZL MEMBERS AND .We are in support of the change of z~ning of =he area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and ~rrow Route. This land is 'large!yiundeveloped parcels behind the Mobil!StatiOn, and would be better zoned for generalc0mmercial ra:her than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We:feel the ~ommercLal is better suitedfor.the area, and we are opposed to.more residentLa! units in the area. ~_A_M._~_(PRINT) S~N~URE STREET ADDRESS. DATE: ~ '~ I PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ EXISTING ZONE.MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AV~ NUE |. _ EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION . .78 ACRE. VACANT VAdANT .60 ACRE 5.61 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY .. . RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. SINGLE FAMILY RES. .78 ACRE DEAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY C( UNC'IL MEMBERS AND THE HONO~BLE MAYOR :. We are in suppot:= of the change Of zbning of the area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. This land .'. is largely undeveloped parcels behind! the Mobil Station, and would' be better zoned for general commercial rather than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residential units in the area. ....... - - - _ .... .-. . . -. _ ........... . DATE , . ~0'~ 6SOEI£~ Ol E~ ~s'eO ~ s~oa'~O ~08~ ,c0:II ~O'd 6SOEIEa Ol E~ HseD P s~oeHD [.408~ ~O:II PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENS£TY RESZDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC, ARCH!BALD AVENUE ~X~S~NG MOBIL GAS STATION . .78 ACRE O VACANT VA( .60 ACRE '~' 5. ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACRE SINGLE PAMILY RES. ~4Q AQRE ~ SINGLE FAMILY RES. . .78 ACRE DEAR C!T~ PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY CO.~/NCIL MEMBERS AND' THE HONORABLE MAYOR: We are in support of =he change of zlning of the area northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and ~rrow ROute. :This land is largely undeveloped 'parcels behind theI Mobil Station and would be bet=er zoned for general commercial ra~her than medium residen=ial 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commerc[ial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed =o more residential units in the area. NAME__(p~INT) SIGNATURE STREET 'ADDRESS DATE NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ;TREET ADDRESS DATE: · '! ~w,~ ...~. ~...~,,, .-~~:..~ p_~' ~2 ~ 'i ".~ L, ~_' ~-xL ................. _"' ~ .......~q~z~~,.n. ~x ~t~ '.~:~ : .....~~ ~-~.- ., . _~. ~ ~ ~ ~,_~.: ~., _ ~ _ . - . ................. ; .......... , ............ . - ....-. __ -~---:-~. 90'd 6SeEI2L 0J. F.~ qse3 ~ :t:~oaq3 H0~J~ S0:II E66I-0E-8~J [. PREFERED GENERAL COMMERC£A~ EXISTING ZONE MEDXUM. DENSlTy {ESlDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC, .':ARCHIBALD AVE I j _ ,, EXISTING ' MOBIL GAS STAT iON · ,78 ACRE ' D ., ':. O VACANT VACANT ,60 ACRE 5.6 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL · 85 ACRE SINGLE PAM~LY RES, · 40. A~RE . SiNGLE FAMILY. RE$, , ~ ,78 ACRE .." DEAR'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.AND CITY. CC ~CIL MEMB~-RS AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR:~ We are in suppor..t of =he change of z )ning of the area at the northeast. corner of Archibald Avenue and &rrow Route, This land= be.'be%ter zoned for General commercial ra;her than medium residential 8-14':(units per acre. We feel the. commerc.~al is be%ter suited for .the area.~ and we are opposed to more reSident.hal units in Uhe area. ,, ,,'.. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE. ADDRESS DATE: PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXISTZNG ZONE MEDIUM DENSZTY~RESZDENTZAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCMIBALD AVENUE EXISTING MOS~L GAS STATION . · 78 ACRE O VACANT VACANT .6 0 ACRE 5.6, ACRE S~NGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL · 8 5 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. .40 AQRE . iSINGLE FAMILY RE$. : ~ .7 8 ACRE DEAR CITY PL~NING COMMISSION ~D CXTY CC~CIL MEMBERS AND THE MONO~BLE ~YOR: We are in support of the change of zoning of the area at the northeas~ corner of Archibald Avenue and ~rrow Rou~e. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the Mobil Station, and would' be better zoned for general commercial ra~her than medium residential 8-14 units per acre. We feel =he commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more zesident~al units in =he area. N_AME (PRINT.). SIGNATURE ST'. ~EET 'ADDRESS DATE ....... ......... ._ .... -_ / - ..-_ ......... 60'd 6SOEI£). Ol £~ ~se3 P s~ae~D ~40~-~ Lg:II NAME (PRINT) SICkNATURE.., RE_E,,~,. _ADDRESS DATE: PREFER~D GENSRAL COMMERC~A~ EXISTZN~ ZONE MEDZUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 8 TO 14 AC. ARCHIBALD AV !NUS I MOB I L GAS STATION .78 ACRE VACANT VACANT ....... 5.6~ ACRE SINGLE PAM[LY RESIDENTIAL .85 ACM S~N~E F~ZL~ RES. .78 ACRE D~R CItY P~NNING CO~SSXON~ND CIT~ C~~CIL MEMBERS AND THE MONORABLE ~YOR: We are in support of the chan~e o~ z Dning Of ~he area at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and ~rrow Rou~e. This land is ~ar~e~y undeveloped paroell behind the. Mobi~ S~a~ion, and would be be~ter zoned for genera~ commer~ia! ra~her ~han medium residentia~ 8-~4 units per acre. We fee~ ~he commercLal is better suited for the area, and we are opposed :o more res!dentLa~ units in the area. NAME ( PR I N~ ) 8 IGNATURE ST~ ~EE T '~DRES S DATE - , , - .... ~ -/--- - ~ - ~, ........ NAME (PAINT) S~GNA..T. URE. ....... ~TRE_E..T. ADDRESS DATE i ~' '~ ' ~~'~ '~"~ I l PREFERED GENERAL COMMERCZAL =;: EXISTING ZONE MEDIUM DENSITY RESZDENTIA~ 8 TO 14 AC. ARCH/BALD AVMNUE EXISTING OBIL GAS STATION . · 78 ACRE O VACANT VAC ANT · 60 ACRE . ........... "' .... 5.6 ~ ACRE SZNGLE FAMILY RESIDENT IAL .8 5 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RES. · 4 Q A..GRR .... = SINGLE FAMILY. RES. . D ' .7 8 ACRE DEAR CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION AND CITY CC~ClL MEMBERS AND ~ THE HONOrSEE MAYOR:. ,. ~ We are in sup~rt of the change of z~ning of the area at the northeastl corner of Archibald Avenue and XrroW Route. This land is largely undeveloped parcels behind the~Mobil Station, and would be better zoned for general commercial ra h than medium residential ~ er 8-14 units per acre. We feel the commercial is better suited for the area, and we are opposed to more residentkal units in the area. ) E ST 'ADDRESS DATE NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ~TREET .ADDRESS ...DATE _ ~,, ~ .. lOiS! ~ ,~ ,- 2~,. ~._ . ~ ....... , ........ ~ _.. . ,. , ~ .... '~ , ...... 1~~ ~~~~'~ ~'~'~ ~ ~ ~ - .................... -~ ............................... OWNER'S LETTERS 12 Deer Creek Road Pomona, California 91766 February 10, 1992 The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Attn.: City Planning Commission Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow me the courtesy of presenting to you my opinions regarding a City-initiated proposal to amend the General Plan and re-designate certain properties currently zoned medium-high residential. I am owner of one of the properties under consideration for a land use change. Specifically, the acreage I own is located at 9760 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, on the north side of Arrow Route near the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route, and adjacent to the Mobil Gas Station. There is a single family house on my land which is rented out to tenants. Forty years ago, my aunt and uncle moved to California from Indiana and purchased the property I am referring to. They built the home which exists there now and lived there until my uncle's passing in recent years and my aunt's stroke which has her confined to a convalescent hospital. In the late 1950's, as a young child, I remember coming to my aunt and uncle's house "in the country" and looking across the street at the tall, thick eucalyptus trees that lined the south side of Arrow Route. Mot much was around there at that time--just a little old one pump gas station where the modernized Mobil Station now sets, and one lone neighbor. My uncle would drive off each day to his Kaiser Steel job going down that lonelZ~ Arrow Highway where his car was usually the only one on the road. Through the years, it has been of great interest to me to see the changes that have taken place on that street and with "Rancho" Cucamonga in general. I marveled at the new Jack-in-the-Box being built here. I took pride when the Neighborhood Center was opened right across from my uncle's house where he had access to hot meals and social activities. I took surpris.e at the building of a commercial strip center with a market .and restaurant, and I took action when I learned a video arcade was to be opened at that location which I felt was detrimental to the area. Thus, through the years I have been a part of that corner in my own way, and because of my protectiveness towards it, it seemed only fitting that I purchase the property after my uncle's death. page two-- Though still not a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, I follow with interest the happenings of the city. I have reviewed Resolution No. 91-060 recently sent to me with its intent to reduce the total amount of multiple family designated vacant land. I must say that I concur with the city's goal to maintain and promote a high standing of housing and residential sites. I, too, see that an over-abundance of multi-family dwellings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be of detriment to the excellence being sought. Each site must be scrutinized to consider its highest and best use. In light of that, it is my firm belief that the eight acres on the Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route should not be down-zoned to a single family designation, but rather should be looked at as a ~otential commercial sil~e. Keeping in mind that land usage is the issue here, one should analyze the advantages and disadvantages of both designations. 1. The area in question is not appropriate for a single family home site. There is commercial development directly across the street, there is an industrial business complex diagonally from it, and there is a business complex on the Northwest side of Archibald. A single family complex is totally incompatible with all of that. The Mobil Gas Station on the Northeast corner already lends itself to a commercial site and again would be out of place with single family homes surrounding it. 2. The area in question is an opportunity to meet the needs of Rancho Cucamonga both economically and socially. Many residents south of Foothill Boulevard and in the western part of the city need somewhere they can shop and eat. Currently, many persons go over into Ontario (Fourth & Vineyard, Grove Ave., etc.) when that revenue should be coming into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This portion of the city has been neglected and is a prime opportunity for meeting the needs of local residents and at the same time keeping city money in the city. 3. The eight acres of the Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route is owned by five different owners who represent a united front. All are in agreement that multiple family dwellings are not appropriate for that site. All are in agreement that down-zoning the area is not appropriat.e, either. All agree that a general commercial designation would achieve the highest and ! best land usage, achieving both the city and owners goal at no cost to the city. The over-all goal of reducing multi-family units in the city is still met, while at the same time a better usage of the area has been gained. page three-- 4. Down-zoning the area to a single family designation not only is inappropriate for the area, it also has an economic impact on the owners--owners who have paid taxes on that property for years. It reduces the value of the land, restricts its marketability, and paralyzes what can be done with a beautiful, underdeveloped location. It is my contention that consideration should be given to redesignating the north corner site of Archibald and Arrow Route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to General Commercial, and that no action should be taken to down-zone its current designation of Medium-High Residential. Respectfully, Judy K. Matthews Owner cc: Jack Lam, City Manager Dennis Stout, Mayor City Council Members February lq, 1992 Larry McNiel Robert K. Kidder The Planning Commission Property Owner City of Ranoho Cueamonga Raneho Cueamonga, CA 10500 Civic Center Drive Raneho Cueamonga, CA 91729 RE: Proposed Down-Zoning Parcel 020829107 NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway Dear Mr. MeNiel: I just learned two weeks ago of the proposed down-zoning on my property (5 1/2 acres) NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway. I must say I cannot understand the rationale of placing single-family dwellings on a very busy intersection, perhaps one of the four heaviest travelled intersections in Raneho Cueamonga, and surrounding a Mobile Filling Station, further three (3) of four (q) corners at Archibald and Arrow Highway already zoned commercial/light industry. As a property owner and tax payer in Raneho Cueamonga for 38 years I strongly oppose the "down-zoning" on NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway for following reasons: 1. NEC Archibald and Arrow west 9 acres should not be combined with the 9 adjoining acres east of subject block as Archibald is 2nd most heavily travelled North/South highway in the city; therefore, undesirable for single family dwelling, whereas the east 9 acres does not front on a major North/South highway and with a natural separation from west 9 acres with a church sitting in middle between west 9 acres and east 9 acres. 2. Economic impact on the city itself of low-priced single family homes compares most unfavorably with commercial light industry activity as only low cost housing can be developed if said housing is to be surrounded on three (3) corners by commercial activity at NEC Archibald and Arrow plus existing Mobil Station on NEC Corner of proposed down-zone block. 3- Please be advised on Parcel O20829q07 that in the past four years we have received many inquiries from realtors and developers to purchase subject corner for commercial purposes, whereas, we have received no inquiries for single family home use. Realtors/Developers advise reason for interest in NEC Archibald and Arrow is lack of commercial services below Page 2 Foothill Blvd. on Archibald and people living below Foothill must drive up to Baseline or west to Ontario. We suggest inquires made by professionals should be considered as significant guide to future development for NEC Archibald and Arrow as Commercial location and not single family homes. In 1990 Champion Development held an option on our property (Parcel 020829107) and on several oeeassions discussed a commercial zone change for NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway with the City of Ranabe Cueamonga planning department. The Champion proposal was for a commercial development and at that time no mention was made of "down-zoning" but encouragement from planning department for commercial use, therefore the proposed "down-zoning" on NEC Archibald and Arrow is s real "shock" - first because the location doesn't make any sense in my opinion for single family homes, and secondly, the drastic negative economic impact on both myself and the City of Ranabe Cueamonga. We rspectfully submit that "down-zoning" must be rejected for NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway on basis of front 9 acres west of the church as being a separate and distinct ares from 9 acres east of church on Arrow Highway. With reference to Resolution No. 91-060 I wish to quote B.2.(h) "That some existing residential land may be better suited for non-residential purposes based upon existing General Plan policies and generally accepted land use principals." We strongly believe and therefore suggest that Parcel 020829107 (5 ~/2 acres) located within west 9 acres NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway fits precisely into above reference as quoted. Thank you for your consideration to our request for general commercial zoning on west 9 acres NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway. Very Truly Yours, Robert K. Kidder R. Brent & Annette Hof~n Irvir~, Califcrn{a 92714 (714) 733-9951 F~h_~/ary 12, 1992 Mr. r~ry McNeil The City of Rancho Cucamonga Plannirg C~,dssion P.O. Box 807 Civic Center Drive Rancho O/camonga, California 91729 Parcels 208-291-O1 and 07 NEC Archibald and Arrow Highway Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. McNeil: I recently read the City Council's General Plan kmerament 92-01 dated January 8, 1992, rez~,x,,~'{~ the dc~al zoning of 10 different parcels to a lower density (frum RD 10-14 to single-family dwellings). I agree with the City's attempt to avoid any future development of high-density aparcment an~ cond~m~nium projects as a result of the stereotypical occutents th/s type of housing seems to attract, and I applaud the City's effort to rectify the current problem ereas higher-density housing has generated. Although I agree with the City Council"s a~rection in general, I believe very strongly that down zoning is cumpletely inappropriate for the above- referenced parcels. In fact, to down zone the above parcels would impact the current land owners economically. In ~aa~tion, I believe the proposed zoning would render the project virtually useless. ~he other properties which the City proposed down zoning are located mostly aroura and in residential areas where lower density for residential development makes sense. However, the properties referenced ak~e are located in a c~,~rcial area. ~hree of the four corners located at the Arrbik~ld and Arrow Highway inte_r~_~-tion ere currently zoned and developed as cou~ercial/light ~ial. To develop homes with large lots would not be attractive to the potential hcme buyer in this area, as those types of home buyers usually are attracted to more rural ~-rour~irgs. In addition, the traffic count on Arrow Highway is about 20,000 to 30,000 car trips per day--not a very safe area for a young family to reside with small children. Mr. l~:yMcNeil Fe__hnaary 12, 1992 Page 2 Hence, retail-type use makes the most sense for this property. Presently, the residential C~,~mit'y located around and south of the property does not have a convenient neighborhood shopping center where they can shop. In 1987, a major southern California retail developer, Diversified Shopping Canters, who developed Haven Village, was interested in acquiring the property. Diversified had shown the site to Ralphs Grocery Company, who vas very interested in locating a store at that location as they were not represented in the marketplace. If Ral[tls Grocery Campany were to open a store there, then the City would benefit fr=n sales tax dollars generated by the store. Ral~hs generally develops a 40,000- to 50,000-square-foot store which generates sales of $400 to $600 per sc~m~e foot annually. ~b~ would provide a good, steady stream of sales tax dollars for the City. In conclusion, I believe the down zoning would render the property virtually worthless, which would not be in the City's best interests. In adtition, I believe demographically the people would support a neighborhood shoUping center--a shopping center that would greatly benefit the City frcm the tax revenue generated from retail sales. ~herefore, I believe it is in the best interest of the City to reject the dc~n zoning of the parcels referenced above and consider rezoning the project to retail use. ~ank you for your consideration of this request. VEry truly~ yours, R. Brent Hoffman Honorable Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 RE: Justification and support of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route. And opposition to Downzoning of the Mobil Gas Station. Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Joe Dianat and I am the business operator of the Mobil Gas Station located at 8477 Archibald Ave. and Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. I am extremely opposed to downzoning of my property which would severely impact my future ability to meet the needs of the changing automotive service industry. The property around the Mobil station should be General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, to mutually benefit each other. To construct single family next to a gas station is ridiculous at its face. These uses are not compatible in any way, shape, or form. Given the opportunity, the property should be rezoned to benefit the community, which is opposed to multi-family, not to General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial. These uses could cohabit without inherent conflicts. I run a clean and efficient service station that is both a visual asset with quality landscaping and significant setbacks that maintain a high level of quality in a commercial setting. It is most appropriate for the adjacent properties to develop with reasonable features and scale, typical around the intersection. We would hope that the commission believes as I do, that we have a significant investment in our property, and we would like to continue the ongoing relationship with our patrons to service the needs of the automotive community, without the impediment of non-compatible single family uses next to our property. It just doesn't make very much sense. Thank You, Joe Dianat Mobil Service Station/ Archibald/Arrow Route ~he Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 RE': CPA 92- 02 The Northeast corner of Archibald and Arrow Route Dear Planning Commission Members: We the owners of one of six properties iocaled at the intersection described above are extremely dishearlened and outraged by the proposal and recommendalions ot the staff to reTone our properly. We feel there are substantial negative ramifications associated with the City's proposal. ~hese issues have not been adequately addressed in the staff's reporlsnor have they integrated our comments [hat we bough[ forward in the workshops. We have had two successful businesses; in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the past 2 1/2 years, Arrow Plaza Market and Checks 4 Cash. We have a yesled interest in the City, our businesses are a valuable asset to ourselves and [o the City, our combined monthly sales taxes are in excess of J;6000.O0 per month, just on our two businesses alone. Most all of our employees are local residents who commute relatively short distances to work, and most of our patrons are also local residents. We would like to be able [o develop our additional popetry to a general commercial Dr neighborhood business use. We know our experience, we know the quality ot the citizens around, and we know the properly in question is well suiled for commercial businesses. Wiih your support of general commercial we know we can make a quality business successful again. Please support us in our efforls [o rezone our properties [o General commercial or neighborhood commercial. 1'here are subs[anlial reasons that wouid make our property more suitable for commercial use, rather than single family use. 1'he existing land uses [o the South and Southwest are bolh heavily used commercial sites. In addition, the adjacent Mobil gas station to the immediate West of my properly is a very intense commercial use. No one in their right mind, given all of these fadors, would want [o live there with all of these negative fe<a[ures, which are as follows: traffic congestion, securily, noise, health issues, visual diversity, poor socioeconomic mix, and a lock of residen[icll consi[ency. We urge the Planning Commission [o make a strong recommendorion for the fotlowincj: Redesignote our properties from 8-14 dwelling units per acre [o general commercial and or neighborhood commercial. There ore obvious benefits to the community, to the City financially, arid [o the future employees of <a commercial center if developed. lhe American business way is [o let business succeed or fail on iis own. Please let us go into business, i[ is our right, while at the same time we are meeting the goals of the City to reduce multi-family inventory. Our hard earned dollars can be pu[ to work benefillincj <all without negatively impacting our neighbors. We believe the citizens are backing our proposal and we have obloined quite <a few sign<atures in support of our proposal. ]hank you very much, Pete and l ori De Jager, our phone number at our slate is 980-4740. If you have any questions, ple<ase call me. We are willing to work with the staff to create a quality general commercial development in the fulure, I give you my word. Sincerely, Pete &: loft De Joger GENERAL PLAN APPLICATIONS PARTI City of Rancho Uniform Cucamonga Application .... APN FILE - :Z GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED 208-2 ~-0'I, 02r 03, 05, 06, O NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT RELATED FILES -.,-- LOCATION OF PROJECT (ADDRESS) > 8477 Archibald Ave. Rancho Cucamonqar Ca. 714-944-8178 C:~ APPLICANTS NAME TELEPHONE DONT.k'~-BBqNET'2 AI~_TT~, 12821 N~WPORT AVENUE (714') 7tl-~tt ~ ADDRESS Z TUSTIN, CA 92680 37 Mobil Oil CorpOration 3- 2 ~ 7~ ,_1 tEVIEW REQUESTED - G CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' C] TECHNICAL/DESIGN REVIEW- I [] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL*' ~ NON CONSTRUCTION' rn TECHNICAL/DESIGN REVIEW- RESIDENTIAL' :Z ~ DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT LLI (ZONE CHANGE) [] TOTAL DEVELOPMENT '~ I~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT r'n BASIC STANDARDS [] OPTIONAL STANDARDS L C) [] MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [] CUSTOM LOT/SUBDIVISION ~ DESIGN REVIEW (REAPPLICATION) _,J E:3 MINOR EXCEPTION LLI r'l VARIANCE > [] PRELIMINARY REVIEW* LI, J [] ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT r"l ~ =It is mandator7 to complete Part I & II of the Uniform Application - PROJECT DESCRiFt'I~Bt D FULL DESCRIPTION OF'PROPOSED PRQJ~,CT'(AT"rACH ~DOiZrlONAL'~HEETS IF NECESSARY} ~ PROP~T~-~, IN~_~ING ~"~MOBIL STATION, THREE EXISTINGSSINGLE F~M., HQME~q O (D T~D VACANT PARm ,~. LL I I--- OWNER; CERTIFICA1;QM ...... III I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CE~'r;~"Y THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. AGENT OF O~u-N:;e'~UST ATTACH A LETTER OF ( , _, ., SIGNATURE ' 'LU t'~ DATE REC'D RECEIVED BY F.F.D.= FEES RECEIVED RECEIPT NO City of Rancho · (~ CUCS!TIOrIg8 NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT TABLE Project Name : ~::)~ CO1RN:EZ~ O~' A,RC:FTRA/.D AV~N'T.~ & Reference File No.: Location : SjLP~ ,A3,R3W ~ (Staff Use Only) General Plan : ~ GEN, ~ - I~D:L'L~ 8 - ].4 D Development District: H A PROJECT AREA :-."' Gross (incl. area to centerline of abutting streets): ± ].0 acres: Net (exclusive of dedication for major external and secondary streets): N A acres: AREA DISTRIBUTION (Beedon Net Area) ACRES/SQ. FT, % OF NET AREA Building Coverage : Landscape Coverage : Vehicblar Area (tncl. parking): FLOOR AREA DISTRIBUTION BY PROPOSE USE(Based on NetAt) " Area of Building Pad No. of Stodes Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) Proposed Use Type of Use Parking Ratio # of Spaces Required # of Spaces Provided NA Total No. of Parking Spaces Required: Total No. of Parking Spaces Provided: No. of Compact Spaces : %'of Compact Space to Total Space: City of Rancho RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Cucamonga SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT TABLE Project Name : NO~'It:F_AST CO.RNE~ OF AR::~-TT'RALD AVE, & Reference File No.: Location : ~ ~ SA~'viE :LGC_zLTTO~ (Staff Use Only) General Plan : EX.T. ST~ G]~To 2L~N- ~Di'T,~ 8 - :1~, D U's/.z~,C Development District: N A Gross (lncl. area to centerline of abutting streets): :1:Z0 acres Net (exclusive of dedication for major external and secondary streets): ~ acres DW_k'L_LING UNITS(Based on Net Ar,~' i !-:.;:-~=~-~: ~~"~;'NET DIglSITY~ Single Family Detached 3 ~ - ~.- Single Family Attached/Townhouse/DuPlex H A Condominium N A Apartments N A Total AREA DISTRIBUTION' t~ancl=o. Net ~ ~::~~i"-:~::'. % OF NET AREA · ';"" · ' r - - ,. - "':""' ' "' Building Coverage N A Landscape Coverage Vehicular Area (incl. parking) Common Open Space Private Open Space Useable Open Space (common & pdvate) , # Of SO}aces Uncovered N A Carports Garages Guest Parking Recreation Vehicles Total: Ratio (Space/Unit):