Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/10/23 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 23, 1996 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. 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. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-21 - BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL - A request to construct a 208,000 square foot warehouse building on approximately 9.6 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Buffalo Avenue and San Marino Street in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-263-35. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. B. VACATION OF A PORTION OF ALMOND AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE - A request to vacate a portion of Afmond Avenue and Cherry Avenue south of VV'.son Avenue. IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS C. VICTORIA RV STORAGE ANNUAL REVIEW V. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and p/ace forthe genera/ pub/ic to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not e/ready appear on this agenda. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shaft be heard only with the consent of the Commission. The Planning Commission will adjourn to a workshop immediately following in the Rains Room regarding the Commercial Land Use Study. I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October f 7, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 2 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - MEMORANDUM DATE: October 23, 1996 TO: - Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-21 BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL - A request to construct a 208,000 square foot warehouse building on approximately 9.6 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Buffalo Avenue and San Marino Street in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-263-35. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundino Land Use and Zonina: North - Developed, Industrial buildings; General Industrial (Subarea 13) Industrial Area Specific Plan South - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 13) Industrial Area Specific Plan East Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 13) Industrial Area Specific Plan West Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 11 ) Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant, slopes gently to the south, and is covered with non- native grasses and weeds as well as abandoned grape vines. The parcel is 600 feet from the I-15 Freeway and approximately level with the freeway and therefore, falls within the 1-15 view corridor requirement for complete screening of outdoor and roof-mounted equipment from public view. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaae Ratio Required Provided Office 12,000 1:250 48 48 Warehouse 196,000 93 1st 20,000 sq. ft. 1:1000 20 2nd 20,000 sq. ft 1:2000 10 above 40,000 sq. ft. 1:4000 39 Trailer stalls I per load dock 30 3___0 TOTAL 147 171 ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 96-21 - BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL October 23, 1996 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The subject application was submitted by Bradshaw International for a warehouse and distribution center for small plastic household kitchen items. They plan to operate 24 hours a day, seven days per week, with a total of 60 to 75 employees. B. Design Review Committee: On October 1, 1996, the Design Review Committee (Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, and Nancy Fong) met and recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions (Exhibit "G"). 1. Buildinq Mass: To meet the requirement for two primary building materials and also variation of the building plane, vertical tower elements shall be "popped out" 2 feet from building face and surface treated with medium to heavy sand-blast finish and spandrel glass shall be added to each tower element. Tower elements shall be added to the north elevation, both elevations at the northeast corner, and both elevations at the southeast corner. For the southeast corner, the east facing tower element shall be "popped out" for the south facing tower element shall be added but not "popped out." All tower elements shall be "wrapped" at the roof line to give the appearance of dimension. No interior plan change is required. 2. Architectural Details: All other vertical elements shall be removed. Three horizontal reveal line stripes, 2 inches wide, and painted blue, shall be carried around all four elevations. Three shades of grey on the horizontal bands of the building surface shall be painted to provide variety and serve to ground the building. 3. Screening: Wrought-iron fencing a minimum of 5 feet high with dense landscape planting will satisfy the screening requirement on the east and south property perimeters. A tree species will be selected to provide maximum screen effect but not interfere with truck circulation. It should be fast growing, with vertical growth habit, and compatible with shrubbery. Shrub selection should be fast growing to a minimum height of 8 feet. C. Grading Committee: On October 1, 1996, the Grading Committee reviewed the application and requested additional information supporting the drainage design to Charles Smith Drive and revision of Sections "A-A" and "B-B." D. Technical Review Committee: On October 2, 1996, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the application and requested changes to meet the City's Driveway Policy, in addition to the Standard Conditions of Approval. This issue shall be resolved prior to City Planner approval. E. Environmental Assessment: An environmental assessment has been completed and determined there could be no significant impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is recommended (Exhibit "H"). The following impacts have been anticipated and mitigated to a level of less than significance by measures incorporated into the City's Development and Building Codes and, where appropriate, incorporated into the Standard Conditions which are part of this approval process: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 96-21 - BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL October 23, 1996 Page 3 · Over covering of the soil is an anticipated result of development. The subject project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use map and no unanticipated impact will occur. · Erosion in the form of dust is an anticipated impact during construction. Dust suppression activities are required by State Law, the Development Code, and the Building and Safety Code and are enforced by the Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions. · Conversion of open field and abandoned vineyards to industrial development will concentrate storm runoff, but the impact has been anticipated and will be addressed through the development review process and the Standard Conditions of development. · Although the soil on the site is Tujunga-Delhi, the site has been disturbed by public improvements, including public streets and utilities, and the soil has been disturbed historically for agricultural use and subsequent to public improvements in the industrial area has been annually disced for weeds for fire prevention. Similarly situated sites have not been found to be suitable habitat for animal life or any endangered species, including but not limited to the Delhi-Sands Flower Loving Fly. · Noise impacts during construction have been anticipated and have been addressed through the Development Code and the Standard Conditions of Development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration by minute action. City Planner BB:MB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Elevations Exhibit "F" Floor Plan Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Minutes dated October 1, 1996 Exhibit "H" Environmental Assessment Part I and II site plan keynotes I t " ~_1 ....I"":- t " .:::.- I ..... I ...... :<.~: - "'F" t """:-:'~""' I :::= i I llll II Ill III11111 II II ,~'-',.'--"" L <:>.' ',~' <~ ........................ · --is ,,, ,,,,,.,,, ::,-..-._'.::.; .................. ......................... ¢ONCEPTUA~.S!)'E. CL..4?,'(A) ~ ~::'~ .'V..site legend ...................................................... ............ ~ 200K INDUSTRIAL FACILITY FOR ......................... BRADSHA W INTERNATIONAL ................................................... hill p~nckert archltecis~ inc. _ --" ....... 200K INDUSTRIAL FACILITY FOR ~' ~";~"" '" ' BRADSHAW INTERNA TIONAL " ~: RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEE LUNCH AREA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE P~N .................................. ',",~.": ~!!ls"(~) 200 K INDU,qT~IAL FACILITY FOFf B,qAD,qHA W INTEFINA TIONAL Elevetlons hill plnekeH erehHe_C_ts', Inc.. 'i ""'~?""'f'~' / t.>- ' ,..' ~ I ,.,_,,. I I .J ,.,.,.~.. ,__~'"".""""."."~-"""', ~:= ,'!""""" i!'L!~""""" "'."'~""'.~.'.'~ ..... <,> .......... <.~=~=~ ................ 200 K INDUSTRIAL FACILITY FOR <,> ;;~,~=~=~ .................................... · =~m~ .................... BRADSHA W iNTERNATIONAL ~.> ............................................ =~:;~.~;=: .......... hill plnckert archltects~ Inc. ,~.. '.. ..-.: .... :...-!:.. ........ ' ' ~00 K IAIDLI.gTI~I,4L F.4ClLITY FOIl BIt.4D~HA ~ II,ITEI~Isl.4 TIOAIAI DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:30 p.m. Miki Bratt October 1, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-21 BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL - A request to construct a 208,000 square foot warehouse building on approximately 9.6 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Buffalo Avenue and San Madno Drive in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-263-35. Backqround: The site is vacant, slopes to the south, and falls within 600 feet of the 1-15 Freeway view corridor. One significant grade change is proposed along San Marino Drive and another proposed along the southern perimeter of the site. Tilt-up box construction on a fiat pad is proposed. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Buildina Mass. The applicant has provided articulation to the building plane only on the east elevation. Additional articulation should be provided by "pop-out" treatment of the vertical design elements where they occur, particularly along San Marino Drive. 2. Architectural Details. In addition, the applicant has provided some design detail for the surface elements. Parapet height is vaded on the south and east elevations and sand blasting and painted reveal lines provide .variation. Sand blasted elements should have medium scoring. Painted reveal lines should be a minimum of two inches wide. Also, reveal lines are treated differently on three elevations, with three lines on the east and west elevations, two lines on the north elevation and one line on the south elevation. The three line design should be continued on all elevations. Further, the parapet variation with vertical sand blasted elements should be added to the south elevation. Spandral glass has been added to some of the "pop-out" elements consistent with the "vision glass" elements of the east elevation. The monotony of the north elevation would partially mitigated with the addition of spandral glass to each raised parapet element. 3. Screeninq. Perimeter fencing should fully screen the truck parking area from the public street through a combination of solid block wall, berm, and landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The proposed wrought iron gates should be changed to a view-obscuring material. Secondary Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The slope between the south perimeter wall and the parcel to the south should be stabilized by irrigated landscaping if the slope is 2:1 or greater: A landscaping easement should be required and a Landscape Plan section should be provided which includes the south perimeter wall, landscape area, and all slope area. EXHIBIT "G" DRC COMMENTS DR 96-21 - BRADSHAW INT'L. October 1, 1996 Page 2 2. Roof equipment should be fully screened from the public street and from the I-15 Freeway by adequate parapet height. The only roof mounted equipment proposed at this time are air conditioning units above the office area not to exceed 5 feet in height. Line-of-sight sections indicate that the aforementioned units would be fully screened from all public streets and the Iol 5 Freeway. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the submittal of revised plans incorporating the above items. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Miki Bratt The Committee recommended that the applicant revise the development plans to address the design issues and submit for City Planner review prior to approval of the project, 1. Buildinq Mass: To meet the requirement for two primary building materials and also the variation of the building plane, vertical "tower" elements will be "popped out" a minimum of 2 feet from the building face, surface treated with medium to heavy sand-blast finish, and spandral glass added to each tower element. Tower elements will be added to the north and east elevations. On the southeast corner elevation, the tower element may not need to "pop out" as determined by the City Planner. All tower elements shall be "wrapped" at the roof line to give the appearance of dimension. 2. Architectural Detaiis: All other vertical elements shall be removed. Three horizontal reveal line stripes, 2 inches wide and painted blue, shall be carried around all four elevations. 3. Screeninq: Wrought-iron fencing a minimum of 5 feet high with dense landscape planting is required to screen the east and south property perimeters. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed dense landscaping concept for City Planner review. The concept plan shall include the selection of a fast-growing columnar tree species, and the density of the trees and shrubs. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA II BACKGROUND 1 ) Project File: Development Review 96-21 2) Related Files: none 3) Applicant: Bradshaw International Contact: Bob Jacob, Hill Pinkerr Architects Address: 16969 Von Karmen Avenue, Suite 230 Irvine, California 92714 Telephone #: (714) 863 1770 4) Project Description: Request to construct 208,000 square foot tilt-up building including 194,000 square feet of warehouse, 12,000 square feet of office, and 2,000 square feet of additional storage on a 9.55 acre parcel located on the east side of Buffalo, the south side of San Marino, and the west side of Charles Smith Drive - APN 229-263-14 and 229-263-35. 5) Project Accepted as Complete: August 21, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ~ursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required. An explanation shaft also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No." Yes Maybe N__o I. EARTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or over covering of the soil? ( ) (x) ( ) c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) ( ) (x) d) The destruction covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Any increase ~n wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) (x) ( ) f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a dver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. b) Development is expected to result in over covering of the soil. No unanticipated impacts are identified as a result of over covering of the soit for this in-tiff industrial development. Standard conditions of development require that a soils report shaft be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted prior to grading plan check. e) The General Plan soil-type map for the site indicates the presence of Tujunga-Delhi association typified by slopes under 2 percent and slight erosion hazard. Standard conditions and the City's Building and Safety Code requires dust suppression techniques during grading including, but not limited to, water application to suppress dust during grading and cessation of grading activity when winds cause dust to blow beyond the construction site. f) This site is not within any geologic hazard area. II. AIR - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ( ) ( ) (x) b) The creation of objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. Air quality impacts for this project are below the thresholds of significance identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. III. WATER - Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Changes in the absorption rate. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) (x) ( ) c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ( ) ( (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? ( ) ( (x) e) Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? ( ) ( (x) f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ( ) ( (x) g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) ( (x) h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( (x) i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ( ) ( (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. b) Conversion of open field and abandoned vineyards to industrial development will concentrate runoff, however no unanticipated drainage issues are raised by the subject project. Consistent with the De~/elopment Code and Building and Safety Code, Standard Conditions of Development require submittal of a drainage report has been prepared. IV. PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of ( ) ( ) (x) plants? c) introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. a) The site is vacant: a portion is covered with non-native grasses and weeds and a portion is covered with abandoned vineyards. It is periodically disced for weed control. No plant life issues will occur as a result of development. V. ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? ( ) (x) ( ) c) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. The Tujunga-Delhi soil type has been associated with the Dehli-Sands flower loving fly. However, all biological surveys of similarly situated sites have determined that abandoned vineyards and sites which are periodically disced do not provide habitat for flower loving fly. Vl. NOISE - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (x) ( ) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. (b) Temporary high noise levels are anticipated during the construction phase of the subject proposal, but not greater than anticipated and addressed in the Development Code and have been incorporated into the Standards Conditions of Development. The Standard Conditions of Development will be incorporated into the project approval. VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. The subject project shall comply with adopted City standards for street lighting in the industrial area and with on-site lighting requirements for the industrial area. VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. The proposed project is consistent with the development guidelines for the General Industrial Area (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. Development will result in a non- measurable increase in the use of natural resources and is not significant. X. RISK OF UPSET - VVill the proposal involve: a) A risk of 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) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The intended use is warehouse and distribution of small plastic items for the kitchen and pose no known risk of upset. Xl. POPULATION - Will the proposal.' a) Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan as to location and use and will not change the planned growth rate of the population. XII. HOUSING - VVill the proposal.' a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. The subject project will add 60 to 75 jobs, mostly entry level paying between $5.50 and $12.50 per hour and are expected to be filled by persons already residing in the area. XIII. 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 the 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) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. a) The project is consistent with the traffic and circulation requirements in place in the Development Code and subject to parking requirements in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Parks and other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. a,b,) The proposed project will be reviewed by the Fire District and the Police Department and comply with the Standard Conditions of Development. No impacts are anticipated. c) The project is subject to school fees set by State Law. The applicant shall notify the school district of the subject project and receive certification that the required fees have been paid prior to the issuance of building permits. d,e) Park Development Fees and Transportation Fees must be paid at the time of building permit issuance consistent with fee schedules adopted to mitigate park and recreation impacts identified in the MEA. XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in: a) 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) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. a) Industrial development will result in a measurable, but not significant, increase in usage of fuel or energy, and consistent with planned usage. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Communications systems? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Water? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. Infrastructure is in place to serve the subject project. a) Southern California Edison provides electricity. The Gas Company provides natural gas. b) GTE provides telephone service and Marks Cablevision provides cable service. c,d) Cucamonga County Water District provides domestic water and sewer service. Water usage will be consistent with usage planned for industrial development. Landscape irrigation is subject to the Xeriscape Ordinance per the Standard Conditions of Development. e) Storm water drainage will be consistent with the adopted City drainage plan. f) Solid waste disposal is available under private contract. XVII. HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed warehouse and distribution development will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning could not result in any impacts to human health. XVIII. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ( ) ( ) ( x ) SUBSTANTIATION: The project will be reviewed for consistency with the Industrial Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines and will be compatible with existing industrial development to the north and future industrial development in the area. The site is within 300 feet of the I-15 freeway and will meet the I-15 view-corridor requirements. XIX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( x ) b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( x ) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. There could be no impact on recreational opportunities or religious or sacred uses resulting from this in~ll project. XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site?' ( ) ( ) ( x ) b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would'affect unique ethnic, cultural values? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: The Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 update of the General Plan addresses issues raised under this heading. There are no cultural resources associated with this site. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or ( ) ((x) prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts well endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ( x ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is ( ) ( ( x ) significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (x) SUBSTANTIATION: No impacts have been identified which are beyond those identified for warehouse and distribution development consistent with the land use map of the General Plan and the uses permitted in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Mitigation measure identified by the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan have been incorporated into the Development Code and into the Standard Conditions of Development. Approval of this project will be subject to the Development Code and the Standard Conditions of Development. XXll. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Narrative description of environmental impacts) See discussion included above under the "Substantiation" heading for each item. XXlil. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) The subject industrial infill development is consistent with the General Plan and with the zoning for the district in which it is located. XXIV, EARLIER ANALYSES - Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). a) Earlier analyses used: - The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive. · Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report for Update of the General Plan, City of Rancho Cucamonga, certified January 4, 1989 · Environmental Assessment for the Industrial Area Specific Plan, certified August 19, 1981. b) Impacts adequately addressed - The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. I-b) Over covering of the soil is an anticipated result of development: the subject project is consistent with the zoning and the General Plan use map and no unanticipated impact will occur. I-e) Erosion in the form of dust is an anticipated impact during construction and dust suppression activities are required by State Law, the Development Code, and the Building and Safety Code and enforced by Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions. Ill-b) Conversion of open field and abandoned vineyards to industrial devetopment will concentrate storm runoff, but the impact has been anticipated and will be addressed through the development review process and the standard conditions of development. V-b) Although the soil on the site is Tujunga-Dehli, the site has been disturbed historically by public improvements, including streets and utilities, and the soil has been disturbed historically for agricultural use and annually disced for weeds for fire prevention purposes: similarly situated sites have not been found to be suitable habitat for animal life or any endangered species, including but not limited to the Delhi-Sands Flower Loving Fly. VI-b). Noise impacts during construction are anticipated and have been addressed by the Development Code and the standard conditions of development. c) Mitigation measures - For effects that are "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," descdbe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. None. XXV. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ....................................................................( X ) b) 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 mitigation measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ...................................................................( ) c) I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................................................... ( ) /r/~' 'er's Signature Miki Rr~ff. AI(':.P. A~nni~fe PIRDRP, F Print Name and Title RP.ntPrnh~r ~)5. 1996 Date 8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 23, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF ALMOND AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE - A request to vacate a portion of Almond Avenue and Cherry Avenue south of Wilson Avenue BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On July 22, 1987, Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 13566 that was submitted by the Caryn Development Company. Subsequent to approval of the tentative tract a land exchange agreement between the developer, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Flood Control was approved by the City Council on February 19, 1992. The agreement indicates the City of Rancho Cucamonga will vacate Almond Avenue and Cherry Avenue south of Wilson Avenue (previously known as 24th Street), as shown on Exhibits "B" & "C". The streets to be vacated are within the area of the San Sevaine Detention Basin. The vacation of Cherry Avenue between 24th Street and the Cherry Avenue realignment and Almond Avenue south of 241h Street are consistent with the General Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Development Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that the street vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Dan J5~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MP Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Almond Avenue Vacation Exhibit "C" - Cherry Avenue Vacation ITEM B RANCH0 CUCA1VIONGA TITLE: VICINITY MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: *'A' WILSON AVENUE TRACT ixlO, 13566 R' I.¢54. oo - L · 5,t.65' T- 27. a3' iT See Exhibit B-2 CITY 0g rrsM: VACATION RANCIt0 CUCAMONGA TrrLE:ALMOND AVENUE ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT:"B-1" See Exhibit B-1 · .. · "' .'I,;i: ..~-:~;;',~ .., ,... ~':;.] ,X~ / / CITY 0F ~EM: VACATION ~NCH0 CUC~0NGA T~LE: ~0ND A~ ENGINEERING D~SION ~: "B-2" WILSON / AVENUE T CITY OF ITErd: VAGATION RANCH0 CUCAMON{]A TrrLE: ca~.nY AWrCt~ EN6INEERIN6 DMSI01~ EXHIBIT:"G" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlVIONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: October 23, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: VICTORIA RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) STORAGE ANNUAL REVIEW BACKGROUND: The Victoria Planned Community requires that RV storage be provided within the Low Residential, Low-Medium Residential, and Medium Residential districts for 20 percent of the dwelling units. The Planning Commission is required to review the percentage of RV storage spaces each year and make any necessary modifications to the percentage. In 1992, the Planning Commission reduced the RV storage requirement from 25 percent to 20 percent during their annual review. ANALYSIS: Staff has compared the number of RV spaces provided on individual lots and within multi-family projects to the number of RV storage spaces required. This analysis is compiled in the attached Table (Exhibit "A"). Currently the number of existing RV storage spaces is greater than 20 percent. The total number of units developed, approved. or proposed is 5,438; therefore, 1,088 RV storage spaces are required. The last village to be developed within the Victoria Planned Community, the Lakes, is primarily vacant land; hence, the number of RV storage spaces provided cannot be determined for most of the village until subdivision applications are filed. As lot sizes get smaller, the ability to provide RV storage in the side yard is diminished. Those tracts which were developed with lots less than 6,000 square feet typically have provided no on-site RV storage and rely totally upon the 233 RV storage spaces at Victoria Station I located on Base Line Road. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the percent of RV storage spaces required remain at 20 percent. Respectfull ubmitte , t Br BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - RV Parking Analysis Table Exhibit "B" - Victoria Community Plan Villages I ,,. ITEM C ' VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING ANALYSIS AS OF OCTOBER 23, 1996 WINDROWS VILLAGE 11934 123 25 0 12044 177 35 44 12045 271 54 68 12046 174 35 44 12832 135 27 0 12833 117 23 0 13027 157 31 39 Subtotal 1,154 230 195 GROVES VILLAGE 13022 East 181 36 0 13022West 94 19 24 13057 142 28 0 13058 200 40 0 13059 154 31 39 13060 86 17 22 13722 120 24 30 14121 46 9 12 Subtotal 1,023 204 127 EXHIBIT "A" VINEYARDS NORTH VILLAGE 13440 111 22 28 13441 115 23 0 13442 East 83 17 21 13442West 70 14 17 13443 144 29 36 13444 East 120 24 30 13444West 56 11 14 13445 215 43 54 14534 121 24 40 15289 190 38 0 15354 155 31 0 Subtotal 1,380 276 240 VINEYARDS SOUTH VILLAGE 13280 145 29 38 13281 199 40 50 13753 129 26 32 15359 68 14 0 (Potion zoned"M") Subtotal 541 109 118 819 Required 680 Provided 139 233 Existing RV Spaces at Victoria Stationl 94 Surplus LAKES VILLAGE 13052 226 45 57 13873 124 25 0 15060-1 110 22 0 15060-11 158 37 0 15060-111 132 26 0 15060 -Vlll & X326 65 0 15766 264 53 53 Subtotal 1,340 273 110 ! iiiiiiiiii !i iiiiiiii ........................................................................... 1,088 Required - 790 Provided 298 - 233 Existing RV Spaces at Victoria Station I 65 Deficit I I 259 13796