Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1985/01/23 - Agenda Packet
/0701-02 o 1'-- 23--85 PC Agenda o 1-of x �r " Cr ry OF ` err } AIN)aiOT�yCi;GINIC3y�+',{GA 1 �y g ^ 1977.. WEDNESDAY January 23, 1985 ly 7:00 p.m. -DONS PARK Comli+ uNiTy CRIVrf it. 9131 I3ASE'IME RANCHES CUCA,MONGA, C LIFO RMA i i. Pledge of AlIegianze i I(. Roll can Commissioner Harker Commissioner Rempei Commissioner,Chitiea Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiei — M. Announcements v ,Design Review Committee rotation N. j ApgFC:al of minutes + Noveznr 28,198€ V. PubUe hearings Vae following items are public hearings in whidrtl exic,4mied" individuals may Voice their opinion of the related prgi+° rt. Please wait to be recog fixed by the Chair, an and address th4A:!4Mr14 ssion by stating: your -name and address. All such opin!bw ,,shalicbe limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE T Ar%r 32832 - LYtI -- The development of 135 attached single family dwellings can 161.9 acres of land within the Victoria. Planned Community (Low - Medium category, 4 -8 dulac), located on the north side of Victoria Park Lane on the west side of Victoria Windrows Look - AFN 227 - 371 --13, 14, 15. ;..f B. ENVIRONMENTAL Afr4ESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12833 - LYO - The development of 177 attached siagle family dwellings nn 14.7 acres of land within the Victoria Planned Community (Low - Medium category, 4-3 du[ac) located on the south side of Victoria Park Lane, on the-west side of :victoria Windrows Loop - APN 24?- 371 -I , 15 and 227 -891 �,ii. �J� i C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A)TD TENTATIVE TRACT 12835 OVERSEAS 'REALTY E <<TERPRISES - A total residential development "of 112 townhouses on 9.52 acres cl land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 du/ac) located east of Vineyard,,± 600 feet north of Arrow Highway - APN 208- 251-05. j D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSSESSMENT *ND TENTATIVE TRACT 12319 - LEWIS - The development of 274 single family attached units on 51 acres of land within the -lorra Vista 1 {� Planned Community (Medium Residential category, 4 -i4 du(ac), located at the northwest corner of Tetra V�4sta Parkway and Spruce Avenue. APN 1077 - 091.02, 06. B. CERTIFICATION OF FINIAL ENVIRONMENTAL LVPACT REPORT TENTATIVE .TRACT 12376 FORECAST Planning Commission review and ceraification of the Final Elk for a custom lot subdivision of }6 .ots on 20,9 acres and a. conceptual master plan for 94 ages of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, gene -ally west of Sapphire Street - APN 200,051 -06, 07. F F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 - FORECAST - A custom lot subdivision of 16 lots on 20:9 acres and a conceptual mas %gr plan for 94 acres of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street generally west of Sapphire Street - APN 200- 051 -06 &e 07. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GEN'� RAL -, PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -01 -A RICHARD'S. ,,t A request to "am the Land Use Map,. of the General Plan from Low Densitu Residential to Industrial Park for 1.2 acres of land located on. the southeast corner of Main and Archibald - APN 209 -061- 01. VL Director's Reports 1 H. ALTA LOMA CHRISTIAN CHURCH A review of outstanding issues regarding CUP 83 -04, Alta Loma Christian Church, located on, the west side of Sapphire, between Lemon and Orange Streets. (Item continued' from Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 1985.) (oral Report) VII. Public Comments This is the time and place for tie gene;; public to address the Commission. Items to be discuss};.i here are those which do not b. - aireddy appear on this agenda. U 11 ++ii f1 � VICINITY"" MA ■ 1 • � 1ti1lfW Ir CHAkfA {Ite t..A7ifA�, �� a �. WNeen Cp1rr * r( i • I 19th � v rl. u' _a � E ar - ttntmheNK $'+.www�.mr •�� IL /ON PA,. CTTY,NALL • a � is e T<ew11 — � a to as Attu. IFS • t 21 e Ath CNGNONGA- GOASTI COONfY .01ONAL ftic _ ONTAA10. iNTgpNAT1tlYAL Ilh�aar'': 1 i t - Crii of >3AI�0140 CUC-AMONOA a1 CITY OF RANCHO C'UCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 28,-1984 Vice- Chairm,,kn David, Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ?lanning`Commission to order at 7 :00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Parvk Community Center, 9161 Base , Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice- Chairman Barker then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry Mc.dei, Herman Rempel COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dennis Stott STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedie, Senior" Planner; Nancy Fang, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior• W-1 Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL' ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _84 -13 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - The devel(,pment of a 43,992 square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops,, fast food restaurant and gasoline service station /convenience market, oa .5.44 acres of land in the Neighborhood Co=erciai District locatted on the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202- 181 -27. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff reporu_and additionally requested an amendment to Pla!Ining Division condition number 7. He stated that it.was not staff's intent to include the requirement for a water element, ,an4,, requested that it be removed from the Resolution- Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing, Al Diegliamo, architect for the applicant, revie)opd the project's archite;ture. Jim Jesser, landscape architect for the applicant, reviewed the landscaping`. l F f Jack Tarr, representing the applicant, stated that the project had been designed in accordance with _Design Review Committee recommendations - and.._ Development Code and General Plan requirements. He requested; however, that Planning Division condition number 2 of the Resolution be modified to allow the applicant flexibility in the design of future buildings. He advised that the buildings could be designed with consistency of theme without the need for combining them into a single building footprint. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.- - Commissioner Rempel "stated that he had: no problem with one, two, or three buildings, as long as the design is consistent. �a Commissioner McNiel agreed and stated that this project has been reviewed and revised many times and has become a project.of which the applicant could be proud. Commissioner Chitiea stated. that she had no problems 'with' the changes and would agree to allowing the'app'iicant design flexibility for future buildings. Vice- Chairman Barker, stated that the originai design was a strip taco stand, gas station and - convenience store and in his opinion this_ design is the same. He stated that he was not overjoyed with the project, but was overjoyed with the amount of progress made. Motion: - Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel', 'carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84 -13, Syr,amore Investments, with elimination of -the% water element feature on Planning Division condition 7, and modification of i'anning Division condition 2 to state that future building layouts are to be,,Qesigned consistent with the approved mission architectural style. gyp' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEt', CHITIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER: ; >E ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -27 - BARMAKIAN A revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to a low the development of a caretaker's residence in conjunction with a mini warehouse facility on 11.03 acres of land in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1), located an the west side of Vineyard, between Arrow and 9th Street APN 207 - 262 -44. Tim Beedie, Senior Planner,, reviewed the staff report. Vice- Chairman Barker opened the.public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 28, 1984 f ' Pete Pitassi,` "`representing the applicant, stated concurrence_ with the staff report, Resolution and conditions. f There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84 -27 for a caretaker's residence .located on the west side of Vineyard, between Arrow and 9th Street. C. CONDITIONAL USE PE "MIT 84 -36 HUTCHISON The development of a second welling unit within 'a garage on 14,057square feet of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at 6897 Amethyst - APN 202- 121 -01. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel asked why the street widening, curb aid gutter requirements were not shown in the Resolution. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that this was an oversight and it would be appropriate to include them. Vice-Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Doug Hutchison, applicant, -tated that the street requirements w ;r're submitted with the plans and were possibly omitted when the plans were sclaed down. Commissioner Rempel asked what hoes the living quarters wculd be used. Mr. Hutchison replied that he had no particular plans for the quartersr,.ther than for use by overnight guests. Commissioner Rempel explained that the reason for alloying second dwelling units is to provide "granny flats" or dwelling units intended for use by immediate family members and are not intended to be used as rental units. Commissionioner Rempel further questioned the use of the garage and stardd- that if the applicant's intent is to use power equipment which would generate noise, it would become a nuisance to the adjacent mobile `home park. Mr. Hutchison replied that the garage would be used mainly for storage.. Commissioner McNiel stated that he shared the same concerns as Commissioner Rempel, but that the project could be conditioned,to a time for review. Commissioner Rempel stated that his main concern was the size of the building in a residential zone and what it could be turned into. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 28, 1984 j. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, advised that the Home Occupation Permit requirements state - that the use cannot create noise, nuisance, or glare " problems with, adjacent'. surrounding residences.. He further advised that storage is no'-- permitted in accessory structures. Vice - Chairman Barker stated that sound attenuation should be required through the i.se of l'andscapi'ng to buffer the adjacent projects. Commissioner `Rempel cautioned that the City may be setting a precedent by allowing large structures of this nature in a, residential area, as they can become c-esores and nuisances. He suggested that staff research ways of preventing these types of buildings in residential areas, Motion; Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-36 with an additional Planning Division condition requiring a landscape screen along the rear property line and an Engineering Division condition requiring the improvements of Amethyst Street adjacent to the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -21 - ALTA LAMA CHRISTIAN CHURCH A request to convert an existing 1,86P-square foot single family residence to an office for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located''at the west side of Sapphire, across from Orange - APN 1062 - 332 -23. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Vice - Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Reverend David McClary, representing the applicant, (Mated concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and conditions of approval. The following individuals addresscdi the Commission ?gin opposition ;to the Conditional Use Permit: Rocky Chapman, 6337 Marble, Rancho Cucamonga, ,expressed concern;:'wi, ,, thei existing wall treatment, lighting, and dust created by the vacate areas Mike Kennedy, adjacent resident, stated concerns with grading of the existing . pads, the composition and placement of the existing'wall, and lighting. The following individuals addressed the Commission in support of the Conditional Use Permit: Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 28,, 1984 �a � r Tony Lopez 9443 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga Gene Surrell -- Rancho Cucamonga Resident Bill Ungels 5375 Sapphire: - Rancho Cucamonga Linda Lopez 9443 Mignonette - Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments, therefore the public „heaving was closed. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, stated that most concerns expressed seem to be with the existing Conditional Use Permit.for the church and not the conversion of the residence to an",loffice, which is now before the Commission. i;- suggested that staff. research :the original CUP for compliance with the conditions of approval and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Rempel stated that the revised Resolution basically meets the intent established by the Planning Commission at their November 14th meeting; however, the landscape planter described in Planning condition number <4 was to be removable. Commissioner Barker requested clarification that the use would convert back to a residence at the end of the 24 -month time period, urtless extended by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the Resolution did not prohibit the housing or sleeping of children, as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea agreed and stated that it should be added as a condition 1 of the Resolution. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84 -2I with further conditions to prohibit the housing of infants and toddlers, clarification that the use would convert back to a residential use at[the end of',1,24- months unless extended by the Commission, and constructiol', of a rewvable landscape planter placed in the driveway. l AYE11: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHIT?EA, BARKER NOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ,u ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT carried � Additionally, staff was directed to research the existing Conditional Use Permit for the church for compliance with conditions of approval. 8:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened rV Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 28, 1984 a New Business E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -48 - PACIFIC SCENE,,, The development of an 80,000 square foot off' ; /warehouse multi - tenant industrial park on 5.75 acres of land in the 6e,eral Industrial category (Subar(ta 11), g0ierally located at the northeast corner of Fth Street and A Utica venue -'APN 209 - 411 -17. Barrye Hanson, Senior-Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff - report. Vice- Chairman' Stout asked f6r public comment. Ken Spear, 'representing the applicant, addressed the Engineering Division condition of approval regarding the driveway widths on 6th and Utica. He stated that the applicant should not be required to construct the entire drive approaches on those streets and then have to dedicate access to the adjacent property owner. He suggested that the applicant be required to install a portion of the access, with the remaining driveway width to be installed by the future adjacent property owner. Mr. Hanson outlined the a" �rnatives as recommended by City staff and by the applicant. He advised " the alternative proposed by the applicant would create unsafe turning c Aitions for motorists since the access would also involve truck traffic. He additionally stated staff's concern that the City would be left with half a driveway under the applicant's proposal. Commissioner McNiel expressed concern with the potential traffic conflict between delivery trucks and motorists using "the driveways and stated that this might cause an unsafe situation. Dwight Capatani, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in support of the alternative proposed by Mr. Spear. He advised that these drive approaches would not be the main points of access, therefore would not create much conflict with truck and car traffic. He fug- ther-advised that the trucks utilized by the tenants of this project would not be of the 18 -wheel variety. Commissioner Rempel stated that a 30 -foot drive approagn width would be adequate to handle the traffic and that the adjacent property owners mou1'd- have to be advised that they could install a drive approach'iin the middle of their property, but if a secondary access is needed it vhuld have to be combined with the existing drive approach for this project. Fiction: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitic-a, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84 -48 with a modification to - Engineering Condition number one, which would require the drive approaches on 6th Street and at the north end of the property on Utica to be secondary access points with 30 -foot widths. The eventual width of the two drive approaches will- be determined at the time of development of the adjacent properties. Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 28, 1984 "• i' AYES COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, rHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COOMMISSIONERS STOUT - carried Director's Reports F. REVIEW OF UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING POLICY Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the sta °'f report. Mr. Rougeau stated that staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission in order to draft amendments to the City's utility undergrounding policies for consideration by the City Council. Commissioner Rempel stated tha', when the undergrounding .benefits property owners on both sides of the streets a justifiable assessment should be imposed' on both sides rather than on one. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would like to encourage undergrounding of the entire area, not just parts here and there. Vice- Chairman Barker expressed concern. with #b total parcel size and stated that he would like to see a method developed viich would give smaller property owners the ability to function together without destroying their ability to sell or develop their property. He further stated that he was uncomfortable with the 600 -foot minimum and would prefer to see other alternatives where practical. Vice- Chairman Barker recapped the Commission's direction to staff stating that the general consensus was that the presenz policy is preferred with adjustments to make it more equitable: He st.;- ed that the Conynission would like to see alternative time lines established with consideration to small property owners, and a method whereby the cost would be shared by all who benefit on both sides of a street. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 9:55 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez - (` Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 23, 19K L r. ' CI71 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c` M0 MEMORANDUM a w _ O i f DATE: January 23, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12832: LYGN - The development of 135 attached single family dwellings on 16.9 acres --,-of land within - the Victoria Planned Community (Low- Medium category, 4 -8 du /ac), located on the north side of Victoria Park Lane on the west side of Victoria Windrows Loop - APN 227- 371 -13, 14, 15. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12833 _.LYON -. -The development of 117 attached single family dwellings jn 14.7 acres of land withip the Victoria Planned Community (Low- Medium category, im8 du/ac), located on the south side of Victoria Park Lane, on the west side of Victoria Windrows Loop - APN 227- 371 -14, 15 and 227 -391 - 16, Since the Commission's review of Victoria Park Lane at their meeting of-` January 9 1985, the applicant has not had sufficient time to submit plans for staff review. Therefore, it: is recommended that the above projects be continued to the Planning Comaiss*3n meeting of February 13, 1985. RGIjr i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM©NGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 23, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Pl_ -nning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez; City PIanner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12835 - OVERSEAS REALTY ENTERPRISES - A total residential development of i townhouses on 9.5- acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dulac) located east of Vineyard Avenue, feet north of Arrow Highway - APN 208- 2LI -05. BACKGROUND 'this item was scheduled for the Planning Connission's review contingent upon the applicant obtaining a- drainage easement from the adjacent property owner to construct a storm drain. The applicant has been unable to obtain the necessary drainage easement, therefore Staff recommends that this item be continued For thirty (30) days to allow negotiations for, the easement to be conc -,,4ed, Attached is a letter from the Central School Dttrict with intercif /n to Grant the applicant a drainage easement. ANALYSIS: Approximately half of the project site is, required to drain to the east pursuant to the City's adopted Master Plan of drainage, In order to control the drainage and prevent possiJ:: flood damage to downstream properties, a drainage easement and construction of, a storm drain facility is required on the adjacent school property. The Subdivision Map P-7t (Sec. 6646.2, page 39, 1985 Edition) states that a local agp,)cy (the City) cannot refuse approval of the final map because the developer xannnt fulfill a condit. -In requiring improvements on property which he does not control (in this case the storm drain on adjacent property). The City would then have to condemn (rat the developar's expense) an easement for the proposed storm drain. The Citv RCCOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Tentative Tract 12835 be continued, with the applicant's consent, thirty (30) days to allow the applicant to complete negotiations for the easement. If the applicant' does not consent to continuance, then it is recommended that the project be denied per the attached staff report as,d findings. R pect ly submitted, is ome �g tii her RG:NF:ns Attachment. Letter from Central School District ITEM C Central School District 9457 Foothill Boulevard / Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 / (71f ,1.989 -8541 f� ADMINISTRATION Frank A. COSCa, Jr., Ed D. District Superipterfdent _ Johr-,4. Mcclary Assistant Super nterdent; Personnel Thomas W. Gamella, Ed.o. Assistant Superintendent, Business services January 17, 1985 use @1E IVE0 M 4F- r?h�tCtlO cucar ^:c ►�ti :, Mr. Richard Gomez 44UNITYCRT' ,QPMENTREPT. City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga JAN 1" 1984 P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Ai�i Pbi 1819110111112J1.1213141516 Dear Rich, Representatives of Central School District and Overseas Realty Enterprises, Inc. have met to discuss an easement for a storm drain through Bear Gulch School for tract #12835. The purpose of these meetings has been to workout the details of the construction of-this storm drain. Pending resolution of these details, it is the intention of district staff to recommend to the Board of Trustees that the easement for storm drain purposes be granted to- Overseas Realty. Of course, final approval rests with the`Board of Trustees but we do not forsee any problem with the Board's approval of this easement. Please feel free ;:o contact m0 at 714- 489 -9345 if you have any questions regarding this situation. Sincerely, Andrew E. Carlmark Principal Bear Gulch Sriool AEC /ld cc: Mr. Vartan L. Minassian . 14r. Gary W. Dokich HOARD OFTRUSnES Lawrence W. Dultan Tamelo Wright Richard C. Alexander a President Cfert; Member 12 JackMcKalvey RuthA.Musse` Member Menabtr ___ : UITY Ulf' RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gcican1o�, STAFF REPORT O O I DATE: > January 23, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ij i FAJM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENT,,fIVE TRACT 12835 OVERSEAS REALTY ENTERPRISES - A total residential development of 112 townhouses on 9.5 "c -acres of Iand in the Medium ResAential District (8 -14 du /ac) icrated east of Vineyard Avenue, ± 600 feet north ;qf Arrow Righway - APN 208- 251 -05: I. PROJEC�AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A -ction Requested: Approval of--site plat;, elevations and issuance of a Negative Declar;ttion. B. Purpose: Construction of 112 townhouses. C. Location: East side of Vineyard Avenue, 600 feet north of Arrow Highway, Exhibit "A ". D.- Parcel Size :_ 9.52 acres. E. Project Density: 11.8 du /ac. Existing.,.Zoninn: Medium Residential District (4 -14 du/ac). G. Existing ,Land Use: Vacant. H. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North - Vacant; M& *'Um Residential District. South - Vacant: Single family homes; tedium Residentizl District. East - Elementary School, vacant; Medium Residential District. West - Vacant, new townhomes under construction; Medium Residential District. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT iT 12835 - Overseas Rea ty Enterprises January 23, 1985 Page ` I. General plan Designations: Project Site -- :Medium Residue ial (4 -14 du /ac), Master Plan fverlay District. North - Medium Residential (4- 14'du /ac), South -, Elementary School, Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac.). East - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac). West - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac. J. Site Characteristics: The subject site is vacant and slopes gently to the south -it approximately 2 < percent to 3 percent. Vegetation consists of an avocado tree ir-the,:siddle. of the site, a couple of large trees to the east, and eucalyptus g1•aves to tL ,north and sLmith property line. According to the developer and•a. horticulturist consultant, these trees are in a "serious state o` decline'", and cannot be say.:d..- tSee letter from Richard G. Maire, Horticulturist, and Aodendum t'o Initial Study, Part 11. II. ANALYSIS: 1 A. General: The proposed development rensists of 112 two -story townhouses and two -story stacked flats, wit1i a net density of 11.8 dwelling units per acre. The unit sizes proposed range from 971 to 1,379 sq. ft.. One plan is a single le%,el plan (26 units) which is stacked into two stories, the remaining three, J plans t86 units) arc- t- c —tory townhouses. Units are arranged' around four main parking courts. The proposed elevations are of contemporary style With an ample variety of architectural t -vtments and details. • The recreation area is centrally ed_with greenwa;- linkages throughout the site. The main to the pror;ect will be provided from Vineyard Avenue w. additional emergency access located in the northeatk____ j corner ,.f the site, a. )e I Rwiew Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the praject and found that the overall site plan arrangement. style of architecture, and open space areas comply with the Development. Code, The Committee has recommended approval of the project .. prnvided that the fallowing improvements be made which the developer has agreed to: 1. Other types of roof materials < such as concrete the shall be used instead of the proposed asphalt shingles, 2. Specia landscaping treatment.s!iall be provided along Vineyard Avenue, at project entrance and at the recreation areas, and to be in a u4ifying the .me ; "y l - j PLANNING COMMISSION STX7F REPOK TT 12335 - Overseas Realty Enterprises January 23, 1995 Page 3 Aft 3:, De,ise landscaping cha;l be providers to buffer the guest parking than fronts on Vineyard- nvenus; and landscaping shall be provided ,between garagas to soften the Long corridor of garage- streetscape. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has raviewad the project and determined ;fihat, with the recommended conditions of approval the project is consistent with the applicable standards and ordinano-;. D. Grading Committee: `r'he Grading Committee has reviewed the project and deterrmined that the conceptual grading plan cannot be approved at this time duF to the developer not having . obtained the necessar4 drainage easement from the adjacent school property. 4'nder the current City's Master Plan drainage system, half of the project site is required to drain toward the east through the construction of the r•_guired storm drain facilities. E. Environmental Assessment» Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and determined that the development of the subject site could expose people and property to water related hazards, such as flooding. However, this could be mitigated through the construction of storm grain "-facilities according ro the City's Piaster Plan drainage system. `Since the developer at this time isrunable to secure such drainage easements, staff has clot mined that adverse environmental impacts could occur as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration cannot be issued. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use, tuilding design and si'te— pplan, togeiher wi h the recommended Conditions are in compliance with the applicable provision of the Development Code and City standards. However, the project will be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental _impacts without the construction of the required storm drain facilities to mitigate the potential water related hazard. The project U inconsistent vita the General Plan and 0ev- 11opment Code in that storm drain facilities are not provided to dispose -of surface water runoff. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This iten, has been advertised in The Dail Report as a public hearing. In addition, notices were sent to all property owners within 309 feet of the project site advertising the public hearing,. To date, no correspondence bas been received AIL regardi.ag the project. (` �s PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT f TT '12835 Overseas Reality Enterprises January 23, 19S5 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Tentative Tract Map 12835 by adoption of the attached Resolution. Re- �9etf� y Wited, icl' G , City Planner RG :NF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A'° 7:.Location /Land Use Map, Exhibit 118!� - Site Utilization and Natural Features Map Exhibit "G'! - Master Plan ExhiW "WI Tentative Tract Map Detailed Site Plan exhibit "F" - Conceptual'Gradinu Plan. .y Exhibit "G" Conceptual Landsak Plan Exhibit 'H" - Elevations (b) Exhibit "1" - Floor Plans (4 ); Ath Exhibit "J" - StreetscapQ_of Vineyard Avenue 6 Initial'Study, Part II Letter from 4orticulturist - Richard G. Maire Resolution of Denial F n . M LEA GC _ r lea, sin Z. °pia � aiaai" GIR TH CITY OF ITEM:' m7ZMW t 1111.11 - _AWA PLANNING DIWSM tMilBIT( i t. ��. . � �,��•z{I:_i4 ACT e. �� - l i'�' %7TM5) # �ifL 4 ; <CB'!. • :, !7?rlQl.°'' bY3� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA. i `\ rsr�i,pi ,{� pixy U 1� IL�lIGr1!��ON MAP I 4V ! " NORTH RANCHO t� TCA- OiNGA TITLE= "14 �� �i� PLANNING L�I'VISIOi I EXHIBIT; 4 -f SCALD TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1283 IN THIS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMOA IVY 1[ PL A& G0Ni Y HIM EO Ito 020- lwm \ice' t!!IY �ti-:FJ r Ir ;, LEGEND . ®IMIM OVERLAY DISTRICT &OUNDARY - «««« « DRAMA GE OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17006 DRAINAGE AREABWNOAI:Y A -2 OR WAGE AREA NUNEER r.. DRAINAGE AREA ACREAGEVll]'r'•L7 CITE' OF RANCHO �iLT�.�f�i�y ♦�/�y� 1TFrbI� PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT= !! � _ SCA .E- - TENTATIVE TRACT NO ` ' 12835 / T ht THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOHpA '\C fEA4R1l N0iE5 -.- �L 1 t.or e ..... I 9 u.s,>MrsEC„arss «,. tt4HA99 - 9ACAh7 • vttarlruaPV I� I t 9cS19£ ,£ � ,y awnovSUBONI M wvARner o e0 an im id�'nanr c Ea CONS v u2 f'..wRra. uPr - ` Oaaaveta FuM EinerprMa� YiG f hiORTH < CITY OF ITF11,I: RANCHO CLTCA1VIGi�TG TITLE: i= ".r PLANNING DIVISIQNt EXHIBIT:_- -�SC.4 UDD S J %AK _ _ T— 41 4--t-fl, t [, ! i L[ �� a wrwraaxaa.rim+cr e s bd4frMAtwMMaa1 [ weminnwcr.raaa _ aareaca. aamsrrmuaw mnw rgaarw raxef6��ata Wmn trrN;uwr+aeaa.e a a a.�evwttr a a ra q�v �-aa.rw ^ 'J� irra`rTMr MOPOU. "JON ENTRY aw.naat _. m 111R; `�1 Rii�■ ■Iiit�I > �a .�. r E ■ ■ �r y�'�+ anar. all � 'a Is " a� Rol �. a � ,YRls.f�a`dl!Y 4Rb'if:IR]' xaarora.T *rK.� <.,ar.�r..,. � �I14n21_ �, 3i3'1DE,Nhi a,�Ow HIGHWnr } a ao ea it CITY OF X jl� -,RANCH-0 CLTCAMOiNGA f � M r. PLANNM�,DI'ViSIChV EXHIBIT ' � - rlt --s. ,1 CONCEPTUAL GRAMG PLAN �. i V .w c - NIL , " 4 M: , , M-T, r .t-.0 ✓ .y 1 r{ r i r S z • E71 Mu�samruN � - $>.SYQEMCc 91CrfiA� � IlA41N' _ 7 OWNM/VjBcrvom �$�'ax s«e,sblen ealLSS„ueeoo `ftlORS CDNSULTING GROUP_• _ �' 1Ln .lrlwc.a�ms.ulaiurs.cnrncn,ee �/ oivr*...nwlY Enlervf.asYc ,� NORTH Cfr OF ITEM- R.A NCHO CLTCAMONGA TITLE; C fl a 1;I7 YL&,`�NM DIVISIaN EXHIBIT--t, SCALE, ✓' OR -✓'- r rte' �rt� _: t } OR FRONT OR O OR g REAR„ A'�)RfI-T CITY OF RANCHO CLTCA.Moj,%A Tnx.E: PL.ANNINU DIVLMN IIBIT= " r SCAiB= '' 1\ v B SIDE BLDG.300 7� 8 aDE BLDG.206 .._ CITY OF IV f RANCHO CUCE GONG A, � TITLE: PL I NNm DIViSiflN EXI-TIBIT-.. «' . • ° SCALE. .� i� r r %N*kU* I «r a4tt k tx�,y REAR NORM CITY OF r, PLANNING DIVLSIi�i�T EXHIBrr- SCAd z__, ' _ G A 441 k; 4y .? � •.?yet • °k t 't � A CR REAR N6RTH CITY OF H0 _CuQTCit` f �PLANNII IL; D VISNN EXHIBIT.-IL s A.LE�— _ I 11266 �Tt it �] �a y6 sY AP gyp— :li lt'! v C" r A it n � ii DANIELIAN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE AND P:- ANNING ' 3M AMMBDRM SLM210 NEWPORT SEA04,G 926W p)4)540,%93 r REVISED INMAL STUDY (Page 42 City of Rancho Cucamonga Overseas Realty Enterprises, Inc. Danielian Associates Job No. 84047.03 January 2, 1985 Phase Phase Phase Phase Total 1 2 3, 4 1. Number of raulti- family 281 28 28 28 112 family whits 2- 'Bate proposed to begin May 85 Dec. 85 June 86 Jah:,xT construction 3. Earliest date of Sept. 85 Apra 86 Oct. 86 May 87 occupancy 5. Model # & # Tentative of Bedrooms yrce Range A - 2 BR 70,000. _ s - 2 BA 75,000 4 4 F.` 8 26 B - Dual MBR 78,000- 2 BA 85,000 9 g 7 5 26 C 3 BR 84,000- 2 -1/2 BA 90,000 7 10 9 11 38 D - 3BR+ Country Kit. 91,000 ' 2 -1/2 BA 44,000 8 b 6 4 22 TOTALS 28 28 28 28 112 'Including: two model buildings (8 units), v CITY OF RANCHO CUMMO.iGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY MIRON14ENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:_ APPLICANT:-0V-Sr,-d/, J kP�Tf n FILING DATE: Rt 2I ° LOG :'UMBER: ii M A5 64WRO ; --z`' r ` PROJECT: /12 'iGuf/1�ck �`JtI \' —r1_• PROJECT LOCATION: pF �I/AlFy�'� °} tGTaGr'% /1�Tlir_ APIJ. 2a4= zs4,o5 �tdG� Flr,lY , ----.� T, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all " yes" and "maybe°' answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground Fnnditions or in changes in geologic re'ationships? + b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, c07,-ring or modification of any unique gEOloL , or physinal features? % e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting "eijner on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud - slides, failure, ground or similar hazards? AML It. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or "t use of,.any mineral resource? _ 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: Page 2 YES MAYBE NO a. -Changes in currants, or the course of direction Of flowing strzams, r {vers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, the or rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any, body of Water? `' �! e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change In the ouantit y of — either through directadditionsdortwit drawals, or through interference withAa aquifer? L Qaality? - Quantity? V h. The reduction in the amount of Prater other- wise available for public water supp?ies? I I- Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? �r 3. Air Quaiit gill the proposal have significant results in. a. Constant, or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources ?'� Stationary sources ?, b. Deterioration of ,ambient air quality and /or interference..wjl.*', "the attainment of applicable air quality "standards? ` r. Alternion of Incal or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in; a. Change it the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, ar number o£ any species of plants? b. Reduction of the n=beri )f any unique, q a rare or endangered species ofijants? !i .a `Isv Page 3 YES MBE NO �. Introduction of new or- disruptive species of into area? r plants an d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of spellies, including diversity, distribution, ol, numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduepion of the Tiumbers of any uni3ue, rare ` or eniangered species (Sf animals? c. Introduction of new or "disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _1/ d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or / wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rAt` of 11 the human of / population an area? _✓ b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Y 6. Socio- Economic Factors.. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? r b.. Will project costs be aquUa:b- � aa�ei:a§ly distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers cr project users? 7. Land Use ar,:d Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land _ use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govermental f / entities? 4f e. An impact upon the qulaity or quant1ty of j existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? R% Page 4 YES MAYBE NO 8< Transttcrtation< Will the proposal nave significant results in: a. Generation of ':ubstanrial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects: on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c, Effects oa existing parking facilities, or demand for new parkint,?` d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? -_ f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential vrater- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Tncreases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bitYclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Wi :Ll the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance the integrity of archaeological, paleontological- and /or historical resources? _Hea?ith> Safety and Nuisance Factors. W311 the proposal have significant results in: _ a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard ?_. 1 b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _._. c. A 'risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? + d. An increase in the number of individuals or species: of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such °? organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in ht or glare? Page YES MAYBE No 11. Aesthetics. Will the Proposal have significant results in: R. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? .. y b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the ,objective of designated or potent.al scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? 1+ Natural or pa.kaged gas? e. Communications systems? f d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solidvaste facilities? . h. Fire protection? y i. Police protection? /" aL J. Schools'? l k. Parks or other recreational facilities? y 1• Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M- Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce 'RLivurces. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing d sources of energy? t c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energyT f d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption Of non— renewable forms of ever&,- ,•when feasible renewable- 0017ces of energy are available? lO _ a Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. - Substantial depletion of ally nonrenewable or scarce _ natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the •environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, causd a fish or wildlife population to d,P below self sustaining levels, threaten eliminate a Platt or animal community, reduce the nurber or restrict the range of a rare or ,. endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods rf California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential -to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A ehort -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, ddi;nitive period of time while long - term impacts will endure well into the fc:ture). _ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but tumulati_rly considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project axe considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,' and probable futsre projects). d. Does the projrLt'have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? f V iI. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BVAWATION (i,e., of affirmative answer s + tb -' the above questions plus a discuss ;on of proposed mitigation measures), I { i i �rir. / ft Page 7 1 aII. � TE iF A ON On, the bas?s -of this initial, evaluatio I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect " an the environment, and a xEGAT?vE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find t:iat although the proposed project could have a significant, effect on the enviromuent, there Vill nOt %,be a significant effect 1 in this case because the mitigation meas+ires described on an attached sheet have been added to the project,_ A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the ED proposed groject K�Y have a significant effect vn the envirnment, and an ZWIR0t3Mt IMPACT REPORT_ 3s requiz'�r;{ - Date r -; ` atu e t.le A; umum_To INITIAL ,.7UDY, PART II 2. Hydruloa (b), (;) , The construction of this project will increase the amount of paved surface area ,which 6uld result in an increase in the amount of surface water runof -,` and a decrease in the absorption rates. However, the proposed drainage system for this project wii.:-hand .'.`e this increase..- The development of the site could expr -, people and property, esp�riaily downstream properties, to fioo&i,g. However, this could be mitigated throl4,gh the construction of storm drain facilities to handle the surface water runoff. 4. Biota (a), (b) and (c) I T;ie development of this pro; ^t will introduce and add 'new plant species to the site, which: Oil provide for a diversity. However,, the development of the site will cause the removal of the northern and southern eucalyptus windrows, '2 large trees to the east aide, and 1 large avacado tree in the center. According to a 'urticulturist (see attached letter of August 13, 1984'r om Richard ' G. Maire), these trees are all in a verious state of declit)e, root- rot and dieback and could be a hazard to people and structures due to potei,tial breakage. The devei'oper should mitigate the removal of the existing windrows by repla?-.ing them with new ones. > This mitigation measure has been incorporated as a Condition of Approval for iT 12835. f 8. Transportation (a) The development of this project will cause an= crease in vehicular traffic, bowever, Vineyard Avenue being a collector street, is designed to handle such an increase.: _. 1 �, * -2 UIA Richard G. Moire Consult -ing yorticulturisl L�ij�� _ -914-171 Redding Way nz j Upland. W 91786 7,4.98, 78n5 3 Mr. Vartan Minass;�an Overseas 8ealt7 Fntergrises ine. 300 So.; harbor Blvd. Suite 600 Anaheim* Ca. �2805 Dear Mr.- Minaesian, A+: your request I evaluated the trees on the property near Arrow and Vineyard. The trees are a Eucalyptus variety that was use extensively as a wind break when, this area was.,plantsd tc citrus. The l�atin name for this tree is slobulus. The trees on the north and soutti'p— r3miters of the property are In a serious state of decline. There I,,; considerable 01: -back and it is my opinion tnat it would be adviseable to remover their. Thoy will be a hazz rd to people and structures dud to the potential of breakage. They ' have been known to cause:, serious cis,mage due to falling branches.. Even if prunned back they would never be an aegat to the Property. The same-,holds true for the two large trees on the east side. The large old tree in the center of the property towards the Vineyard side is an Avocado. Growth indicates it is the variety Faerte. i strongly feel y't is-not worth saying either since it would be a`nusance in 'a track `. due to its age, its ,fuscptibi'ly to root- rot. breakage'' and fruit drop. I hope this am%(ars your inqsiry. if I can do anything further for you please feel frees to contact me Sincerely, r BrLDi R!C FKhtaArd&94. Mttirp u, a S INC 7NCO? I{�G !O: Consulting 8ortioulturist DATE`- /'`� --- •BILE <Yt@ . RESOLUTION NO. I� A RESOLUTION OF_ THE' RANCHL \.CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTAT;IIr.:�"TRACT 12$"5 LOCATED AT THE E45T SIDE OF VINEYARD AVENUE, ± 600 FEET FORTH OF ARROW HIGH -WAY IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 21st day of November, 1984, a complete application was filed by Overseas Realty Enterprises for review of the above- described. prs;ject; and WHEREAS, or, the 23rd day of January, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the °above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucatno`nga Planning Commission resolves as follows: SECTION 1: That the Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract 12835: 1. That the proposed use is Inconsistent with the Absolute Policies of the Development Code in providing adequate drainage facilities. 2. That the tentative tract is likely to cause serious public health problems as a result of flooding. 3. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage; and 4. That this project Will- create adverse impacts on the environment that have not been mitigated. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract 12835_ is hev -eby denied based on inconsistency with the provisions, intent and purpose of the Development Code, which was adopted to implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan; and environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on people and property. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8Y: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman \ ATTEST: t Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary j ,. i Resolution No. TT 12835 - Overseas Realty Enterprises January 23, 1985 Page 2 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission, of the City of Rar;ha 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 23rd day of January, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: - COMMISSIONERS: 7 1 .r a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG STAFF REPORT 0 0 DATE: January 23, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of.the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez,, City °Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner - SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12319 - 11141S The development of 274 single family attached units on 51 acres of land Within the Terra Vista Planned Community (Medium Residential category, 4 -14 du /ac), located at the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue APN 1077- P91 -02, 06. I. PROJECT AND SI?z DESCRI?TION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a subdivision map and building elevations. B. Purpose: Development of 274 single family detached units. C. Locations Northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue south side of Base Line, ,east side of Deer Creek Channel). D. Parcel Size: 51 acres. E, Project Density: 5.4 du /ac. F. Existing Zoning: "terra Vista Planned Community, designated Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac). G. Existing �and Use: Vacant /vineyard. H. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant/vineyard, Terra 'Vista PC, designated as future park. South Vacant /vineyards, designated Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac), and junior high school site. East Single family and multi- family Lewis projects under construction, designated Medium (4 -14 du /ac) an'a Medium High (14 -24 du /ac) West Deer Creek Charnel, single family detached units under construction, designated Low Medium (4 -8 du /ac) and Medium (4 -14 du /ac), t R ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12319 - Lewis ~ January 23, 1985 Page 2 I. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac). North - Future city park. South - Medium Residential- (4 -14 du /ac)'.' East - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac), and Medium High Residential (14 -24 du/ac).- West - Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac), Medium Residential (8 -14 du /a�:). J. Site Characteristics: The project site is currently a vineyard with no significant natural vegetation. The property slopes southward at approximately a 2-3% grade and contains no structures. Deer Creek Channel abuts the westerly 'tract boundary. K. Appl ^.able Regulations: Terra Vista Planned Community permits one dwelling per 3,000 square foot minimum lot size to approximately 7,200 square foot minimum lot size in a conventional subdivision in the Medium Residential designation'. - II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The proposed tract is consistent with the Area AVk Development Plan (Exhibit "B ") conceptually approved by the Planning Commission. The project is divided into three areas with different minimum lot sizes. Of the total 274 lots, 59 Rre a minimum 4,000 square feet, 138 are a' minimum 5,000 square feet, and '17 are 'a minimum 6,000 square 'feet. The �. architectural program proposed is identical to that previously approved in Terra Vista with the exception of two new two -story elevations (Exhibits "G -8" and "G -1411). As indicated on the - attached exhibits, a total of 39 different elevations,(14 floor plans) are proposed. In addition, the site plan indicates'a °` Master Planned pedestrian trail will cross Deer Creek channel and cut east /west through the site to Teri Vista Parkway, then travel north along the parkway to Spruce avenue. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and was basically concerned with opening up views into the project from perimeter streets, reducing the number of Terra Vista Parkway median cuts, and opening up views along the Master Planned trail.. In response to the Committee comments, the street pattern was revised with cul-de-sacs along Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue, and streets 4 and M were reconfigured to align with planned median cuts on the opposite side of the parkway. In addition, the Master Planned trail was flared out at the parkway and alternating solid and open work fencing /walls are planned along the length of the trail a.. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12319 - Lewi January 23, 1985 Pane 3 illustrated by the attached. Exhibits "F -111 and 'IF -211. Conditions of Approval are also provided on. the Resolution requiring low ,level lighting along the trail, final design detai','s of the Deer Creel; bridge prior to recordation, and establishment of all easements necessary for the trail to cross the flood channel prior to recordation of the map. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review "Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent wita all applicable standards and ordinances. Conditions of Approval have. a%d been added to assure that each lot is provided with 'a 15 -feat flat rear yard area, and provide front yard lands aping, and a minimum 5- foot setback from the back of sidewalks to any retaining walT or sideyard fence. D. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee approved the conceptual gradin7, plan as revised, subject to-.A number of conditions necessary, to meet City-` standards. In addition, Conditions of Approval are--.fisted on the attached Resolution to resolve a potential design coacern with.the retaining wall and perimeter wall treatment adjacent-to Teroz Vista Parkway behind lots 209 through 214. The pad ele�,atiegs are raised above the parkway approximately 4 to 6 feet aid the combined height of the retaining wall and perimeter/rear yard wall may exceed 8 feet, in which case special design features and/or additional wall setback may be appropriate. Final d(itails will be worked out prior to approval of the final grading plan and recordation of the map, E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the initial Study has been completed by. the c-.,.plicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and. found no significant adver°s6' environmental impacts as a result of this project: - If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding, issuance of a - Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Terra Vista Planned Community and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use, building designs, and subdivision, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with all applicable regulations in the Development Code. v J t 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12319 - Lewis January 2:3, 1985 Page 4 IV. CORRESPONDENCE_ This item has been advertised as a public hearing item in The Daily Report newspaper and the property posted. To date, no correspond �nce has been received either for or against this project V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plahning Commission approve Tentative Tract 12319, subject to Conditions of Approval,` through adoption of the attached resolution and,,issuance of a Negative Declaration. Rectf y ubmitted, l� .. i G \\ City Planner RG :Cu':nS l Attachments: Exhibit "A" - location Map Exhibit 118" - Area Development Plan Exhibit I�C" - Subdivision Map Exhibit I'D" - 'Zite Plan Exhibit "E" - Gradyog Plan Exhibi "F" r Greenwayl Trail Exhibit "G" '' Elevations initial StudVj Part 11 Resolution of Approval with Conditions o i MAJOR GREENWAY SYSTEM MAJOR TRAILS SCHOOLS 0 s 0 1000 ISO state in feet 0 (I NO T I NURTH CITY OF ITEM; -rr lz%lq RANCHO CUCAIVIOiNGA TITLE; 'PLAMING DIVISKIN EXHIBIT- --A—scALE-.�-� i:.:. s • _ 1 K a V r F o mun im a,- s F� NW/M !.S 3 _C 47`i j tv llkx CITN OF �r �I: � €• t� RANCHO CUCAlIO1�TGA TITI..E �. PLAtt NI G DIVLS C N MXHIBM SCALE 1 � / � -V I tOAq. IQ 1 o�'..a ,�..� v F`�a iltc ar3 ,.,,11. "1` �^.R o '• 'ter. YY A t. ' I • ® - -mom �o- I�M1. `'� .emu t f ; _ t 6 i_ 3Ra f �i %� iHD„ii '� J� 1 ta NORTH CITY OF . RAN( °D CUCA MONGA TITLE PLAWNNG DIVNCXIl L.Y%IT[3Ii° SGALE= -° .. /4�0441 AR --7 4 rl NX)RTH CITY Or, ITEX I- RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE- PLANNING DINn.Sio.,q EX.HlBlT--4zZ. SCAILE - J r AV �r f , r # r � R:1 f � ` • � ,p e lit t' ! qtr �\ , 8 l r_ cm„t' r a\� f NURTH O CITY OF ��C �TG�i= ��J�L�. !� , T ]f C: C V7CATNIONTGA TIT`t.L'• : ". �t!iAIP PLkNNIING DIVISIO E.ZHt431T �,�• SC LE °"� ���. _ _ ! � ' /�� v� ® �{ �r ' e r� e y �a. /Fl f p'; � � {'8. � � • � I, �t� , d f � f ,� ,, �/ j�. /r �` i,l!,; % "�`� v� _ ��' µ �' �� ��� �-J NOKTH CITY or, IM, TrrLE- PLANNING DIN'I,ZION �.�?��,l��. Ol lam-' 'r,N;! %' r NORTH CITY OF rr NCH() CLC ,(-XNG A TITL , PLANNING DI- rISI6N E:HIC3[T= .� II 7 r Q CITY OF M. PLANNING DMi3TC7iV E �ItCsiT:- _SCALE:__ ` a o-� •.'% �� � '.,z "rye yr w C �'= �. °."�r%C.���l'r%P ,�,�7'�',"'t ; `E`' f`�'.r �� I �� tiW1f1t1U1i11S!!1 ). • � ' s+... "` 3.`•r:..� -��'� .des- S,y- !���y�' �a�..""c.h.tj�. � �''Ft. v"i°„' ,� _•?&P" *�Grcac gFeo?�i.FLv,¢srgN. �St¢�. NUPTi- CITY OF � ITEM: RANCH) cLC ONGA PLANNING DIVISIOIN T±XIiII31T: � =- SCALE. l; J r FRONT ELEVATION x,- •s. -_ 4`.. ate= i II F-9097 ELEVATION. i NUS iTa CITY OF �i 'CA PL.&.r4 NG 1)n%xx- EXHlPn- = --ig!j-' -z- SCALE =- s.`" a� 4 •`' - � e .;'�.a�`FRQNi ELEV.flTigtd`."" 1 iERG^SGniLEVATIONs'x J NURTH CITY GFTEbt: RANCHO CUi1AIVIQNGA TITLE:QMJ y ; PLANNING DIVE-10N SCALE- . ... .......... . M�-- W�lu 71 It-f- FRONT ELEVATION NORTH CITE' OF f t ,TCrlO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNIhC DIVIR) EXHIBIT St;AI.E E L :, p -A__ _ Don W(M_01= FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION f NORTH CITY OF _jT BILA C;HO C UC ANIU TtTLFm, PLANNING DIVISIChN F_XHtBIT =__o S SCAi.E: J •atatroYi.I aka itW i. sa�� /ro[i'Jnp�M�aCt�o}4�aAwrroy FRONT ELEVATION f 24- elk rl".110 1I.1 .1 We Y .1'Aml, U.'s fat }O.1 MICAL MA1101 :1tt I.' [�\-7 - "I.A. ism i FRONT ,KKK, ~, � ; �- [ � i - ,.. ii [ -•'.yy rte'°'."`- �.. •�. 1. "- 'C` 1�:� a,y *e�M- risarie sM. Aroe i AS ii01.0 _ V 7� :.IUIw roar a - -ir. C fat . a . / FJYi1'F 4 hc�R•a -r.: i CITY Or, • PLANNIN'G DI- sv'1SON �: IiII3iT _ f�-ld crnm .. 0701 -02 0 1- 23--85 PC Agenda o 21 � of 2 //��--�� S aTPI 0 [Dn! COrfOSITION �OY[RS TP. lNNIGL[PDpf /�j• a.a TPrD apDl lr i-y P �, [ oes a eorror % .aoop aNUireys"e"•� .ly, � •v� i .,, •'tea ® tril`� T -� ar — l /J7 /J � �, O �,���``- °O^���--��1!! rASONIrn :•. FRONT ELEVATION mlTRn -mlcu ..J" • L•�. tae PrOST �Itatry FRONT ELEVATION TILT M &TUC, :lia R pupa r MMG —ce. 1/ 1 �•J ! OTRIY Op l00l ' �AlOWt•a TRIY R f i7r it EIOta CS.a TRIY ON [pp[ lHRIOI! POOP iif fA:GA pLG1R MNOOtl rr lta TNYIfURPWMD - - Wf fe. xt lOTTOY � - . � �, lf•piA. EIAU[ATlOYlMT rr TlS a. itA1lCO tCATl, Y ® a3 a�Y a ffAROl fOARp fOIH bif Tlv'Ni TO tlatl ('I i �� ` /f t •ENARERTOtlR' aMiMOL!!. (�J�/ �^ /� ar rb1 fiRNlGtC IATT[RM M� r' rA -MT! •pMCnip!• FRONT ELEVATION TL lIpDW 111 •" 'ti, �[. w`� fN TURN[o lofT tl ••^ _ate•_ ia:f l.r TRW NORTH T F 7 T IM [_ I— �£� RANCHO CU CA 01GA -= TIne, PLANNINTG DIVISICy' T XHIM'D a'+^�°� •_ SCALD t-s- a El nrtzv STU= u NORTH CITY OF ITI RANCHO CLTC kMO�TGA, TITLE: ` - --- •_ It •.L •v ua v a nvc v r;X ilil l . -%'dam SCALE; hL s FRONT ELEVATION 1 TM =n!% FRONT ELEVATION 1 s rte. 1 NORTH CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMOl`TG 'TITLE= -= Fi_AyN.ra Y`viSiviv - - - -- E,jCi iiBIT _ SCA FRONT ELEVAT;ON FRONT ELEVATION i "Ti9 NORTH i CI'T'Y OF ITEE\ I. s" RANCHO v{ �I0ITG,& TITLE, DT Liiil[cil Lam . rvf p DIVED �Ta >IT: wFp T[tTUIlo stucco GU «p[T •� COpt itt[ 1001 { • '�. 3,10 FisaAs •/ _ r llSplaM.7"T«lao aTOCco 9la-1. • TTrrM "n L! OJ` ) o Ot�lOt%TlZTUKEUbIiCCO CaWlT FRONT ELEVATION w, mu toa a (¢ � iodlivl� +/ + i.s 7M ''" 50• uupra slpuMTCO warn ❑O❑®❑ . trsplsx Tciiulco aT «c ila low -"Pl= artili«TaiT«iafrfT«!c0 e0«RTrLl goer "'•• aloe e0leos I FRONT ELEVATION LG`� Ijy E-a.s Tilfl TTllclt tr«utlTF« •c«T.e `1:.t1YSM T[1iY11EO slucW tIJ fJ WIFY s"'. T`JOr3M u NORTH FRONT ELEVATION CITY OF 1iE;�1y� sea RA7CI -i0 C1LCIO 'GA TITLE =�.t.�l'traltt� PLANNING IJIijOON EXHIBIT: — S�_SCALE- '�°"� s a.. a,tn+ � Sa.raM t4tTYltaY S.uaeo nneat �77"i l =577= ff - "Al" � SiyCG9 NORTH CITY OF ITMP ZaN TITLE: c PLAN1V[NG Divnax EXHIBIT: '�' -. SCALE. °. `a9 bow K uau `Duos nn:a a.. a,tn+ � Sa.raM t4tTYltaY S.uaeo nneat �77"i l =577= ff - "Al" � SiyCG9 NORTH CITY OF ITMP ZaN TITLE: c PLAN1V[NG Divnax EXHIBIT: '�' -. SCALE. °. `a9 i �r �o r1 t a fiCeeC.YKt eeet J_ F �-,1 ulAR6Ytki 4 a _ — 1! IaiftATi h� j, 13� �flAM�SN Tt]:Uet6 ftl:CW ��]ai ilbY..TiIICLL FRONT ELEVATION U-U NORTH CITY Ur T T ITEM: !� � �•� RANCHO CiUCA OiNGA P ,A.N1VUNG DIVISICh'v EXHIBIT.—A=13 -t ... ,. —�� SCALES s :t;TUR£p stucco CWMN£4 ^GONG. TRt Rr;,+ 2919 e01... -40ARb n. \ "AR18pT£xgm£O STUCCO. "^u `494 TRniti iyytm SAAMSH TE£TUM STUCCO cmmr '-- t:OtR„' TAX ROOF .10 SCA k !�'' �:� � _ � t ✓! .rte w� 1p--•,`•```v' y SFFm5H Tt2TURSO ,STUCCO Ya.9 TRW - �MACAU ' SAAtN6R T££TUR¢o STUCCO CW qm, - ,- CORE TR! ROOF 20, FAS4 4a1ESAROt n - ;ixfrmm4TTP1CAI ^_AAFAStf T£7j UReb STUCl NORTH CITY OF ITEM -1- PLANNINK.; DIV SION r� CITX OF RANCHO CUCAMONGa — — PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIROMENTAL CHZCKLIST DATE: /LLyV. i 1%C APPLICANT: G�G�GS I�2�S FILING DATE:_ /ltfj Z ,lg,Q LOG NUMBER: PROJECT: Z_71' S -� 1?rat PROJECT LOCATION:—,-_ I, ENVIRO:..ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes'r and "maybe" answers are required nn attached •' sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geolopr. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b, Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of d any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water { erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h• An increase in the rate of extrac -ion and /or use of any mineral resource? { t 2. Hydrolo¢v. Will the proposal'iave significant results in: i Page 2 YES MME No 4 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ep)�}meral.stream channels? b. C'aanges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ar the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters ?' d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality ?' •c'` f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? ___�_ g. Change , the quantity of groundwaters, eithe• :hrough direct additions or with- drawc -s, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality ?, Quantity? _ .1 h. The reduction in the amount of water other - wise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or proj,erty to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? L / 3. Air Quality. Will %: a proposal have significant results in; a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? -'- b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? yr 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, E including diversity, distribution, or number i of any species of plants? b. Reduction of tha numbers of any unique, tare S' C o�� endangered species of plants? !� Page 3 YES 'rAFBE No C, Introduction of new -or disruptive species of Plants into an area? �f-- d. Reduction in the potential, for agricultural, production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers Of any species of animals" �✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare s or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of '!w or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or Vildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal haY,e significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? �- b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional hot:sing? - ,,✓ 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results'inr a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or - commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be f:quitably distributed among project benefic arks, i'.e., buyers, - tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of atE area ?,� -" b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? e. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or rtan - consumptive ' recreational opportunities ?' Page 4 NO 8. Transnorta,ion. Will the proposal have significant ___-_U is in• a- ' Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for ~F ne-o parking? d- Substantial imPact,,upon existing transporta- tion systems? e, Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? r/ f. Alterations to or effects on Present and p- ,tential hater- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? I $. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? 10. Health- Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the Proposal have significant results in. a. Creation of any healt`kazard or Potential health bazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? e. A 'risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. A.-1 increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase ::n existing noise levels? €. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous 1) noise levels? The r S• creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in. light or glare? ." !I IE t 3 _ Page 5 YES :L4TBE No 11. Aesthetics. Will thi,,proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of ruy scenic vista or view? i b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A cof'flict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? i 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? _ b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? _ e. Wastewater facilities? -. f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities ?` 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Enerey and Scarce Resources. -Will the proposal have significant results int, a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? ✓ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? � c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy?� d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible J renewable sources of energy are available? t 3 I Page 6 ES MAYBE No e. Substantial depletion of any n::lrenewable or %% scarce natural r�source,2,_; 14. Mandatory Vindi, s of Significance. a. Does the prajFct have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause .a fish or wildlife population to drop below self uustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare of endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -germ, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable Ash means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human belugs, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF GNVIgy 0_ M-;7T� EVALUATION (i.e., of affi=ativa answer i the above questions plus a EUs ussion of { . proposed mitigation measuress)). ' rage T > DET RMINATIpY On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COTIM NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could hava`a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sign:ficant effert In this case because the mitigation measures desczibed on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DFCLARATION WILL BE PREPARED., j�-- T iinu the proposed project 14AY have a significant effect "on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT TN,TACT REPORT is required- . Date Sig at e ;r Title J 1 Ifs : x-39 RESOLUTION NO.. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 07 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAi? N0. 1 2231 9 NHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12319 hereinafter "Map" submitted by Lewis Homes, applicant, or the purpose of subdividing the rear property situated in the City of. Rancho Cucamonga, County of San. Bernardino; state of California, described as the development of 274, single, family detached units on 51 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Com. unity (Medium Residential category, 4 -14 o4 /ac), located at the northwestL ggrner of Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue - APH 1077- 091 -02 06 into 274 1 ?ts, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public heac,ing and action on January 23, 1965 and WHEREAS, the pity planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions "set :.,forth in' the Engineering, and Planning 01,Asien's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division`s reports and has zonsidered other evidence presented at the public :,earing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Cosmnissioi of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract Nn_ 1Z319 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; The design ot, improvements of the tentative tract is nsistent with the General Plan, Development Code, A specific plans; - -- (c) 'ihe site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, (d) The design of the- subdivision is not likely to cause sut,tantialt environmental Ldamage and avoidable injury to humans and wildI fe 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 acquires`" by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. ,. ;r I � r Resolution No TT12319 - 'Lewis January 23, 1935 Page 2 (9) That this project will not create adverse in:,;acts on the nvircnrre t d N 4- x ega ive Oec.�,MJon ,s issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract flap No. 12519, a copy of -which' is attacked here - to, s hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions a,d the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION Each lot within :he project shall have a minimum flat (2% or Tess) rear yard area from buildirng to property line or slope/retaining wall of fifteen (15) feet, 2, Zach lot within the project shall be provided with front yard irrigation and landscaping .�cluding street tones and seeded lawn. Details small be provided on the landscape and irrigatia;t plans submitted to the Manning Divisior, for review and approval prior to issuance of building - permits, 3. Cioer side yarn fen^ing and retaining. walls,snafiI be-'Get a minimum distance of five (5) feet froml.the back or sidewalks. 4. Street facing side elevations on all corner, lots and the rear of, two story units facing Base Line Road, Spruce AM Avenue, and Terra Vista Parkway shalt be upgraded with additional wood trim, wood siding, or plant -oas where appropriate. Construction details -shall be indicated on the working drawings (including specific lot numbers). 5. All easaments andior approvals necessary to establish the, Greenway Trail across,.Dg6r Creek Channel shall be obtained by the applicant p06r`to - recordation of the Tract Map. � Final design details na: the pedestrian bridge shall be submitted for revie.4 clind approval by the City Planner 1 prior to issuance of building permits for the tract, and j construction shall be :ompleted prior to occupancy of any unit; within the subject tract. 6. Low level lighting shall be provided along the Interior Greenway Trail sections, Constriction details shall be provided on the improvement plans prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Design details cf the retaining wall end perimeter wall treatment along Terra Vista Parkway shall be submitted for review and app,'3vai to thw Planning Division prior to approval of the final grading p' =an and recordation of the Tract Map, In areas here the combined height of tf�e Walls mould exceed elgh,. t$) feet (lots 209-7.,16) specfafi design featuira-s, such as increased wail setbacks :end /or terracilig, shall be required. Resolution Flo.. TT12319 Lewis January 23, 19$5 ' Page 3 Ao ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Approval by San Bernardino County Flood .Control, is required for proposed storm drain connection to Deer Creek Chznnel. Pipe shall be designed for 100 -year "Q" plus' overflow between Lots 28 & 29 and 45 & 46." 2. Additional area for the bus stop on Terra Vista Parkway shall be required per Terra Vista`textC' 3. The applicant shall construct the following off -site access roadways with a minimum of 26 foot wide AC pavement within 40 feet. of deb.,Icated right -of -way: Church Street and Terra Vista Park -,tay from-Haven Avenue to,;he tract including a bridge acr is the Deer Creek. the 6ost of the bridge shall be credited towards the systems de °islopment fee for the Terra Vista Development,, 1 AEPRGVED ANP= 4DOPTO THIS 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISGION OF ifiE CITY OF RAVJ H.0,000AMONGA lY: 0nnis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gamez,'Deputy Secretary i I, Rick Come;,, D,?puty Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cert>;,M.`that the foregoing Resolution was dui -land regularly introduced, passed, and - adoptedd by,.the Planning Commission 6� --'the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planninn- _-'Go.,mission held on the 23rd day of January, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES; COMMISSIORERSr ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS» !N wrGN .Ldc..'`+•� - °uro =n 9�•.�b- Nv� al .ala vary a }] PWmu d "'b a -d�Y 4 qa.•.. n�O nu d d. of t. iy :..1 � •r-j ' g d O x C Q,�y> Y.Q A� E � ; d d b Q N L d O Q�c d y A aNi q.� n �. W y • E N tbq O EYL a G4,• 'I � y W C• N. N nYl � A Y O .S Y �... L Eya Nn C D^ d M1 ii '^Oq= b O. O c. Ol•'c fl C: ^fa � W A t.4 EE •+ q Ai. p'q C9A CECS LYE WbaW b"O ''Q' IO '3E a".iYd na�v'!b" yo ^-api edgnv �oca9 .c�� qyt -t U na\y°1N WW /0O i¢'OC ca `!w c dK a,,,.a a ,v °con. cl°i -�q W�y� - Eu�mdd O•.y -T� L6N LELnd�.G Dy b NC T G Q EH t OV GgCy rLp6t N6 gNb LN C Mph N N 4 µC do LJ it b z p C � N urn • b V Op O Sj.0 C t q•D.�y .pC•U: V1y... g L HE CDtp t 0401.. q�n.°pL y» 4 A�loa d 0 Ca N l idC L a Cut aO dy r Oy C 6 0 b Y^ tppay a Y pqG C P NEq'a N =G yN b q N yCEu Lyl^"O„�.dd as Nqy° cC and p u+ y E ..0 ++ Oq 60oc�a E Z"i y0¢ €S^ �� ua E � A q d Y c4 lNilD. •D O m d d Yd d N d a a � • b a ° W q 0.+. p `: OWN 4.d •.. a KVY 4 N.r•d�3 p.C. �' Y YV 4,J a0 �..G6L6V M L 6A LL¢tb m Y u u C +4b.gt �o y d � °- s cWi .ct o qdG .° c .-m BENS TAa . ^ V cQ d V C Nr.. • i �.�..�• •.• Q' q Q P• T p4 E p Ant LL ti YN T LSAO 1-• � q O cu � t g E G 1n d A "t q z° s -aNq doacm G V • G sn -A rnC. H V- 4.- � 01rl Oyry- A d J .p �.. 0 N ui 4 ..�. a aq L n1M L 04a=i I \• G q p„ NN V^ +! M NI1 P•i O b qa ad O�iPy Nw �y X� CaC ,, . y.-a ay. a�N a: uLae .ao Wae i� g L p O 0^ S e b 6 y V^ ^ U ♦V n N Y Ob N °oncL•YZ° r � - a nyl L «N Cc __ F,^G ngg9bW °. "♦O.oa b'+aa '^, "XW G =ann OED RN ,c � y p Orw �`. nd °pd�a 3 at 2 -dG gIIV i�r w L V qa yW a WL a Oy �'^ ", ° .Wr. cL L wJ.—agg � ^a �. N ^♦ d.3 aa, N «L c« W L C N� aW OL .Nw.O. c L OU Ur`L u W W �VA y nc 9 u R 5~ c 0. bb «N «�uY Y p h r L YY dUN c 's n° r •- u ,ue'^ L YdN a„Ca Sw E =^ E u L p^'• C. E C «rn �Y a N.�m u v a ° Q• t q. -y r--1 Y. N d P n n Or.°. E> M d w +� � C N >+q R ..r. g Y 6 C p NL. L yy O • L L ° �'^ a Fs'. JY t asM =O�N VCNVTpaY V n —C a+Vud nq^ •'.per U ^3 Cw nC Y W E� W d ti�C �NNC LII q OIL 01L9 Nay L: 30 H �II a� yV 1C ^° aO �.N aE +�Qn �y cY�ur rj d ^`.Lw >yH C^ q� O..q VlNE .C+ a GrY >T d« ° 0gtd.L Lb9C KIL., \ CLV ALO r � and °b dC'N a'OiLrn n r b��a Apo p? Cj • O d w.. U ..� d L� Y +� « CL T P� L a a d C UCn 9 L�6YigC 7 O U V �nO WTC hM- a^ L L c V C 7. .p U�~ ^ ^ Y O ;♦rr>'i4aF NdV �,OSn °C.L yy S w G NdY+�6 ^F OC 4aP.V 6.+y0 4NeL.� I N r A W aQ ..ya p9' . '"u W CLN W Tr W ^« d tlf 0 d �. 9 c.a$= i `° yL C aLK CU LpS CC�SL CaCd Y« O Tv.. tLN,q+,. p� 9^ yq 7'flcd� GV..C. .- ONVOC LtyyOCOCG� �V 'Od p Y° =aw qq O C N ^+-WS "N 60bYtl Y l�z��a A ... v ^"Ca y CP•a O c0 q« N q �� C O r U ,♦an�C n2n u w G� «> W K ` _ gy-OO.'°Y P> a+^y G` O'^."' N pr n�.Lpr♦•r G C^CY. i ^3 92 NdYC ayi� yT Npq 3 6y y6�L {uda n ♦. >N V 4NV d ^� WO Z f. d� O « ry Cc0 pd Y any =NT.N.0 C y >L °•O. ti �.. h VU a+i P.CY ep u W UCH qE Y t b. N N ' � N ei Y 9 lL C. t- C y.. • � �. C y a °+fib M C d. � �.. A y ° Or a+ c. ^^ w n ^'r' a.m y L_. c N.. no q ° eat qa " f dq °c c.p «� °wL m o n� u .^apo « .rpnr,c p L p pp P O L !f E J b L. U c N= W U Lruv vodN u 7 t q 0 } C oruc q y d> irn C 9G EVa 9C b d0C R c n0 P O nP _� c 6 c N El, dL� a rn> u E a's.'_ Y `4'c ou° b c 'u r°a o4 C.. nm�...g.NS ♦. ti Lr. Lub Nn r-r MG a °Na VigA y. ]r n,dcp YpVV Q V' .°rr.9 dd qM plr.rE. n�V r,a(N'C h•�CNGq 4. c 4. QE,+LO .. . I 1 Ij ate•= ° v aL L�r�nMV U 0 b OK �.+ aYl V�m a Gp .' L ' auatl+Y+04 qq b tl� � `•.Np °`� ab6^ bey «r 4LS'_e E r LPG O'wUV Q'Cn cac _ d Ca.G YC.0 Et. itlmu�4 rV M ... Y 4L �Yau ddtl G t C` Lm GOq GV �i b � ia� rtl O6ya L^F NO a _L p Z n E r6.tl Y:• d C N �s�E s a pmwN bQ —C]w'e =w p� VY�tlq O. d a.- O a E Oi yV Yd L °i OHO �.. C3a� CgO� NON � Sd .Yew q = A4�4� 4N 3Hdtl <SV C - O� C tl a • ' Cam°'' �iypE Oa 4u Y.p Ly •pp L d C O o '^ en°.� AS -.V.- aO..mT �a mca 'oc aY d }o >'- .mss = _ m o s z °a ^" ^c zos g-.2 a .FE �a o oa oa rm v� s • -°cwy _s uy oq aaa a '>Q' ®_ ��° a'an « m v _ AO^ Ly b N °yi rbt+s L �L .p O 6 �d N. 9. 6t= Omtl. �d C ^ C Qtlfy w Y 6� L/ y N ...00 6tl .-tl L 'gym ..gym L `9 1m ¢ O..e ' > 4b uyi M 6i.Y G9 Oape•r a <Mm WONp 6� a�f +Mww <y^ � riw a e-a msy"' �aa ti 0= ep +� �V op ^w scs =� a ��r s soQ� � uc w�G o TOI _ 6 F(i4%L i F 'm � a r °u � �� ;._... or. `Yr. �L ep rep '6'G 2w GY 6� =JF W ym. ✓y, G� CtlC �6 mL ^e` ff= 4i eGp e9Y ^ R. 7Z Ziff z Sz w =.Ge i6s. ^6 _mer e. CFqS �m3 av _^ Cer sam o �e Via+ G q G GL e3 yy . e ' =Z N S �� Y� �� s •m r Ke 4 h m oa �m. wi�62 iw F 'm � r °u � �� ;._... or. •_moo Cc _ . ^e` --m. Ca G. e� C3 �r -G s �Q w3 Qc sd B+L s5i Crr.6. �� pc EO ors. r w c.^.a"i sx. z2t rs ✓. w� �... '� y�esi. i t G 4 ,� m� io rJy ...yam a W.i m '°� L e r y� H++E! °tai 4 LaZ Z . B6� CY 4 ba< yL� zi !Y is. �.3 .irifa/LY Y"ee CiLr � L go '.V_4L ,C�p o�c qu. z a't � aupe. v •V 3 S 4 A N �� -1 U. If tTp E r L i O q^ o ' p•' ^� x ty»su Hm' C u rr +°•q .'3Lx Ea � b V °E •° arm � cr 410 � C ��`. �' d... m � dpi a caY 'w.; � pA 1f O AE oue �� pL •- u uE. <n. > aEii BQi W'3. �� wd^ O °+1 UYS N¢d C4. Or 9L v N Oi UOG 000 ^bmp °t'OC� v n,Of 3 ap° Ox< ZN °Nyar EE is Qptayn0 YE L:i Re O P4 y O Oypq �.�cE NOQ Cq. 6a uy w.�� .5.1 ... pOw NnOM1 Y Wr q6E t 40. r 'Q..O. x a � b" = q L O E.4 e • y w� O n �dOb p O O'O � V N d; Y p E W to t` E> n n ° Oda t Z x O aU sY p CUO q yq L c NCO x.Oa '�Cq. YE C �. Opt. OOn 4� 4 lEr w ViY9vgf +. LtJ K <A.sG M R n On++E�V. wat.°.. npo$'; 9^ Q 110 Cma 4_4�'°L Yb. V oA T n� V' pnt4 p v Cr y yt T • w ` Y � y � � 1 1 i4- I�I 0 Z U d .O L a y N N °A a N •- $$o w4 w n°i w. q va E L c i c ° a zc. w �4 o+z GJ \ 66 EE t S w w �✓ N rT p ZI ° ao. y acu ts Odae� Lai `L o.Ti °�q° yd LwL c- vvv N q Lfi a y �w otN O L 2 GN C15 ZZ Qq 0 qCW { yy wp Cf YL rte. dgyd0 y W� Na .q ^4 w q06 w.p \T ^C z 'Vg'^ `6 W G g 6 C � L 6. L G1 ESE q S a•.-i _ � L Y o � i g q J OGi T a4 L GWM. KZ; 4 W a, b �'9 �r • �6w d A E O V y O d CT V� Im" � d w�Wd d � L 4..• - 1 '. Mme. rnU d A O. TO G. ij3 G.. q.TTa. ae U pz d q •M u d r E L E C Er .5 y Z; ."Z t O.+•. A G y L L d T •- ^L dqu Ot L1. duo° to c 79 `oifd c° E. an c 5 N O G4 T ' W i a. E q a u .^ Lam~ ✓� tlQ? p� O GO G6tl ° E a 6 PLw CV y` a. ' ° E O � . ED .� NOUY at a D- � b $$o w4 �,wVl 4 Uy ao a zc. �4 o+z GJ \ 66 N S w w �✓ N rT Im" � d w�Wd d � L 4..• - 1 '. Mme. rnU d A O. TO G. ij3 G.. q.TTa. ae U pz d q •M u d r E L E C Er .5 y Z; ."Z t O.+•. A G y L L d T •- ^L dqu Ot L1. duo° to c 79 `oifd c° E. an c 5 N O G4 T ' W i a. E q a u .^ Lam~ ✓� tlQ? p� O GO G6tl ° E a 6 PLw CV y` a. ' ° E O � . ED .� NOUY at a D- � b a D- � b i N 4 �U� : dt +J L 4 U t } Q9' dY Z-. r� p` H ply d gyp' bLa Ii 1 CNOT p-N 10 u u L � v d b t 2 ✓.r � .cA c M V 6q �� f• � �fb d� = C ^A ; 4 ^ ~Y r C C W i 9 -E3! > CfV u p ^ h t p . '•' pC O Q^ L r dCdE iN ^O N� 21. w dw �A U GY 9 uN dL LU u4 re Ad up.0 ` .. c p Li d v yl z v � •°. v. i� vow o� .A+�` n ° N.. O c _ � p p � . .. CD n. - - kill i Ur 1111INkiriv 1JUU.&1V1U1Nkr.& G�yCA S 1 AF_' REPORT O F U T DATE: January 23, 1985 197 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT :: CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 - FORECAST - Planning Commission review and certification of the Final EIR for a custom lot subdivision of 16 lots on 20.9 acres and a conceptual Master Flan for 94 ages of adjacent land ill the Hillside Residential and Open Space Distracts, located on the north side of Almond Street, generally west of Sapphire Street APN 200 - 051 -06, 07. RELATED ITEM:. TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 I. ABSTRACT: The purpose of a public hearing for this item is to acilitte Commission review of public input and certification of the Final EIR for Tentative Tract for 12376. Although the tentative tract map is being considered for denial, the Planning Commission should still certify that the EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Future projects on the subject property will then have. the benefit of using this EIR to the extent that it applies to the new project. II. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The attached staff report from ugust , outlines t e content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. ' alifornia State law requires that Draft EIR -s bed circulated am',`advertised for public review. Any comments received must be analyxed and responded to in writing. The Final EIR includes the draft document plus any revisions or an addendum based upon these responses. In this case, the City's consultant, Michael Brandman Associates, he-.provided an addendum which includes a response to comments received in writing from individuals and responsible agencies, and comments received at the Planning Commission hearing, and the Design and Technical Review Committee meetings. III. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Addendum prepared by the Environmental Consultant,: and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Final EIR identifies all significant environmental effects of the project and proposes mitigation measures to lessen all ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION "STAFF REPORT TT 12376 - Final EIR �� Forecast -January 23,, 1985 `- ?t _ Page 2 identified impacts. The mitigation measures proposed i); the report i can be applied to Tentative Tract 12376 or future development applications on the subject property. Assuming that the land use category remains Hillside Residential, the site conditions do not change, and a similar residential project is proposed, the mitigation measures wili remain valid. IV. 'CORRESPONDENCE: This item is advertised as a public hearing in The Dai1N Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within <300 feet of the subject site. No correspondence other than what is discussed in the Addendum has been received. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify that the Final EIR as completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. . If the Commission concurs, adoption of the attached Resolution wjutd be appropriate. Reg�ectf y Witted, ?ck G Y i.y Planner RG:CJtns Attachments ' `� ., lu a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 23, 2985 CE, leg TO: 1977 Chairman and Members of the Planning Lonmsssion FROM: Rick Gomez, city Planner BY: Curt Jornston, Associate'Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 - FORECAST - A custom lot sub, diT,E on of lots ru5, 261.8 acres and a conceptual master plan for 94 acres '-of adjacent land in the'Hillside Residential and open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally .lest of Sapphire Strr,x,�l - APN. 200 - 051 -06, 07 , Related Item: Final`EIR for TT12376 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION> A. .Action Requested: Denial of the proposed Tentative Traci Map and conceptual Master Plan. B. Prci ect: Sixteen lot subdivision and conceptual master plan for adjacent properties. C. Location: North of Almond Streets generally west of Sapphire Street. b, Parcel Size: 115 acres (20.9 within Tentative Tract 3237& E, Existing Zoning: Hillside Residential and Open Soace F. Existing Land Use: Vacant . 1*-- G. Surrounding Land Use and` Zoning North - Vacant, zoned HillGide Residential and Open Space South - Vacant property, CCWD reservoir, LA "`Bureau of Power and Light power lines, zoned Nillsidc, Residential Cast - Single family home-, vacant property, Big Free Road, outside of City 1.iinits West - Vacant property, Cucamonga Creek, zoned Hillside Residential, Open Space, and Flood Control ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSIDN'STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12376 — Forecast -January 23, 1985 Page u2 II H. General Plan liesignations: Project Site - Hillside Residential North - Hillside Residential, Open Space South Flillside Residential, VL (less than 2 du /ac) East Hillside 'Residential, Open Space West - Hillside Residential, Open Space, Flood Control I. Site Characteristics: Slopes within Tentative Tract 12376 range from 8 percent to 20 .varcent, while siopes_ within the master plan area range from less than 10 percent to greater than 30 percent. The site is within the Alquist -' Priulo special stud; earthquake zone and the Cucamonga Fault has actually been plotted 400 feet north of � Tentatir° Tract 12376 and Within the i`iaster Plan area. Vegetation consists of dense chapparal brush and indigenous grasses and weeds. Withiii the master, plan urea, a numbse of trees are scatte -cd throughout the sate including remnants..;of an abandoned citrus grove. Big Tree Ji Road', which proiides access to the foothill and canyon areas, is located along the east boundary of the project. BACKGROUND: This project was accepted as complete for processing on October 28, 1983. Input fro„, the Technical Review Committee was received in November 1983, and the Planning Commission required the preparation of an FIR in December 1983. Work on the Environmental Impact Report began in mi ',Apr7 after receipt of the fee Pram the applicant. In August b, '_ this past year, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft EIR,, and the Design Review and Technical` Review Committees _ provided additional input. During the past five months, no revised plans or other requested information has been suiimitted for City review. III. ANALYSIS: A. General: Galifcrnia State Law requires that projects be Processed within one -year from the dare of acceptance, with the exception that a one time extension up to 90 days may be permitted. In the event that an agency fails to act to epprove or disapprove a development proposal within the time limits, the project could potentially be deemed utomatically approved. Since this project has been inactive for the past five months a,:d the specified,, time limits will expire shortly, the application is na ; being brought before the Planning Commission for denial without prejudice. _ The Planning Coimission has reviewed the Environmental Assessment for this project on two pre✓isous occasions. In addition, the Design' Review and Technical Review Committees _ have reviewed the project and determined that substantial PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12376 Forecast January 23, 1985 Page #3 revisions and submittal (if additional information is necessary before the project =can'be considered for approval. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended that a grouped lot pattern be pr.vided to maximize open ,space /greenbelt areas around the project and to - create a derined edge between the nataral and built environment. I The Committee also recommended: elimination of a.northprly east >west road which crosses -a 40% slope area, and reccArr nded that driveways and buildings be located in areas .,.!where the least amount of grading must occur. Regarding architecture, the Committee stated that split level building types'Must be ussd in conjunction with building materials which blend into the natural surrounding. In addition, a landscape. pallet was required for .slope 'pIanting and planting on individual lots j to assure that landscaping will be compatible with the natural cnaracter of the 'site. Following the review the Committee stated that revised plans most be returned �o the Design Review Committee for further consideration. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical .Review.Conrinttee, listed -' a <<umber of concerns which must'ue addressed before the project can be considered for approval. The major items inclueeei a requirement for a more specific site fault investigation, locating a 500,000 gallon resevoir at the north end of the site, and providing extensive fire mitigation measures. The Committee indicated that all of their concerns must be addressed before processing of the project can be continued, since lurrently the project is inconsistent with Al solute Policies of-the Development Code which are provided to protect the public health; safety and welfare. D. Grading Committee: The C4ading Committee indicated that-- substantial' revisions to the drainage and grading plan must be prepared before the project is consistent, with City - standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Thin its± -_has been advertised as a'' public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, and no' tices were sent to all property owners within 300 fleet of the tract boundcry ii, the master plan area.. In addition, public hearivig notices were posted on and around the property. No correspondence has been received since the previous Commission meeting in August regarding ti.e Environmental Impact Report: -- 1, PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12376 ,- 'rorecast January 13, 1985 Page u i V. RECOMMENDATION. Considering the time constraints specif ad by State Taw;' and the fact that no plans or revisions have been submitted since the Design "and Technical Review Committee meetings in August, adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial without ;redJudice is recommended. Re,Apectfu3;-j-pubmi tied, ge Rick Gomez City Planner RG:CJ•cv _ Attachments: Exhibit W - Location. Map Exhibit "B" General Plan Exhibit "C" - Natural Features `- Exhibit "D' - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "E" - Grading, Plan w, a; is F_1A CIXlNTY CJ!" �1N �4N+4RG/NO . •a.•..•u.yUeis�e•ry�j� ro WALCe 0 -400 i esasneia.aae.asies..4rii aser►ae ea /J�._ \_�. Y, -NISC ., � i N� � � r,� #�� •v. fin\ � e r . to If a C o,• 1 ,4 !/ \ice`' , ,Id IS'... �► ,� `,�1f1 OP9rt/�rGtCVr � .,, •'� iii` � �, �— _ hLMONO __ t "�• ai INDIRX MAP-7 s a 1a G' i NRTH k CITY O ITEM-- -rrl?^721 -k RANCHO CUCAMONTGA PLANNM DIVISUN I XHIBM_ `' " SCALE,- I -5 Arrsreariros ®r ®IMIMI..�r�r�rrrser�rrre It. r �1 \/� \I I\ lye \7 ; \ \I I /I..\ \ /t_[I 1 ♦1 \I/ 1��;..__. 000000 00 0 Ali 000000 E ° `1_ f'R 1 \t/ / \� +� �� •00000 1- o r >� G °0oo \ a~ 000000 100000 r 000000 0000000000 - 0000 21120001 (� 'fC '� ... ..... ........ .. _. r2 1 NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCEMaiNGA TITLE: PLAMING DIVLSK)N EXHIBIT. °'F.�`t SCALE -_'- "r 1. ILI nz Z AC h .1 ! . ? .� .1 t � i � r r• •i 7 l i u W. t. ri• =e •• �o ` U C r e+ ... J s a l• a� / 5- " z e - ••a t E l� — 'Sa! PHu V5 6 i 1 it 35Lp.. of e w il- ai ja o i s ■_'r�� �E s-o � i I'll Ems CD V3 1�j I V-4 oil .0 • 3-4 ppq KAI* ih^/ 4J q j 14& 04, 01 TOW, <I \ti +t7r I ° U t7�" b �- �'f l7— •�`'1 j=�' ;. o `!E- i i i fs �. a ��.v u. §i,� q ..ss� a •iii ` "vororvam . Z a 4171 e U SOURCV,j MAOOLE i A380C.ATE8.INC . CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN T. T. 12376 and Conceptual Master Plan CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V NORTH CITY ©F, ITEM I �-• n -j' RANCHO CUCANI O-iNG TITLE• �#{) i�L FLANNING DRgSI0,N EXHIBIT. *6 -r scAi -E ? 1 Jti ' i Ak t/F�t.r�- •� 1 r P� \ 41 Tow 4 -°.r \�� �.PiSLpP7ta�� GF:.= rA.F.4GE.FLOf�.PELEtr"�- '` � F4. FLO /Y; L ut/E ..:dR= .C/ /GN:AOiNJ_'FLa/ytii/E;ECEU, ' � . ,... k f t � � "� • r i t� j :t.� �.--- >, ° L /�N /TS' O.�'6A57�/,(/� i ''' a I: � ` "•.' .`'i r�,...— �1., ;.�.._ NORTH CITY OF RANCHO rC ®ING TITLE.'a�» tom* �UNNItir, DIVL90.v SCALE' r-11 lu 'Ems RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12376. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 123719, hereinafter "Map" has been submitted by Forecast Mortgage Corporation, 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 custom lot subdivision of 16 lots on 20.9 acres of land ° in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally west of Sapphire._- APN 200 - 051 -06, 07 into 16 lots; and WHEREAS, said map has been reviewed by the Technical Review and Design Review Committees pursuant to the pravisiors of the Development Code; and WHEREAS, said project fails to meet the Absolute Policies specified in Section 17.08.050 of the Development Code; and WHEREAS, said applicant' -has failed to provide required information and 1 -zvised plans necessary to comply with mitigation measures outlined in the Final Environmental\ Impact Report for this project, and to comply with City Standards and Ordi;::nces; and WHEREAS, the time limits for processing projects as per Sections 65950 and 65957-of the California Government Code will lapse January 26, 1985; and WHEREAS, the map came before the Planning- Commissinn for public hearing and action on January 23, 1985, anu NOW, THEREFORE, The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Resolved as follows: SECTION 2: The Rlanning Commission makes the following findip,3s in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12376 =and the Map thereof: j The design or improvements of the Tentative map, are inconsistent with the provisions, intent and purpose of the Development Code, which was adopted to implement , certain primary goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12376, a copy of whi_Sh is attached hereto, is hereby denied without prejudice. c Resolution No. TT 12376 - Forecast Mortgage Corp, ,January 23, 1985 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by th6' Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held `f on the 23rd day of January, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COKE ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r a i F -� Resolution No. TT 12376 Forecast Certification of E.I.R. January 23, 1985 Page 2 _. i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA II` BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomi-, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and-,adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a re6tk ar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of January, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I� l _ RESOLUTION NO, I A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 12376. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga determined that TT 12376 has the potential to create significant adverse environmental impacts and required t6 preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report on December 14, 1984; and r' WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was been prepared, duly noticed, and circulated for comment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning CoE- .lissi'on reviewed,3nd considered the Dreft Environmental Impact Report and •eived public comment at a duly advertised public hearing; and i WHEREAS, a Final' Environmental Impact Report with written respo -ise to all comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, the.Rannho Cucamonga Planning Commissiow'resolves as follows: SECTION 1: That the Planning Commission makes tha following findings in regard to the Final Environmental Impact Report for TT 1237E I. The Final Environmental impact Report adequately covers all areas of reasonable environment concern. 2. The,. mitigation measures presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report will effectively mitigate potential adverse impacts to the extent practical. 3. The Final Environmental Impact-'Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ' n (-TTi OF RANCRO CUCAMONGA' ��cANro STAFF REPORT, ��° �c9 0 0 F Z 1977 DATE: January 26, ``1985 TO: Chairman and Menhers of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Lisa A. Wininger, Assistant Planner SUBJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95 -01- A RICHARDS - A request to amend the Land Use Map of the General Pl n frcm Low Density Residential to I ,dustrial Park for 1.2 acres L,,land Tacated on the southeast corner of Archibald and Main - APN 209- 0E1 -01. I. ABSTRACT. A General Plan Amendment is requested to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Industrial Park for a 1.2 acre site lccatad on the southeast corner of Archibald and Main. The appli"nt wishes to cease the current nonconforming use as a forge and sell the structure for use-by aii electrical contractor as off i;e, warehousing and storage .facility. The Commission will determine if the proposed change is appropriate in terms of scope and land use compatibitit_o. II. BACKGROUND: The applicant wishes to develop -% light industrial use on a .Z acre site located on Archibal "d Avenue near the North Town area, The existing industrial activity;;lill be discontinued to allow the proposed office, retail anc- storage use by an electrical contractor. The current General Plan and Development District designations of Low Density Residential do not permit the proposed use. The existing use, a foundry, is currently nonconforming in nature. Consequently, a General Flan Amendment is requested to change the current Low Density Residential designation (2_�, do /acre) to Industrial Park. The purpose of this meeting is k) evaluate' the proposed General Plan Amendment and any gossibla alternative land uses for the project site. 111 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /acre) to Industrial Park. PLANNING COMMIS1iION STAFF REPORT SPA 85 -01 -A - k•;chards January 26, 1985 Page #Z I, . B. Location: East of Archibald Avenue, south of Main Street. C. Parcel Size: 1.2 acres D. Existing: Develooment District Designation. - Low Density Residential �. E. Existing Land Use: Metal Forge F. Surrounding Land Use and Deveto ment District Desi natings: North - Com,rercial and Residential Low Density Res i der,ti al ) :3outh - AT & SF Railroad right -of - way -and Residential (Industrial Specific Plan) East - Vacant and Residential (Low Density Residential) West - Commercial and Industrial (Industrial Specific Plan) G. Surrounding General PY «n Designati�ns� North - Low Density Residential South - General Industriai East - Low Density Residential West - General Industrial H. Site Characteristics: The project site is bounded the ,en south by the railroad right -of -way and on the east by "vacant parcels. A 9,900 square foot metal building located on the southern portion of the site houses thF existing industrial use. Other site features consist of a small �autbuildir-g, paved parking areas, several eucalyptus trees, and ether shrubs. IV. ANALYSIS• A. History: When the General Plan was adopted, the North Town area, roughly bounded by Archibald, 26th, Marine, and 8th Streets, was .onsidered to bo distinctly single family residential in nature and received a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The Custom Alloys 'the forge and neighborhood market at the corner of Archibald and Main thus became Nonconforming uses. B. Reason for Request• The project applicant wishes to cease op? rations as a forge and sell. the Structure for use as warehouse and storage space with limited office and sales activity. SincQ the proposed use differs significantly from the current nonconforming use, the General Plan Amendment has been requested to permit the proposed use. I r it PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF _REPORT ' GPA 85 -01 -A - Richards January 26, 1985 Page #3 C. General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies: The existing land use desianation of the project site and the surrounding'" neighboi'h "qod is Low Density Residential: The General Plan describes the Low Density Residential designation as "characterized by single family homes ".appropriate where the traditional character of detached single family units prevail and where the level of services including roads, shopping and — creation are not sufficient to justify a higher density." In comparison, the Industrial Park designation requested by the applicant is defined in the General Plan as "grouped concentrations of 'industrial and research and development offices, organized alr-q ` major thoroughfares on the periphery of the Industri-�.-�.Area'. The General Plan states that opportunities shouldr be encouraged to mix ° different but compatible land uses and activities 'n the City, and that land uses must be organized to avoid creating "nuisances among adjacent uses. In addition, 'it is implied in the Development Code and tLe General Plan that" noncoriorming uses shall gradually be eliminated where possible and replaced with uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan designation. D. Issues for 'Consideration* Two major issues arise in consideration of this project. The 'first issue is that of � compatibility_ of the 'proposed land use with the existing surrounding land uses. The current industrial use, while separated to sone? extent from most of the residential use in ` the area, is clearly incompatible with the single family homes in the area. The operation of a forge with attendant noise, emissions, vibration, traffic, and aesthetic impacts is inappropriate in close proximity to homes. This use has been allowed to continue as a nonconforming use only because'" - °', it was in operation prior to the establishment of the Low Density residential designation. The proposed industrial park, while a less intensive industrial use than the forge, would pose some of the same problems in terms of traffic, noise, and aesthetic quality. Since the existing structure would remain, albeit in a different function, no significant improvement would occur in screening or site design. In addition, the parcel size of 1.2 acres is toe. small to allow development of >,, additional industrial park uses, thereby limiting the scope of additional development. The second major issue is that of the size of parcel; : for which General Plan Amendments may be considered. While the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF`REPORT GPA 85 -01 -A - Richards - January 26, 1935 Page #4 City has no formal minimum lot size for General Plan Amendment consideration, past City policy dictates that areas to be amended be defined by logical physical or other boundaries, and that all properties in the immediate area which have similar characteristics be given similar consideration. allowing amendments for parcels which do trot meet these criteria would lead to a ''spot zoning" situation, where small pieces of land'scattered throughout tiP City 'boar land use designations. which create inconsistent patchwork: patterns of land use. Based on the above factors, staff feels that the General r Plan - Amendment as proposed is not 'appropriate for the project site. However, the site's proximity to the railroad, right-of-way-and associated nuisances, to Archibali Ave 14e, and overall trends of development in the North Town a!ea, sttf ^,est that the Low Density Residential development mayynot be, he optimal ultimate land use for the site either. This report will discuss alternatives i;Qr land use of the project site which consider land use compatibility and site constraints. "land V. ALTERNATIVES: In considering alternative uses ';'For the project site, it is app.4rent that the small size of tk`e site limits the scope of anyx(,use. In order to discuss alte�kpative uses, it is necessary to Uiaximize the area under consideration to determine if the site may be linked to adjacent properties to form a larger, more logical project boundary. Exhibit "B" shows the area fronting on Archibald between Feron and the railroad right -of -way which is either vacant or sparsely developed. This area differs significantly from the single family character of the Town neighborhood and forms a logical area of consideration for changes in land use. i Two baste sand use alternatives have been considered for tfe j expanded project area under discussion. .. Industrial Park: The site's proximity to the railroad right -of -way and the industrial Area as well as its location i aTong a major thoroughfare appear consistent with the typical Industrial Park use. However, incompatibility with surrounding, residential uses would again be ,a problem. Even with an expanded project area, the scale of the; pr!rject would create a very small Industrial Park. In additioA, the parcels are owned by a variety of persons and +'jaininy'�"` ownership of a ,efficient number of parcels Vor an integrated development would be difficult if not impossible. t Q1_ 14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _GPA 85 -01 -A Richards January 26, 1985 Page #5 2. Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dulac): Like the Discovery Townhomes project dust north of the project area, a medium density residential project would maintain the predominantly residential nature of the area while creating 'a buffer from Archibald Avenue and the railroad right -of -way. This land use would be more compat ble with existing residential uses than the current or pr,9fibsed land uses. However, proximity to the railroad right -of -way could expose residents to railroad and automobile noise which would require mitigation through site design and barriers. Also, problems exist in terms of project scope and parcel ownership. Site design incorporating existing circulation would also be difficult. i Since the Medium Density Residential designation aTiows a range of 4 -?4 dwelling units per acre, the Development District designation could fall into the Low- Medium (4 -8` du /acre) or Medium (8 -14 du /acre) categories. Depending on the number of owners wishing to join together -in developing their properties, the Co mission could determine at a later date if the project scope justified a Low - Medium or Medium designation. - VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The California Environmental Quality Act requires that whenever there is evidence that a significant impact may occur, an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. Staff feels that the requested General Plan Amendment as proposed could result in some impacts in the categories of socio- economic factors, land use and planning' considerations, circulation, health, sai7ety and nuisance factors,"" and aesthetics. Part II of the attached Initial-Study discusses each of these impacts in detail. On the basis of these potential impacts, it is suggested additional environme<ital analysis would be necessary prior to approval ' o•. - the amendment as proposed. VII. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of the General Plan Amendment, decide that the change from Low Density Residential would promote the land use goals, and purposes of the General Plan, a.,J that this Amendment would not be materially detrimental to the adjacent properties or would not cause significant adverse impacts as listed under the Environmertal Assessment, the following are the findings that are necessary on approval: Q- a'i PUINNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 85 -01 -A - Richards January 26, 1985 Page f6 A. Th Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan. B. The Amendment promotes goals of the land use element.' C. The Amendment wouid not be materiaily - injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: This ;item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Dai1V Re ort newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the. proposed project. To date, no corti= espondence has been received, IX. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis of the Land Use Policies of the General. Plan, staff recommends denial of the General Plan Amendment as submitted. Should the Commission wish to consider the alternative land uses discussed, direction should be given regarding the nature of further study eP land uses in the project area. The Commission has several alternatives for action: I. To approve the General Plan Amendment per the attached Resolut:vn of Approval. This alternative is not recommended. 2. To deny the General Plan Amendment .per the attpched Resolution of Denial with no further study. ,.This would confirm the current Low Density Residential designation. 3. With applicant's consent, to continue the amendment, and to provide Staff with specific direction -as. to the scope and type of land use to be analyzed and brought back for Commission action. {Should the applicant decline to consent to the changes in the .scope of the amendment, it would be appropriate to deny this request and to initiate a new amendment for review during the next General Plan Amendment cycle..) tespectfully submitted, RJ ~ Go e City Planner RG:Lp'•cv Attd:hments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan and Development District Map Exhibit "B - Expanded Project Area Map Initial Study Resolution of-Denial Resolution of Approval Q.- ,a J r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r^ PART II - INITIAL STUDY" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE LO t I S APPLICANT:_ll�'�`C% fi %I_�loti�US FILINLG DATE: LOG MaMER: l PROJECT: TL(c�lt PROJECT LOCATION: ��' // $t��'%jQ% I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" sheets). answers are required on attached YES MAYBE NO I. Soils and Geolocv. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b Disruptions, displacements. compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or g,!ound surface eo ^tour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of.any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any potential increase in Wind or hater erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. 'Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g'. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides., mud - slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? G h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? )( s Z. HYdr'alocv: �if]1 the proposal have significant results in:` g. Change in the quantit }! of groundwaters, either through direct ;additions or- :with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Qu. -11ty? Quantity? _` x n. The reduction in the amount of water Yther- wise available for public water supples? i. Exposure of People or property to water \ related hazards such-as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or,periodic air emissions from mobile \\ or indirect sources? Stationary sources? j{t b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable; air quality standai�is? v c. Alteration of local or regional climatic ' 2 conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota i Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species including diversify; distribution,por number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, are or endangered species of plants? Page I YES MAYBE No I- C Changes in currents, or r-he course df direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream - ` channels? X X b. C Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns:, or the rate and amount of surfar_e water runoff? v v e.- A Alterations to the course or flow of flood ' waters? d. C Change in the amount of surface water in any body of w water? e. D Discharge into surface watai5, 0� any — —_ alteration of surface water gival,',ty? f. A Alteration of groundwater characteristics? X X Page ,3 YES N YBE NO c. Introduction of new or-disruptive species of plants into an area? x d. Reduction ii) the potential sor agricultural production' x Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the'cnnracteristics of species, including diversity,,listribution, or numbers of any species of aAme`rs7 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endange7ed species of animals7 c, introduction of new or disruptive species of a'iimals.Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? x d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat?X S. Po ulation. Will the proposal have,significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Y '; b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio- Economic factors. Will the proposal hVPe significant results in: a. Change lu local or regional socio- economiv characteristics, including economic or ~' commercial diversity„ tax Fate, and property P y. values2 b. STili project costs be equitably distributed among prnject beneficiaries, i.e., buuers,;rl tax payers or project users? 7. Land Lse and PlanninR Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in,, a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? r b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of ary- governmental entities? X c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of � existing consumptive or non - consumptive 1 recreational opportunities? x } e o hazardous substances in the event of an accident,? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vecte or pathenogenic organisms or the e o xp sire ol, people to such organisms? e. X Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially danrprous noise levels? 3. the creation of objectionable odors? h An increase in light or glare? Page 4 8. Transportation. Wi�l he proposal YES MAYBE No �� results in: :have significant = a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? r b. Effects on existing st�.reVts, or demand for new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities,, or demand for new parking? X n, Substantial impact existing _- upon trapsporta- tion systems? --_. X e. Alterations to present a- tion and/ of or movement of eopla p R ? and/or goods? odds? Y. f. Alterations to or e � f,.ects on present and Potential vator- borne,'.3i3, mass transit or air traffic? X g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the 'integrity of archaeological, paleontological,. and/or i historical resources? X li`, Health. Safety, and Nui�n$e Factors. Will the _ C proposal -rave significant results in: a.. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.? b. Exposure of people to Potential health. hazards? c. A risk of explosion or releas f e o hazardous substances in the event of an accident,? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vecte or pathenogenic organisms or the e o xp sire ol, people to such organisms? e. X Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially danrprous noise levels? 3. the creation of objectionable odors? h An increase in light or glare? D n Page 5 YES IVYBE NO 12. Aesthetics.. Will the P ?o osal ifican' • P have si a µ ~ results ir- S a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? r. A conflict with the objective of designated ':J a_ - tential scenic corridozs? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for der systems, or alterations tc the following: a. Electric Power? `- X b. :Jatural, or packaged gas? x C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e, Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control Structures? S. Solid we: facilities? h. Fire protection? 1 X 1 t=• I. Police protection? J. Se%ools? k. Parks- ok other recreational facilities? J .1 - Xa:.nterance of public fac011 ies, inclu6, Toads and flood control facilities? YY L i M. Other governmental services? 13. EneESY and Scarce Resources. Will the o os P`' P al have si gnxficant results in; a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy ?: b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sourccs of energy? C `iAn increase in the demand for development !new sources of energy? X dt.' An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, ;hey feasible renewable; sources of energy are available? ' Page .5 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce naturat resource?� . 14. Mandatory FindinlZ of Si nificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ` substantially reduce the habitat of fish nr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to atop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a. plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of , California history or prehistory?y b. Does the project have the potential to achiwe short -term, to the disadvancage of long -tee, environmental goals? (A short -term :impact ',FUi the environment is one Which occurs in a relate ely br_ef, definitive period of time while lot,, term impacts will endure well into the future} c. Does,-the project have impacts which are individually 1$;Mited, but cumulatively considerable' (Cumulatively considerable means that 0 e mental effects of an Individual project kri;- gnsiderable when viewed in connection.with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects), j d. Does the project have environmental effegts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,, either directly or indirectl:yl' IZ. DISCUSSION Op -tMRONMENTAL EVALUATIi3, the abova questions of affirmative answer�ys.tp. plus a discussion of �On U p purposed mitigation measures). j I 1 I r Page 7 III. DE` TERMI_ NATIOy On the basi3 of this initial evaluation: -. -� I find the ro osed P P project COULD NOT have a, significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIOU will be prepared. LiI find thaC;jali ough the proposed ro'ec� ccl:.,. „ I effect On 'the environment, there will�ndt,:De a! ignifi nt;)effect,, in this case because the mitigation m°as,�res describes' on ;in attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGSTIVE' DECLARA'iION=WILL. BE PREp&RED. ElI find the proposed project MAY have a s,1nificant effect on Liz-- envirnment, and an MARONM£NT IMPACT REFOR% is required. Daze J;'� Sigaature Title l�j . �i II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIOY Population The change from a residential to ,Mduttrial land use would alter the location and distribution of housing planned for the North Tom area and replace it with a nonresidential use. Land Use'and Planninq Considerations - Since the proposed project requires a General Plan Amendments it represents a significant departure from tEe- Oanned lae.d use of the site and the area. In addition, the propost,�d project conflicts with the City's policy of replacing nonconforming uses 4th pl, %fined usts, rather than altering the plan to incorporate the use. G Transportation - The warehousing -M storage activities could' create additional levels of traffic of Bain Street and Archibald. In additiet� it is likely that new oa, -Jng facilities on site would be required by the new use. This additional traffic could represent a hazard to vehicles and pedestrians in the area. J Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors - Increased traffic and loadinglunloadng activities could reate an increase in the existing noise levels, which are currently much 'higher than would be creat <T.- E;tf residential uses. An increase in light and glare could be caused by the , ladditional traffic and lighting required by the light indus: °ial use. Aesthetics - Continuation of the site in its current state represents, aesthetically displeasing condition to the su rounding areas. li ri a f � s c La 5:-. - _Q; T_ �` ? .•r�. lu 445. 'a m lii LIZ 7 ck� f 6 , 7-7- LU 1.4 nn Q A- zo z LU W �� Ed k lu cc r. to LU ul RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 0117 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING' GENERAL PLIUd AMENDME:,T 85 -01 -A. j itkREAS, the Panning Commission held a public hearing to Consider said amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission bas fully considered public testimony requesting amendment; and, " WHEREAS,_ the Planning Commission has found that the requested amendment is in conflict with the land use policies of the General PI-In and does not promote the goals and objectives of the Lard Use Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESULVED that the Planning Commission denies General Plan Amencment 85 -OI -A to amend the General Plan Land Use. Map from Low Density Residential to Industrial-Dirk located on Assessor Parcel Number 209- 061 -01, approximately 1.2 acres of -land located on the southeast corner if Archibald and 'fain. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 1985.. :'BANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY pr RANCHO CUCAMM,GA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Gepaty Secretary' i ?, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of 'ce City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and f; regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by thO rlanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of she Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of January, 1985, by the foll,.wing. vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f; S ` RESOLUTION Nn. A RESOLUTI.,N OF THE PLANNING COM.MISSIBti OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUW-MONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED LAND USE 'ELEMENT,? T�'E RANCHO,CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN WEREAS, the Planning Commisc on has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on she pronosad General Plan Amendment 85-01 - A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT °RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby approve the fallowing amendment to the land use element of the General Plan, SECTION 1: The General Plan Land Use Map shall be aTended as follows: APN 209- 061 -01 currently designated as Low Density Residential shall be changed to Industrial Park for 1.2 acres of 'land ,located on She southeast corner of Archibald and Main. SECTION 2: A Negative Oeclaration is hereby adopted for this General Plan Amendment, based upon the completion and findings of the Initial Study. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD RAY C'F JANUARY, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIZ CITY OF RAM'HO CUM - -JNGA SY: Dennis L. Stoat, Chairman ATTEST: I Rick Gomez, 0eputy secretary Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commissien of the City of Raneiro Cucamonga, do herF:oy zertify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and j regularly *niroliuced, passed, and adopted by the Planning` Commission of the #s y o: Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of 1._ae Planning Commission held o', tie 23rd :lay of January, 1985, by t'-`:e following Mote -to -wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: