Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/12/11 - Agenda Packet • .. �^ ': +..ryn��..-i .....=,T� �f 5.... -.:�.m..,.�,.,�.�um...nnm�wce+.ns v'�'+SR,, .i.z s f A Q co u vi a i F _ -i�u�.�M.i`.wJ...�•...,..:.,......on...s.a'a�::c:.�. = � ��-..�„elxrxab..r..m� 0 \G et•CnsrglC: {`' t �• CITY OF RANCHO CJ'.^.r11IO\GA " PL�.T MING CO, viIScION, AGENDA 19,E WEDNESDAY DECEMBER'11,1985 7s00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNUY CENTER ~ 91617BASS*,.INS RANCHO CUCA&1ONGA,,CALIFORNIA e r� L Pleuge of Allegiance IL: Roll Call Commissioner Barker Cr',.isnissioner Rempel Commissioner Chitiea— C ,mmissioner Stout Commissioner McNiel YQ. Announcements IV. Consent Cal:ndar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine { and noncontroversial. They will 41 doted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If enyone has concern ove.any Item,, It should be removed for discussio,. ¢ A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-40 - BANKS The development oll a two-story professional office►tiuilding coru.:;ting of 8,515 square feet on .53 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Soeeifie Plan,located on the north side of Civic Center Drive,West of Red Oak Street(Lot 6) in the Rancho Cucamonga .Business Park-APN"208-082-06. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-23_ K_ IRSHBAt7M - The development of an of center comprised of two 2-story buildings of 17,975 square feet and 27,700 square feet,respectively,on b- j..i4'acres located on the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road in the Office Professional District APN 207-120-01. C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12914-HIGHLAND VILLAGE-Grading ' revisions that requir., addi,,ianal retaining walls at the northeast,comer of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue. . 1 l t V. Puble Hearings The folic,,wing items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such ovinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project... D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHELBOURNE -A total residential subdivision and design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District,located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 5001:feet east of.Archibald Avenue APN 201-252-21, 22. (Continued fror. the October 23, 1985 meeting.) _ E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Aly.l DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 CIT" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA An amendment! to Title 170 Revisions/Modifications, Section 17.024. ;B, Development Review, Section 17.06010G and 17.06.020G regarding language changes and additions. Continued from November 27,1985 meeting.) f F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANI)PARCEL MAP 9487 ` BRUNSWICK CORPORATION -A division of 8.97 acres into 4 parcels in a General Commercial Development District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue,north of F6othill Boulevard-APN 1077-401-22. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEKMIT 85-37 BRUNSWICK The development of an f integrated shopping center consisting of a 36,025 square foot bowling center$ a 59,400 'square foot retail building, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 8.97 acres of land in the General Commercial Disstrict, located 1,000 feet; north of Foothul Boulevard, west of Haven Avenue-APN 1077-401- 22. 1 i�. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1.3027 - WILLIAM LYON 'COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 157 total lots with the development of 144 single family homes on 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low Residential, 2-4 du/ac), located at the southwest corner of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues, east of North Victoria Windrows Loop-APN 227-471-01,02,03;22'7- �9 `r f r ,, VL Direetoes I3epo*ts I. !NDUSTI IAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-Planning Commission review and comment of general revisions and update of the'-Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part III (Development Standards and Guidelin: ) VIL Public Co_nments This is the time and place for the general,public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not airs sdy appear on this agenda. VIIL Adjournment The Planning, Cori,passion has adopted Administrative Tegulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go b)yond that time,they shall be heard only with the consent of the Co emission. The Planning WorTmission will adjourn to a workshop fol owing the Design Review Commrttca meeting on December 19, -985. 7"te workshop will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Atrow Highway, Room 4, Rancho Cucamonga, California beginning at 7:30 p.m. The topic of discussion will be �7 the proposed shopping center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line(Conditional Use Permit 85-28). rJ E ft a A -.1 Lin g I TY -.� � �----- - - ---r----.- •••fir-.------'�--� Inilvd. �,exIIFEi-�eC1oNALrrae•�: I waa. CNAFFEr SA t 1al / gun-an COLLEG F•elnlll ■ ■ _ It e - ■ N a - _ i. _----_.�__M.m___. Y•clRlta 4y eawl4w � 4a 8 �6 • �.. • -I np.. i mxs PAR f C17 r+"ILL a •- a C ■ ■ _wen tltltl ° .c-�..• ..�.. ° ■ a I • _ 2 1E . it 4 .,` IS i CUCANONEA-LUASiI COONii RfOIONAL Paq. CN r4k;O INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT' CITY OF RANCHO CUC1AMON" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONriA WIP1110110 GvCAMoSTAEE RE]POld z U DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 y TO: Ch?irman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bul-'.er, City Planner 6Y: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-40 BANKS - T e aveiopment of a t. -story profess oval office u-ilding consisting of 8,515 square feet on .53 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific P7a-, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive, west of Red Oak Street (Lot 6) 'in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park - APN 208-062-06. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION• t A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Nort�i Vacant, propose office/tennis complex; Industrial Park District - Subarea 7. South Existing industrial buildings; Industrial Park • ' District Subarea 7. East Vacant; Industrial Park District Subarea 7. { West Hall and Justice Center, Office Buildings, Vacant; Industrial Park District Subarea 7. C. General Plan Designations: Project Site Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South - Industrial Park East - Industrial Park"West Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant and rough graded with no structures or significant vegetation. Street improvements for Civic Center Drive have been completed with the exception of drive approaches and sidewalks. I1 ANALYSIS: A.; ',General: The developer is requesting an Environmental Assessment for the construction of a two-store office building AFAk totaiing 8,515 square feet. The site is part of the Master ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment for OR 85-40 Banks December 11, 1985 Page 2 Planned Rancho Cucamonga Business Pa "B".. The proposed site plan appears t _ conceptual Master Plan. Upon a of a ; • Declaration, the City Planner will gr -ipproval project_based upon. Conditions recor.. _hn Technican Review Committees. B. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the -i:uay ha completed by the applicant. Staff has cr u Part II Environmental Checklist and found r impacts on the environment as a result Commission concurs with staff findin _ Negative Declaration would be in order. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends iss a Fte Declaration far OR 85-40. Res ectfuliy subm'tted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ns " Attachments: Exhibit "All Location Map Exhibit "B" Master Plan for ^Ffic-'- Crr-lex �r the Rancho Cucc: " Exhibit "C" -.Detailed Site P, Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Elevation Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Initial Study, Part IY • i � .1 p7nii•j � eaoe .. . en.e.ae(r�•u Iy F 100 T,K L L B LVt_PA „ ff i = 70gCd2 nUF 79Gd 7Z I. :5 �f!ii PMB .9P�JP 33 P '� I, NO. ; ri • i 834s BZSo �� •Pnt 7494 ;Ii 9l•7�•I! .� a,.wrgw..r RS Is,i,a.,t H s, 'N t P.M. 6911 L. o ; '4 8/41.42 ! JG@�tf` PM I YS9y F i•~ PM Q yJ'''2•.3 s.a ♦r •�'4M•.r;• = rH' Lor/ 0� =n .....Lo �/PMN./7.97 1 h s t v of✓•6z TRACT 1204 NORTH it CITY OF T ITEi1�t: RANCHO CUCAMOI�GA TITLE: PNNING DIVo0.N EXHIBIT. -LALSCAI,E: � - �,;,.o.s:6asa'i,z:ar.:u•.f'St2i.4�f+'tYi N,`a,+?Sti�EP!tiMsaC?t t h � lip Ok Ni WA E���j-►,� �!.� �: +91 .�,�y,J '?ate �>•� ,•� F, } Fir M;7.1 "�„�..,#1a�iffRy�#.+ �cv:l�l y a 'rl 4 r- t: EalatNp PaGalrtan E�swnara ; To Tows Con+pba � om.ma7 - .fir r (� or O�.ravr Oerapr ® •� LOT Propwad gLSdq Fool0dral: COW Ict 71 p s • *���Jr ll•J_314 "tft)Brick d Patio Wu -� t( Ealntlnp Sidewalk-- I Eakthg Gab and G ttar ccess Acce Ea 924.37 To QL tltlya Ava t ` Af 188.00 f GIVIC CENTER DRIVE ' NORTH CITY OF . rr>rm: s- T A.INCHO CUCAIVIONGA � PLLANNING DIVLS CXN EXHIBITr SCALE- �.t� - ':t•'F:F`w� ,�-y.,,. Kµ-••.rvr..�rVr«•+ ,�aair?'„�r;? F• : P ` r YCPavkep J E:IBIN oradod Pad _ D { FWsh Pad Elevation 1172.4 LOT 7 ��t Fkt Fb"Etsv.Itra.00l y ± tt ' AC Pavft LOT 6 Extolft otadad Pad 7iy 1 LOT C fi^ow fry Cpnorals t+lah 'Existmo 8radad Pad 00 � a Existing 4radad Pad PJrtdr Pavap lag L►ndecapkla iiaalxoeal Aomsa Eaaamws i tipapll 7 DraS t Pb Hruath Drtva AixoW Pukwa To Htraat Wier civic CtNTER DRIVE MRTH CITY OF I TFrVIc x RANCHO CUC"OI`GA T TIE'-- cflKsYei,�� f P1.A1VNIprG L?IVIS`SON EXHIBM _SCALE' OEUCALYPM POLYANTFEY06 PLANTANM . AcEAIFaa LAWN AREAS SHRUBS 1.OROLIND COVER AREAS SCREEN T{,ANTING -FT7 7 i SERVICE WALKS BlD(3 MAN ENTRY -'. MMAL COLOR PARKING (. COURTYARD n _ ruff I WA", FEATURE SEATVALL - SHADE FERN KANntAo 6ERJAING N TIff . CNIC CENTER .i �L tow i 1 C�Ig�M 4/2wE A )RTH CITY O RANCHO CUCAMONGA - PI. 11vi1G nivisiolyx =isrr- SCALE. �r �► T'� Y'� . ,+ir.' r ate■ d��� ■ �■ iF ,t - _ iifi 1 � 1 I s 1111111t.'. ��� Y� ■f/t/■MEN moor ■�■�i� \ , nays, as"' r,�a it ` 'Ita■iuk ," �i��r` ' y . �r►� ....�i ■Ir■A■ ■k91(kiR■tt/t/ '� - Mg , i 11 1 t 1.24, ..i11/��11l11111�111111.\ a OWIT Now .a_..■ ■■ �� _ �- tt�li �11 ■a ��� o► � 1i► ��ti i i'y� ■■■tl.. .ii�aa �� ! �k Na NNE. _ "�r1F��St���i m��i , , ii T�,■a■y �"aaaa���aya• � WOW suit y 1 i 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAXONGA 'PART II — INITIAL STUDY _ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: l�Z APPLICANT: tl/M J3A�KS FILING DATE: /,a—J5'_�6 LOG NUMBER: Acc&T6+?*5 - PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: /} SST c�P6D r �T I. ENVIRMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached. sheets). YES `L4YBE NO 1. Soils and Geoloev. Will the, proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? e b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil.� c. •Change in topography or 'grtund surface contour intervals? w d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase In wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? . Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? { i t/ g• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazard,; such as earthquakes, landslides, mud— slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? ✓ h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydroloev. Will the proposal'have significant results-in: Page 2 YES WAYBE No a. Changes in currents-s or the course of-direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream chbnnels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pa-terns, or the rate and amount of surface wate runoff? r c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? / d. Change in the amount of sur' ace water in any body of water? / e. Discharge into surface waters, or an: alteration of surface water quality? / _f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public Wa!_er supplies? i. Exposure of people or pr-nerty to water related hazards Ouch a: r.ding. or seiches? 3. Air —" .ualia. Will the prop ve sign....,cant results in. a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? j St,tionary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air qu.rlity and/or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? (• c. Alteration of _ocal or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? k. Biota Flora_ Will the proposal have significant results In: Change in the characteristics of species, ' Including diversity, distribution, or number of any.species of plants? i ti b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plaits? 1 1t Page 3 C. Introduction o YES �faFBg tiu F_aea4-or disruptive species of plants 4.nto'an area? Ask d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results r 'in: a. Change in the characteristics of species„ including diversity, 3istribution, or numbers of any species of a` Is? f b. Reduction of tie Lumber; Of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement --;_ ;.,ivals? d. Dererioration or removal of existing fish or dlife habitat? 5• =°pL '-)n. Will the proposal have significant n: c. Will the proposal alter � the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or grDwth rate of the human population of an. area? J b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have ign sificant results inc - a. Chrtcge in local or regional socio-economic c; racteristics, including economic or cormacrcial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably liiYstributed - among project beneficiaries, i.e.., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the propo_al have significant results in? i{ a. A substantial alteration of the present or i.• planned land use of an area? V. b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? .•c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of j; existing consumptive or non-consumptive it - recreational opportunities? 4 YES .LME NO 8. Transoortation. Will -the proposal have significant results in: a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for ` new street construction? l V C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing tran,porta- tion systems? J e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or, goods? ✓ f. Alterations to or effects o;, per-lent and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or 'air traffic? g. Increases `r_ taffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists ,r pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant result: in: a. A disturbance .:o the integrity of archaeological, paleontclogica.,, and/or historical resources? t 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health T:azards? i 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 i organisms? es Increase in existing noise levels? i+ ti o f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? J S. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase,.in light or glare? Page,5 YES :MYnE NO 11. Aesthetics Wi?_'l:the-proposal have significant results in a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or vfe;a? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive V/ site? ✓ c. A cMdlict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. ;Elertric power? / b. Natural or packaged gas? J c• Communications systems? d. ?';a ter supply? _ e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. .Solid waste facilities? r h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? < f J. Schools? - r k. Parks or other recreational facilities? f 1 Maintenance of public facilities, including :roads and flood control facilities? . m. Other governmr, 11. sarvices? 13. Enerav and Scarce Resources. Will the'proposal have significant results in: ' a• Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? �i b. *Substantial dncrease'in demand upon existing f ��- sources of energy? Vr° 3 c. An•increase in the demar..: for development or AdIh { new sources of energy? I d. .,An increase.or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible j-? renewable sources of energy are.available? = , ti � l� LT ,v x.)..�,.h • Page YES ?MAYBE NO r e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandator, Findings of Sigzifican^e. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, 't,sbstautially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a'relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the, project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed FB in connection•aith the effects of past projects, / and probable future projects). J d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? IL DISCUSSION OF MURONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e,; of afftrmar;ve.answers to the above question;r plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). AIML Page 7 III. DE'-ILMIVATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, *rad a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in,this case because,the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEG, IVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed projer,.t . have'a s gnifican of act on the envirnment, and an ENVIRO:ME. I: ACT RE RT is equi e . Date 21 S• nature Title � r PL � G „ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA °vCA STARe REP01[t ° j C) O ~ a U_Z: December 11, 1985 197 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM[:NT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-23 - KIRSHBAUM The development of an office/professional center comprised of two 2-story buildings of 17,975 sq. ft. and 27,700 square feet, respectively, on 3.14 acres located on the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road in the �iffice/Professional District - APN 207-120-01. - I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: North - Existing commercial and multi-family residences; Office/Professional. South - Existing single family residences; Low Residential. East Existing commercial use, church, and multi-family �i units; Medium Residential. West - Existing mobile home park, (Medium Residential, City of•Upland). C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Office North - Commercial South Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). East - Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac). CF ' West - City of Upland k D. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant with no major plant life or cultural/historical significance. The site slopes from northeast to southwest at approximately 4% grade. i -; II. BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting on May 25, 1983, the anning Commission reviewed and approved a Master Plan for the subject site (DR 83-11 BARASCH). The approved Master Plan shows -a driveway access at Rancheria Drive (Exhibit "B"). The new proposed Master Plan is consistent with the, previously approved plan, with the exception of deleting the drive approach along ti Rancheria Drive. ITEM B i -: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment for DR 85-23 -Kirshbaum December 11, 1985 Page 2 III. ANALYSIS° A. General: The project is intended for medical uses. The project meets office parking requirements and will have vehicular access from San Bernardino Road and Grave Avenue, with pedestrian links from public sidewalks into the site, and a pedestrian link to Red Hill Country Club Drive (see Exhibit licit). Yn order to buffer and screen the project from adjacent residences, dense landscaping and a six-foot high block wall will be provided along the east property line. ' 'Also, all exterior lighting will be directed away and shielded from surrounding homes. B. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the app,icant.. Staff has completed Part II of the environmental checklist and found no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with said findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. IV. RECOMMENDATYON: Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ectfu11 submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:as Attachments Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Master Plan (Original) Exhibit "G"•- New Proposed Master Plan Exhibit I'D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan i Exhibit "F" Original Design Elevations Exhibit "G" New Proposed' D?sign Elevations Exhibit "H" - Concept Gradi,ig Plan Initial Study,.Part II pp • • I m t dig rn ' ar qt VUL ml cnova_•ve:xta11 i. NITz �- GROVE_MEDICAL CENTER i I 1 RANCHO_CUCAMCkNGA, CA _U BaraAK. ( II{ I )s....�y..w.t t.... .6n.in.. Dn.e�1a►aina 1. GROVE AVENUE Q[... Amok O ! ! 1 tkiI ( l �.'I •'. _� 1 ' L I ( � fFt 1`Y, vn s : O taw •- 4 'ij• •� f 4 L, A&Mf I Fz m id3t€ .F NA r=3'®VE R.D. WILLIAMS MEDICAL s ASSOCIATES EI � W l5111".•belry[ad7l�tnKlai..rr ment sti1ta111 U ItU)61T-7St0 •� rt �• ` , MMr � wIP� lllt� Me i MEDICAL. R 4 GROVE i AVENUE ��� t•�I 1 ICI-I t �" wl � 1 t 1 I i. t-�-1��• • � e t Gl t , rz y � t d t — " •. t t t 1 I i�•1 .i I ,.�' .{u r � � t 1 1 �a •t e I C i 4 � t ----- . E CwS. •�i ; a GROV� RD� WILLIAMSMEDICAL X SS4ClATES a I C—HE VTER Planning/Development Canaattants �tI711rt�r awl t�P{II�4ea4.Geta�epld.IRJt. �rn)ta->tua' T<Sf y...f J a , +r- �L s ♦ r1' t e l- r• ]tta r< r ;`l�,r'•{'ll>/r, ;� Fta tea' i• v'��t'F r t � r •1 i1 �.t \ n 1 �. t. 1 > ; i }\� .+ 1 .a f ♦. 1 � c � '` r it c�at+' ° >t{� r N }�3�>��f al n Jf ( a• C 4 �Y 'J af�C I lL� f'l 1 S 1 ✓ +� �� f f{ , 1 r ! as•� 3: sS :' q. s > 3 'k. Js•x".` d i °t vc_ .3' ��.ti is♦.. .• ` .� t .1 tl to , f i t ° `•T\ ; r ., r a y� � �.r r a s> r jx ♦ ♦ 4 t. t •.. r w• .? yy L t nl> `nJ l ;i�� >1 •.' ,.> > - ..y ..1. r 11 >.q,• ♦ \ � it Y f --r -f v ♦ 1. � f- i m Ys • o GROVE- MEDICAL CENTER ti 1 I .RANCHQ-i CAMONIGA, GA _, � Developed-by:.*JunTpar.Properties `.id• N d..} p O. E l i } f } -GRAV"E®ICAL-CENTER . E AMcMQ -WAnnoNGA, CA _ , , +'• 1 bavetoped byj Juniper.Properties -� a t. , ..�y tL F it t I `L pw 1-4 GROVE ® � ��$q jp�■ ® {� GR 11� Y la D. rt'llh�o�� e�. CIEN"'4P'ER - Pbnnlnp/SeoelspmeaY Cenrutaa8e. l`JI u.�f Y, fP� 9Sn�tt.:,e�1 La.��Y,.�a.rkYaems U"IU Y- Six., ^•'� �� ®$ =� Bt1QME c I— } e� sF t- far 0 _ o WE 1 0' e A �. GROVE a CENT■ t� _ _CITY OF FUMICHO CUCAMONra PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONIMNTAL CHECI.ZIST DATE: APPLICAtiT: �lsQsf�i�.4CCr� FILING DATE: 67 _LOG NUMBER: .l�2 8 r 3 PROJECT: �/201JE f7lEdil,�! G'tcie/7E2_ -. %ssta G ��.G.aL 13Gv6o, �xaTPcr,-LOCATION., 74/0- (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and GeoloQy. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? v F b. Disruptions,. displar-Aments, compaction or ij burial of the soil? � C. Chaua ..__ e in.topng=aPhY nr.ground surface . . ,"rnatots.3aLervals? d, The destruction, covering or modification -v if any unique geologic or Physical features? E�* fl. Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affec,.Ing either on or off t site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 5 i+ 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 extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology, Will the proposal have significant t results in: Pa$e 2 YES MAYBE `o a. Changes in currents,-or the course of direction Ask Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream -channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage or the rate and amount of surface wateratterns, runoff? / c. Alterations to the course or waters? flow Of flood Y / d. Change in the amount body of water? of surface water in any e. Discharge into surface waters, or.any —✓ alteration of surface water quality? i. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? a/ g. 'Change is the quantity of groundwater,, eithC7 through direct addit ions or with- drawals, or through interference with ? an aq uifer? Quality? Quantity? J h. The reduction in AIML the amount of water other- wisp available for public water supplies? / i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? ! i 3. Air Quality. Will the:proposal have,signiff:cant results in: :.- Constm= ar1M=iOdic_2fr..emi3sions irom mobile or indiract.sonrces? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? i? '/ C. Alteration of local regional. climatic _ conditions, affecting air movement, moisture+ lie or temperature? i � 4. Biota " . Flora Will the " proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? i b. Reduction of the number;; of any unique, r i or endangered species of plants?C)_t are '� Page.3 YES `L4TBE i0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into in'area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal•have significant rPsuits in: a. ',hange in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers Of ary species of animals?" b. Reduction of the numbers of aay uaique, rare or endangered species of.animals? c. Introductioa of new or disruptive species of animals irto an area, or result in a barrier _-to.1 he`='9ra^^n.or:_=0vement of.animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or + wildlife habitat? -- 6� 5. PODulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: Ask a. Will the proposal,alte'r 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 housing? f 6. Soczo-Economic 'Factors. Will the proposal have significant remelts a. Change as local or segiona socio-economic - characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property. I` values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? V lie 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the prop�-�sal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or �+ plan:._d land use of an area? / b. A conflict With any designations, objectives,- ` policies, or adopted plans of any entities? governmental • cc An impact_'upon the qulaity or quantity of # i existing consumptive or non-consumptive / ' � recreational opportunities? ,l �/ Page 4 • YES TiAYSE MO- 8- Trinsnortation. .Will'-the proposal have � _ zesults in. significant a. Generation of substantial,additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction?' parking facilities,, or c. Effects on existing demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations—to—present tion.cr movement:of a p�ern` of ca , people and/or goods? 'Alteratiois.to or affects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? -._ g. Increases in traffic hazards-to-motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? / _V 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results 3n: �I a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 7' . Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors. f Will t ro os he P P al have significant results in:. d. -.Cseation_nf any.health.hazard 011ntiai ..__1rb b. Exposure of people to po, Itial health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accier,nt? _f d. An increase in the number of individuals e V or species of vector or pathenogeni + organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f• Exposure of people to noise levels? Potentially dangerous — g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? .� r __ . .,. �,....y+w-ter, <•x.+,....:x• Page 5 YE5 :L41'BE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant :results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? vz b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the corridors of designated r or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and PubF_T- Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for ass; systems, or alterations to the folloving: ..-A- .Ele-CIZ3c power? ~ b. 'Rat=al•'.-packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? ✓J e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities?' h. Fire protection? v r t ? ; 3. Police protection? j. Schools?. . �- Tarlts-0l.ather xecreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of pu�7µ�. facilitiev, ii:cluding roads and flocd control facilities? m. Other governmental services? F 73. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: , a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel. or energy? i b. Suba•tantial increase'-'-, demand upon existing sources of energy?Allk . C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase-or perpetuatior of the consumption of non renewable forms of 1.,argy, when feasible i• renewablt a-.urees of energy are available? :, Page 6 YES MAYBE a^ e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural re: urce? V/ 14. Mandatory Findings of SicKi� fide, a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, or animal community, reduce. the number or restrict the range of a -rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important exacT,,les Of.the major periods of Califo,-nia history or Prehistory? b. Does.the p'?o3ect have the-Potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of }.ung-tom, ' •AU-i==eM M-I 1 als? (A short-term impart mt the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive periou of time while long- te--m impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have,impacts which are Individually limited, but Cumulatively. considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). It 'which Does the project have environmental.zUects._ which willrcause substantial adverse effects on human,beings, either directly or indirnc`?y? _._.. 2t. "�ISCUSSI013"BF 917IRB14B 7TAI. EVALUATIOMd (i:E., -'- affirmative answers to she ahaYe•questions plus a discussion of:-Proposed mitigation measures). $, jP83'EGx .¢o�OdS.e e- �,,e_4 l.VCX€-�'S `tiF sA/s�olL.✓r`�,�' �iaap�j1rLi'f1au.5 5c�2{�s+'cE�, a¢GL �S�O�.��.f d`71Q-�'vfl�%�ol� j i •y�Gfi �f�r 4,e/f/.>L�2 i i ! G t� t Page.7 a - 111.. DETEILMI_•ATION i fn the basis of this initial-evaluation: T xt I find the proposed project COULD NOT ha e a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECU ►TION will be prepared,. LJI find that a?though the proposed proj could have a significant effect on the environment, there will t be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation m_as;ures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPA'lE'D. I find the proposed project :L4Y have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRON:SENT LHPACT REPORT its required. Date_ 71/I1,FS' / G Title i I �i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wCAMr,,�, STAFF REPORT O O E $ Z a 1977 DATE: December 11, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12914 -HIGHLAND VILLAGE - Grading revisions that require additional retaining walls at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland ::venue. I. BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Tentative �rAft Tract 12914, for the construction of 78 single-fami?.y units on 9.75 f acres of land (Exhibit "B"). Thy applicant is requesting approval of grading revisions that affect the intersection treatment at Archibald and Highland. II. ANALYSIS: On October 14, 1985, the Building and Safety Department reviewed the final grading plan. The Building Department notified � `- the PlanW'..ng Staff regarding grading revisions that would necessitate a 6-foot high retaining wall at the corner of Archibald and Highland.The applicant, Pannon Design and Development stated that grading revisions were necessary to adequately drain the lots to the interior street at the southwest corner of the project site (Exhibit "C"). Since this project is located on a Special Boulevard, Staff presented the grading revisions and 6-foot high retaining wall elevation to the Design Review Committee on November 7, 1985. The Committee recommended '3-foot-of landscaping area along the back of the sidewalk with a double retaining wall,, t 2 1/2 fee4- high, terracing up to the main perimeter wall. Both walls will be curved descending from 2 and 1/2 feet at the center radius to 1-foot at the terminus, and will consist of River Rock material (Exhibit"W"). The corner landscaping statement will be • treated wits special accent planting, materials as required by Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 12914. ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 11, 1985 TT 12914 Highland Village Page 2 III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the revised wall design by Minute action, Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:das Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Locatit, Map Exhibit "B" Originally Approved Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Concept Grading Plan Exhibit I'D" - Revised Wall. Elevation at the southwest corner of project site f i, - r i _, � � . 7 y � II/ 1111 > �„'� ��� ' f�'!� Chi 6 �:�i i \��= �.. .: �e,� ---� � II wFC I��Ii��• i1 � t IS�c. . _i •�c►�• ✓' t1uC; ��a�4 ��r�kc� .: i.:..F. rY Vtl/iI ��� _ �•r�. �..� -i 11�.- _ �1� �li ��Y r ' �`1 ,ray _ ` � ��■.',ll � • i� 1 '1- '�`� lam, . ,,1`IIM�1' : � 1 _ �.. �--••��. ® .ggqrw:�j�1� Sri ur �.iL. � � '� III�i� MLA � L.a ��L�u••a =1 nuim•1 w�u.•.• ��; .�� .1F _ r� 1 !fi _ p�v� P ■ �_ ,.s 111 � _ • �/. S �71N f -i �s �� � �����riiQ�� Ginu' � � f 1 wwa< ���; . • y � � : .• �. 4 � � • i _ "ARCHBfILB y •lafET —__ Imo, i 1 � ! �, ` •�-:_., r; _ "'. _ Igo—•�jy' I � rn �" s �� , • Coo :' �� . • , . .� ` ' - � _ . � �. f n jlp Ile 14 s ga r 3Y $ pY fn 3 ! m IF 12914 l I { . _ C -14 711 19254 •I3Q/:P.3; h ty . I �.� -, ��:�*�=-.�-• _ . Via, ,I L . . i i u__�L• f� r• m � � � ���� � ��tl.'='i—_ �. �g1. �. •la.q I�� � � t• u i I r I A. .j....., C,1-- 17 _s1 i•-1�ya��.•. .i.: illl ` i J ;' —` •i � � // �% ,, —,_ / Yid"loll 13 _ �I �i .�_1. �r . Ix •t' L� �;:`� .ih.7 .ems If ,• A. ---- I ',� s' `i L 1 1 , :C oghl�a�� da�Q��®Zeac#: t i a\ wNL n ar W i y ,� F 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUC.AT ONGA MEMORANDUM u. -n O - O a 1977 DATE: December 11, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad 3c:ller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 S.LBOURNF .- A total residential subdivision and design review ft '49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low N,adium Residential District located at, south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 t feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-211 22. (Continued from October 9th meeting.) BACKGROUND At its October 23, 1985 meeting, th,: Planning Commission continued the public hearing for this project to this regular meeting as requested by the applicant. The developer is again requesting a continuation to revise the entire development plans to comply with the City's Codes and Policies. Attached for your revi%-w is a copy of the letter of requestfrom the applicant. ' RECOMMENDATION: Statf recommends that this item be continued to the N,arch 12, 1986 regular meeting so that the applicant has sufficient time to complete the Development Review process prior to Planning Commission review. BB:NF:das Attachment: Applicant's Letter of Request i - i : 4 i - j ITEM D � i t SHELBUR-NE RECEIVED CM.,G '?A CHO CUCAMONGA lv "AN NIX Oil ON DEC 5 1985 "1to�9�u1�11�12�1�2�3�4�5�6 A Mae IwZ -e- /t 6?ea;1 Cl ¢ �i/z 'x. Alz IY-a Shefocsne DevoioPMe.°-It Co 6B80 AleBearxiro Boulaverd.rjfVe-�ck1®. Caiifnrnia 92508•[714] .�F } — CITY OF RANCHO.CUCAa\+IONGA' ��cAMp STAFF DEPORT ¢ 7 f: • c1 J = Fly z 1 DATE. December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner s. BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT' CLTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Title 7, Revisions/Modifications Section 17.02,07OB; Development Review Section - 17.C6.01OG and 17.06.020G,of the Municipal Codes regarding language changes. I. BACKGROUND A. Revisions/Modifications: The Revisions/Modifications section of the.. Development Code allows an applicant to refile for Planning Commission review to modify any portion of an approved project, such as site plan, grading plan, _ r landscape plan, architectural plans, anr' conditions of approval. Unfortunately, this creates a "loophole" whereby a project that was denied and/or appealed and denied could be re,*v.bmitted with the same design that was previously denied. Further, the current language does not provide any ` limit "?on how many times a revision/modification can be filed, c.nied, refiled, denied, etc. i The Planning Commission has stated that it is not the intent of this section to circumvent the appeal process for the original approved project. This amendment would clarify the intent of this section of the code and eliminate this "loophole". -�e amendment would accomplish the following: 1. Eliminates ;:he possibility of an applicant, with a previously denied` Revisions/Modification a application, to refi',a for Planning Commission review for the same revisions or modification within a one year period. B. New�Ap lliic.dtions Followin Denial: In regards to new applica+_�on following denial of a-project, minor changes are proposed to Section 17.060.010E and 17.060.020G, in AD order to correct a typographical error as follows: ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 December 11, 1985 Page 2 Following the denial of a Minor Development Review application, no application for the same or substantially the same use eta.on substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. III. " NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff recommends that the_Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of -the Public Resources Code that would not require`subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. This finding is based upon the fact that Development Code Amendment implements the existing goals and policies of the General Plan which were fully, analyzed w.th regards to environmental impacts during the General Plan EIR. U. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a: public hearing in The Uaily Report new paper. V. RECOMMEfiDATION: Staff recommends that the Manning Commission adopt the aitached resolution recommending approval of the proposed amendant to the City Council and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ctfully submitted Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ko Exhibit "A" - Proposed a:;endments to Section 17.02.070B, Section 17.060.01OG and Section 17.060.02OG Initial Study, Part II resolution Ordinance y EXHIBIT A Section 17.02.07a Revisions/Modifications A. Minor Revisions - Administrative. Minor revisions or modifications to approved site plans, conceptual grading pidns, conceptual landscape plans, or architectural plans may be approved by the City Planner. Minor revisions and modifications shall be defined as and shall include the following: 1. Floor plan changes which do not result in more than a ten (10) percent change; 2. Parking and circulatic,i configurations which do not :::range the basic parking areas or .'rculation concept (such as relocating whole parking areas from ot.. area of the site to another, or by adding or deleting circulatiuri areas that could have potential impacts to adjacent or surrounding properties); 3. Outside building configurations which do not create a greater bulk, scale, or change in the line of sight; 4. Building placements which do not change the general location and layout of the site; 5. Grading alterations whic4 do not change the basic concept, increase slopes, or build,-ig elevations, or change course of drainage which could advet ely affect adjacent or surrounding properties; 6. Landscape modifications which do not alter the general concept or reduce the effect--or amount originally intended; 7. Architectural changes which do not change the basic form and theme; 8. Exterior material or color changes which do not conflict with the original architectural form and theme, and which are consistent and compatible with the original materials and colors. In addition to the above guidelines, the City Planner must determine that the 'circumstances, standards, ordinances, conditions and findings applicable at the time of the original approval still remain valid. The City Planner may refer any minor revisions or modifications to the Design Review Committee for their recommendation prior to his final decision. B. Major Revisions Commission. Revisions or modifica,% . - >,ce plans, grading plans, landscape plans, or architectural plans which are not considered minor as described in the previous section, shall be considered a major revision. Also, any request for a change in conditions cf apprc;al shall be considered a major revision. -Major revisions shall be processed through the same approval procedure and authority which granted the original approval. The applicant requesting such revisions shall be required to supply any necessary plans, as deemed appropriate by the City E -3 Planner, and pay necessary fees to cover the review procedure. The decision of `the approval authority shall be final unless appekled in accoraance with Section 17.02.080. Follow the denial of a tiajor Revisions Application, no application for thein sue or—substantial v the same revisiavz shall_ be f led within one year from th5t date of denial. Section 17.06 Development Review Section 17.050.01OG New Applications Following Denial G. New Applications following Denial: Following the denial of a Development Review—application, no application for the same or substantially the same j use ,_ the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. Section 17.060.02OG New Applications Following Denial G. New Applications f,.11owing Denial. Following the denial of a Minor �- Development Review application, no application for the same or substantially the same use ,-, -aL the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. i j CITY.OF RANCHO CT'CAuONGA PART II —INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATS: 1PPLICANT: � FILING DATE:_ __,_LOG NUMBER: PROJECT•. _ �'�AP:���FgJ�' �i-•n � PROJECT LOCATIGN., I. ENVIRON:ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). i e YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geo.2aev, Will the proposal have significant results in: a- Unsta3le ground conditions or in changes in geologic rel?'aionships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the sail? t/ C. :Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or Physical features? .e• Any Potential inc 'ease in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exf-rure of people or property to y p P y geologic ha:.ards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? _ h. An 11crease in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2• Hydrol PY. Will the proposal have significant results in: i -5 sa • page 2 YES uaYBE JO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streamg, rivers, or ephemeral stream f channels? v b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water f runoff? V c. Alterations to the course or flow of Flo;d waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of watt ? / e• Discharge Into surfa,•e waters, or any v alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g• Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with-draw-,Is, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? •V/ h. The reduction in the amount of -_. wise available for " other- public water Supplies? 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 indizect sources? Stationary sources? ` b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applica}le air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regizenal climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moistt e or temperature? / 4. Biota sL/ Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diverzity, distribution, or number Of any species of plants? J b• Reduction of the numbers of any unique, tare or endangered species of plants? 3 Page 3 j YES `rIYBE N0 Y C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of /r plants into an area. V d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural y production? i Fauna.. Will the pi:posai have significat,_ results y in: a. Cho-age in the characteristics or species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of ,i-y species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of 'animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area. ,or result in a barrier to the migration or iovement of anlnals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? /• S. Pou'tlation. Will the proposal have sig ificant — iT Z_su1.Ls in: a• Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, d_nsity, diversity, or growth rate of the human population. of an :;'ea? A b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 6. Socio-Economic Factors, ''lill the proposal havi. significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b• Will project costs be equitably distributed ~� among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, 4 ` ta-x payers or project users? 7. Land lase and Planning Considerations; Will tile 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, objective_ Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of } existing consumptive or non-ctnsumptive recreational opportunities? F---7 page 4 YES MME NO 8. Ttansoortation. Will the proposal have significant _. results Ti- a. a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular f movement? ✓ b. Effects an exis.ring streetL, or dema-d for new street cons ;action;? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? P. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? r. 4-Iterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or V air traffic". 8• Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9, "ultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A Oisturbanca to the integrity of archaeological, paaeontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safe-ty• And Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal hays ; '.,aificant results in. a• Cre. _%t-, of any health hazed or potential health ha+.ard? b. Exposu> of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event, of an accident? Id. An increase in the number of individuals f or species of vector or pathenogenic o„ganisms or the exprsure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to pots :poise levels? ntially dangerous �s/f The creation of objectionable odors? f: h. An increase in light or glare? -� Page YES �uyBr No 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The ohstruction or degradation of any scenic f vista ur view? h. The cr*ation of an esthetically offensive site? o t C. A conflict with the tbjective of designated f or potential scenic tirridors? d 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a signif--;-3nt need for new systems, zr alterations to the following: a. Electric power? " b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? S f. Flood control structures? S Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection.? J. Schools? � k. Parks or other recreational facilities: 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including F roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental cervices? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal ' have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Subst ,ti.al increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? Ask c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or —p-rpetuation of the consumption of nor, renewable corms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy :ire available? !. �-C� __ _ Page 6 YES XAYBE: NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or _ scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a„ Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially Ieduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threacen 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 may,!- periods of aa®/ Califortia history or prehistory? b, Does the project hive the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-t-vm, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on 07~ environment is one t,hich occers in a relatively / brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will andure well into the future), yyyflf c. Does the project have impacts which are individually linited, but cumulatively considerable) !•-ulativ.ly considerable means tiat r ;.remental effects of an individua' R ;t are considerable when viewed in cornec it—th the effects of past p; jects, and probable future projects), IV d. Does the project have enviro=ental effects which will cause ,substantial adverse effects on tuvan beings, either directly or indirectly? Tl n75CJSSION Or' cc MOT!j=;'HTAL E\ALUATiON tts above questions plus a discussion of proposed of affirmative answers to proposed mitigation measures). r 'e E- \o Page 7 III. DETERMINATION ARK Oa the basis of this initial evaluatic-i: XI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envivonment, and a &EG1T;az DECLAR:T_ION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environsenL, there will not ba a significant effect j in this case because the mitigation meas�-ses described on en attached sheet have been added to the projas A described on DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I rind the proposed project MY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRON:¢':, IMPACT REPORT is. required. F Date Signature Title --`� 1 t, I/ ii r.. f i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORR-A, RECOMMENDINIG APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 AMENDING REVISION/MODIFICATION SECTION 17.020.07OB; NEW APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING DENxAL SECTIONS 17.060.01OG AND 17.060.02OG OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE WHEREAS, ,the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider, all comments or the proposed Development Code Amendment No. 85-03. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Amendment is consistent with the poli as of the General Plan. B. The Amendment is WLrranted to clarify the intent of the Revisions/Modification and the New Applications Following Denial sections of the Development Code. Ask C. The Amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2: That the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found this amendment will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on November 27, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. The Planning Commission, herebv recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Development Code Amendment 85-03 regarding the sections on Revisions/Modifications and New Applications Following Denial. 2. That a certified copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shag be " forwarded zo the City Council �2G APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• Dennis L. Stout, Chairman Resolution No. Development Code Amendment 85-03 Page 2 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, .Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho C11-amonga, do hereby certity that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSt ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alk t: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CGUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVINC DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85 03 AMENDING TITLE 17, REVISIONS/MODIFICATIONS SECTION 17.020.070E AND NEW APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING DENIAL OF SECTIONS 17.060,01OG AND 17.060.020G, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. The City Gouacil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does i ordain as follows: SECTION is 17.02.070E - Revisions/Modificiations is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Major Revisions - C-mmission. Revisions or modificaL-v.i to site plans, grading fans,landscape plans, or architectural plans which are not considered minor as described in the previous section, shall be considered a major revision. Also, any request for a change in conditions of approval shall be i considered a major revision. Major revisions shall be processed through the same approval procedure and authority which granted the original approval. The applicant requesting such revisions shall be required to supply any necessary plans, as deemed appropriate by the. City Planner, and pay necessary fees to cover the review procedure. The decision of the approval authority shall be final unless appealed in accordance with Section 17.02.080. Following the denial of a major revision application, no application for the sane or substantially the same revision shall be filed within? one year from the date of denial. SECTION 2: Section 17.060.01OG and Section 17.060.02OG are hereby amended as f,11aws: Section 17.060.01OG 'New Applications followin Denial: Following th ue;,111 of a Development Review application, no application for the same or substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from, pna date of i denial. Section 17,060.020 G. New Applications- following Denial. Following the denial of a Minor Development f.eview application, no application for the same or substantially the same use on the sage or substantially the s:.me site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. I h PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINMCE DCA 85-03'- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 11, 1985 Page 2 The Mayor shall, sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after it!,, passage at least once in The Daily Repovt, a newspaper of general circulation published in in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, ani ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1985. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk I, BEVERLY A. ANTHELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (") hereby certify that the forego;ng Ordinance was introduced at a reguiar (special, adjourned) meeting cf the Council of the City of Ranchr Cucamonga held on the 11th day of,r4ecember, 1985, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the filth day of December, 1985. Executed thi:: 11th day of December, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clef f I z CITY OF 1 vANCHO CUCAMONGA cV Ma STAFF REPORT ti�9A F Z DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Ass4-'ant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL 'MAP 9487 - BRUNSWICK CORPORATION - A division of B.97 acres into 4 Fa—rce I TV a General Commercial Development District located on the west side of haven Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard (APN 1177-401-22) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval (if parcel map B. Pur osE+c To provide 4 parcels for commercial purposes C. Location: West side of Haven Avenue, nor-ch of Foothill Boulevard D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 7.10 ac. Parcel 2 - .672 ac. Parcel 3 - .846 ac. Parcel . - .345 ac. Total 8.97 ac. E. Existing Zoning: General Commercial F. Exic�cinq_Land Use: V cant G.' ' Surround;�a Land Use: North - Church Street Drainage BaSiu r; South - Cournercial project (Virginia Dare Winery) East - Terra Vista Planned Community West - Deer Criek Channel and, Existing. Industrial (Data Design) H. Surroanding General Plan and Deyelonn�ent Code Designations: North - Flood Control Open Space South - General Commercial East - Terra Vista Planned Community West Industrial Specific Plan Area ITEt3 F i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9487 necember 11, 1985 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The site is an abandoned viney6rd sloping gently rtWe_sT.�in a so 'iy direction. Ii. ANALYSIS: 'Mir parcel nap relates to CUP 85-37 on tonight's agenda for con`siTeration by the Planning Commission. Construction of the street improvements for the entire fronta6a of the project is to be completed prior 'to occupancy of any building. The construction of the portion of the Haven Avenue median fronting the parcel map will be deferred until it can be constructed under a city contract for a larger length in order to provide a uniform landscaping theme. The developer is required to me.ke a cash deposit for the cost of one-half the median fronting the parcel map. Overhuad utilities exist along the Haven Avenue frontage of this project. No services are connected to the line and frontage width is felt sufficient to warrant undergrounding. The project to the south has been canditioned to underground the existing overhead utilities fronting Haven ,+%venue. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached fcr your review and consideration Ask is Part I of the Initial _Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed F"t II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conduciccd a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study end field investigation, Staff round no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPO`iDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting a, the site has also been completed. i V. RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning Commission consider aTl'input ut anT elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9487. if after such consideratio+, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption cf the attached Resolution and issuance of i- Negative beclaratioa would !, be appropriats. ` Respectfully submitted, BRH:BK:de Attachments: Vicinity `Mt p ' Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study - �GkiRCH--�-=�f--+Tom' •STREET-' 44 uLil ISi iy• JD — Jqp•r illfJ = .L . ..S�Q k IA7AC 1.03 AC 1.03 AC 1.03AC. U-AC S.IIAC ..�' -•.Lfi +Lar �NJ. . 1A Y 1.71AC lof•"B- rn 9 - T 0. 8 L30Ar 3.aac eS7AC (� IAIAC 14 1 �40 PROJECT 11• 1Z ' m ,2.e3AC ©j �• j 2 TRA 1p s.eerc: Ir RM 8303 , }' CITY OF A PROJECT. RMCEL M" 9487 RANCHO C CA QNG A TITLE: vicuilTx Ma f; ENGINEERIN+� DIVISION F-,3 'EXHIBIT _ " TENTATIVE, -� .�arir err t or 1 PARCEL MAP Na. 9487 + tot twa CIiv a# aARC116 COCatr6111A a•1•a .dot.1.1....1 L.1 14 .r TI..t Ma. *I.aa .. I....If. 1. a... tt{. Y.••laa•9 5►.a1 t..a1•• •1 • • R.r •Ills• f•.•I;. AUOUaT alas , 11 !a4• a twaiwl6Rt L.r►1.► a..II•. A a•..•f.111. I.a. � 4 t!attd 4t l••tI l.taf3l+s(i•lall l 111- + o rrr. CHURCH STR Ou EE7 .� { Y.. P•r. I Qatar TYI,'Ie AL SECTION 1 1 123 f.► Care+ Matt V..1 a...►TI••. VAVEH AVENUE 9••1 •...•.C.IIt a.r.a 1 w f tafalu4 sas BENCHMARK taa-n nea .r4 Yt 11 yl r ...... a• w f ! ►t at t. ��• PROPOalO LAN* Ua!•...,....I.1 P IP ..11l ■tY4 I t .t •.•1 .1 .1• • r• to►I.G 1. . tlfaA N44 t�aa•.. � I � � • 1.1•P\.•. •.IC .•r►•. •U a • Y ta.a7.a't LtaStRO tawtwal I t• `. �� G I� M.a•1 t fIw ..•uq. of.. �/ ! w.n►,! . va.l• ...4. ►/P sin• PI•. PARCEL"4 ' l+rl-T f1 Vi•1C.w.Y.i1; ' .... to �• •Yt\-Y{•at.t•aa•O•H.ltasil.;hbleq�»•1 "O/ �+ 4b •• �� UTIL171E5 aala CA{!R.CU•wRaLI 14••a••1 �` • r .L >; ye" I\�f s a aft-C•...... C... 1.4t...a altltla t. /j. +�. ���•.-'I( •,� i aa.i'!R- Ca•..aa. C...or la•I.r al.bl..t. i l�w. AR..62'(11 Ttll II OM!-np•• 1 T•1•.►... 0....•T I �• 4 .aPet J torlR-s..u•t+ eat Ral•.• /f. YAa-a.f1..I. C.I. o.. tV t �� 1l.a 1 {•4 h ` fit s K• V •� r l`r`Uxj P.Mt 9487 x.. ]J To 1�f• w j/ R�Ira ; 1-10 TV f � l i aRRorr.xlonat t .�a.t.• 1 ` ^ VICInitV tAso w ts. M Y- Il _ FC.OTHILL BOULEVARO ..��t•Itoa• �a� r. <�.�;', h �� ENVIRONIIC,.NTAL REVIEW Q� �= : ,�1 APPLICATION M INITIAL STUDY - PART T 1977 I GENERAL For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be cgmpleted and submitted to the D_velopment Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study ,nd make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one of three determinations: (1) he project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negat,ve Declaration will be filed, (2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: October ,O, 3985 Project Title: Deer Creek shopping Center, Rancho Cucamonga Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: Phil D. Fitzgerald A.I,A. P.O. Box 1597, Ponca City, OK 74602 T105) 765-0678 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: West side of Ha en Ave. North oi'Foofi>,i11 81�1. (Lot Tract 2202 ncr 67 & 67 ]../2.San Bernadine County). Location of Project: West side of Haven Ave., North of Foothill Blvd. :r Assessor's Parcel No.: Lot 14, Tract 11428, Book of Maps 158, pgs. 19, n. 21, San Bernadino Cotmty, CA. List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: Buildincr permit - City of pandho Cuc=n a. P. royal from San Bernadino pty Health Deparbrent- Snack Bar. i 41 4 :i. PROJECT LESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project: Bowling Center, Sho Restaurant. peg Center. and Acreage of project area and square f otage of exieting and proposed buildings, If any: .Project:acreage 8.97 acres .epos a3.bui.ldinq. Describe the environmental ,-�ittin of the project site including information on topography, soil scah„it��, plants (trees), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing stru.aures and their use (attach necessary sheets): zbooarsnhy - x'lat land slopes gently frcn North to South Vest Caner of _ rc. 5i1 Stability-Ac�arently sandy with a3enuate bearing for a capacities Ak buit amiect Plants - T--4— site is an old abandoned grape vine — —Yard with scrcb bushes thmuahout Lame encnivot-,'s trees line North of Haven Ave, and are b be reiroved as s'sucti ons From the i'* of Pancl o ' Land Animals -No a t land animals e7{ist exception may 1yQau1L`ural. h��torical ors be rodents. � sank nape-cts zre loca�the land, An ac:iacent shorming center develotment to ctIr south has Bevel ooed in . —�nere'�with an old et-r„'.r,,,.s.far V' inia Lane W�� The nzonosed shopr�sna center ech ies the Wine:-v influence. Is the project part of a larger project, cne of a series of cu�ula ive actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact _Ne. This ro ect should stand an its own merit a xl FTI� not be a part of any other project rr.• j. I-2 .r {SILL THIS PR JEr.T: , YES -N0 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create: a substantial_change in existing noise of produce Vibration or glare? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? g 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General � 4 Plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many?apex, 20. E �� G. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fiammables or explosives? X explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if`necessary): Pztrinnval. of giant eucalyptus trees at request of the Cit y of Ftanctsp CL camOnga. 7. Estimate the amount of se-,.age and solid waste materials this project will generate daily: 520 q.p.d. 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated dail, )y this proj , ':_amx. 600 cars and trucks. g. Estimate the amount;. of grading (cutting and filling) requited for ti s project, in cubic yards.. 17�. cut & 17,000 cy, fi.11. IQ. If the project involves the construction of residential units, c m?'ete the form on the next page. CERTIEICATIMg I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data acid information required fo, this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the farts, statements, A and information presented are +rue and correct to the best u: mu knowledge and belief. E frirther understand that additional information may'be requi*ed to + be submittO before an adequate evaluation ca be ,.� 4ebyy, the PTinniog Division. r- �� 4��� Signature 1 7C3 � 2 o � �-8.5 :P G �-0, et, o Pad e '` ''3 RESICLNTIAL CONS RC`,ION The fol wing information shou'd be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Plannir,; ivision in order to aid the school district in assessing thoir ability to accommodate the proposed rF;identiai development. Deve'-^_,s are required to secure letters from the school district for accommodating the increased num r of students prior to issuance of 'building permits. Name of Developer nd Tentative Tract No.c" Specific Location of eject: RASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model' and'A of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price RanoE it I-4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISS,;'" OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ,.L. 'rt ,MAP NUMBER 9487 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9487) LOCA.,• -Q THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE„NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOUL4. stU WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 94F. ubmitted by Brunswick Corporation and consist,irig of 4 parcels, located the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, being-a divis, of Lot 14 of Tract 11428 as recorded in Book 158 of Maps, pages 19-21, records of San Bernardino County; and WHEREAS, on October 27„ 1985, a formal application was submitted 1'equesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on Decembe,- , 1985, the Planning Commission held a duiy advertised public hearing fnr the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMCIGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made Aft 1. That the map is consistent with the General "lan. 2. That the itorovement of the proposed subdivision is consisten*- vaith the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the l proposed development. 4. That the pru,;osed' subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on December 11, 1985. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map tio. 9487 is approved subject to the reco,..mended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. �s !' PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ., BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: �_ a Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary. I, Brad Buller, beputy 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 CoMission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held c"i the llth day of December, 1985, by the following vote-.to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L, r ii ,r 'si CITY OF RANCHO CUCAh:3NGA RECOMMENDEFd C614DITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: West side of Haven Avenue TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP iO: 948'! north of Foothill Boulevard DATE FILED: October 27. 1985 4_ LEGAL n�ZRIPTION: Lot 14 of Tract 1�1428 `NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 as recorded in Book 158 of mans pages 19-21 GROSS ACREAGE: 8.97 Record: of Sal Bernardino County ASSESSOR PARCEL NG: 1077-401-22 DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Brunswick Corporation Sacs Perbsh, Guerra & Assoc, 12311 Seal Reach Blvd. ,� -- - 124 East F„ St., Ste, 12 Seal Peach CA 90740 Ontario, CA 917b4 Improvement and dedication requirements iu accordance with, Title 16 of the Municipal Code Of the City of Rancho Cucamoui-a include, but may not he limited to, the rU??awinga ' A. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-oi=-gray and all, necessary easements as shown on the tentative map, 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the fallowing streets: additional feet on additional feet on `�— additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Staadards, �X 4. All r1ghts of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: on Haven except for two openings as approved by the City Engineer. 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensurin maintenance of all g access to all parcels and joint common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. �i t. •«... asp , 6. All ekist ng easements lying within future. right-of-way are to be quitclaimed, or delineated on the map per City Engineer's , requirements. X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander thruugh private property. B. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16-36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with i the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. -1. Construct full street •`�nrovements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.'pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights'oin all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement ;within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: - I Curb & A.C. Side- Orive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr:, Tees Lights Overlay Island* Other Haven Avenue X X **X X X X See G. 1 Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter **Meandering Sidewalk X 4. Prior to any work boing performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any ,other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing overhead utilities fronting the property shale '�e undergrounded prior to issuance of occupancy permits. "=me ng n extension may be granted by agreement with the City E , ' and City Attorney. ,f X 8. Install appropriat:,u street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and mark?ngs with locations and type, approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved ,by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho t Cucamonga. tights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved ►„y the Planning. Division prior to the issuance of building permit„ X U. Concentrated drainage. flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards,: G. :,uretw X I. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Cngineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements. 2. A Tien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the followings 3. Surety shall' be posted and an agreement executed, quaranteeinq completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison,prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit for D. Drainage _and Flood Control X I. Private drainage easements for cross-lot' drainage shall be -required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adiatent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4.; Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer is for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per :City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff t d1 - E. Grading X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading 'plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualifiod engineer licensed by the State of California to perform sr ; work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for appr-)val prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements ancr Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for X— San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading,permit) Other X 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City.Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, ' water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. z X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be'designed to Cucamonga ` County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is ; • required. X 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured froin all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that. may be received from them. i 1; X 7, The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee- that"-sewer treatment capacity_will be available•at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested', the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability-of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted, to and approved by the -City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shalt be posted with the City covering the 'estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82-1 annng the newly created parcels. x 10. At the time of final map submittal, `ie following shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps ;and deeds used as reference and/or showing, original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 11. Notice of intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape n1strict shall ,be filed with th6 City Council prior to recordation of the Final Map, G. Special Conditions' x 1. An in-lien cash deposit is required for one-half the construction cost of the Median, Island on Havan'Av6iue prior to recordation of the map or issuance of Esuilding permits whichever occurs first. X 2. An Basemen" providing access to the adjacent property to -the south of Zijs parcel map shall be delineated or noted on the final map. x 3. The Haven Avenue improvements shall be designed to inclt.:fe: a. right turn lanes into both driveways, with _a 901 long" ` reverse curve leading into the stacking lane portion, and i b. dual left turn lanes into the southerly driveway and Town ` i Center Drive which will require placing the curb an additional 2' from the construction, centerline (49' vs. 471): CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: a S — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o wcamloic STAFF REPORT G O D=+TE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENI(IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-37 0RUNSWfCK - The development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 36,025 square foot oowling center, three retail buildings totaling 59,400 square feet, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 8.97 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located 1,000 feet north of Foothill Boulevard, hest of haven '`^.nue - APN 1077-401- 22. Related File: Parcel Map 9487 L PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: -,roval of shopping center master plan, Phase I Site plan ana elevations, and issuance GY a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction ^f a 36,025 square foot bowling center, and a 45,400 square foot retail building. C. Existing Land Use: Vacant D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant, Deer Creek, flood control; Flood Control District South - Vacant, Virginia Tare Shonping Center under i construction; General Commercial District East Vacant: Community Commercial District in the Terra Vista Planned Community West - 'Deer Creek, Industrial use; Industrial Park District 1 . } ITEM G' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 65-37 December 11, 1985 Page #2 Aft E. General Plan Designations: Project Site- General Commercial North - Flood Control South - General Commercial East Community Commercial West Industrial Park, Flood Control F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and is an old a:oandone grape vineyard with shrubs and bushes throughout the site. The land slopes gently from the north to the southwest side of the property. A row of Blue gum eucalyptus windrows exist along Haven Avenue. The developer is proposing to remove the windrows and replace them with new street trees similar to the Virginia Dare Shopping Center. G. Applicable Regulations: Shopping centers are conditionally permitted in the General Commercial Discs:,`, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commiss,oc;. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The proposea shopping center consists of it major retail building and a bowling center with three satellite buildings that front on Haven Avenue. At this time the developer is proposing to construct Phase I of the development which includes the bowling center and the major retail Buildings A and D as shown in Exhibit "B". The development of each 'satellite building would require separate Development/Design review, Also, the developer has submitted a parcel map with this shopping center which is also being considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. A separate staff report has been included for your review. Plaza areas have been provided throughout the site with pedestrian linkages. Proposed elevations are of a contemporary style. They feature stucco wall materials, dark bronze anodized windows for the store front, standing seam metal roof, several circular arbors that provide building entrance statement to.the main retail building and bowling center, and other architectural ornamental details as are shown in Exhibit G1, G2 and G3. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has i reviewed the project and found that the overall site plan with it's building orientation, style of architecture, plaza, and PLANNING COMRBSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-37 December 11, 1985 ANk Page #3 open space landscape area, complies with the intent of the General Commercial District of the Development Code. The Committee has recommended approval of the project with the following conditions which the developer has agreed to do: 1. A loading area for the restauvant building be provided at the southwest corner of the site away from Haven Avenue (see Exhibit "C"). 2. Planter area north of retail building B be increased in size so as to create a major entrance statement that provides continuous pedestrian linkages from Haven Avenue to the shopping center (see Exhibit lost). 3. More pedestrian oriented amenities in plaza area such as shaded seating areas with attractive landscaping, fountains, public art and/or kiosks, benches, trash receptables, and other street furniture be provided. 4. The height of the proposed tower structure and circular arbors extend above the roof line, 5.. The proposed redwood lattice work be changed to glass block materials. 6. All building elevations facing the Deer Creek trails be upgracad with architectural and ornamental details to proviae visual interest. 7. The proposed retail Building B be moved up to the 45 foot landscape setback area. 8. At least one pedestrian walkway be provided to the south to connect to Virginia Dare Shopping Center. 9. Wrought iron fence would be acceptable along the southern property boundary to identify the two shopping centers. C. Utility Undergroundinc: Overhead utilities exist along the Haven Avenue frontage of this project where no services are connected to the line. Since the frontage for this project is wide enough to war-ant undergrounding, and the project to the south has been condi`ionz4 to undergrounding their utilities, Staff is recommending that the 4eveloper underground their's too. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-17 December 11, 1985 Page #4 D. Environr_;atal-Assessments _Part I of the Initial study has-been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has identified one adverso Environmental Impact. The development of this project would cause the removal of mature Eucalyptus windrows along Haven Avenue as the trees are within the parkway right-of-way. However, the developer is proposing to replace them with the appropriate designated street trees for Haven Avenue. Further, the developer is required to prurde landscaping according to City Standards which would add and provide a diversity of plant materials to the site. Based upon this review, Staff has determined that there world not be a significant impact in this case because the mitigation measure described above has b,.an added to this project and the Conditions of Approval. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declare.ion would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the Ceneral Plan and the Development Code. The project, with the added mitigation measures, will not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the rroposed use, building Ask design, site plan, togzi her with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with General Plan and Development. Code and all applicable provisions of the City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the p;;ject site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the findin gs, issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Permit 85-37 thro;igh the adoption of the attached resolution and Conditions of Approval would be in ordee. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:cv �' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-37 December 11, 1985 Page #5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" - Master Plan and Site Plan Exhibit ''C" Detail changes to site plan Exhibit "D" Detail of Plaza Area Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Elan Exhibit "F" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "(7" Elevations Initial Study Part II' Resolution of Approval With Conditions Aft C-5 r C'!I �1 `....' I r .�C ►^IL)Nf 1,�• !1.�.��-.- � ' 1)11I:9 r q o�t oIf:R(1 � o �f �.t•n P/tq.629 � r'MP89-/9 ��• ,I•-z �, "� '+` r Me.�,�, ��;t, aA,1t1 S tt)a ems\ j �j, >R ztr,lr � ,,�,r3lµ�t. - '�. ,,. �• Mq nt 9j ! /r I. ..•a�.. ,I 4. I r. 1.�'1 � —t .`I 1, r � +rR r1p. �• r. 4l ii'+ca �! . , ,.;-, - I 1-i li22 1 ` r4 A �sys 4v• ^ •• ` gip• t4llN t. � ` f �IF i k er ( n.•\$'.�•.. ``C-,n� �wiai� r i � �r� 0• " If(�-� },� qrs •r• �,M �-t -A.�rrr_.•P_ � �R �r rye _ en«r.... m....... wclP Wf� z~ r _ r •si ell 1, fsI.PCFL 79L3 •67Z., .t.� rAUCi•tU 952S jr+ P fI' ,w 4 M8:35.T1 S9 =u•Io .f�j +1� ,n .1 ye. 1'1AP t d r 1 1R I �0!• �f r j i R3Y5. pM.• o\ rib ,e r 1 [� G /J a'g 6�. � �I Z I � � BG•ry+3 �b 7 - 1 + �Tom"'-. n,,..r„ �,.. •. ._. 3 , NORTH CITY OF _Iri��i: - RAl!'��O C�.TCAMOI\TGA TITI:.E: f PL.ANNIr. DIV'LSIOV EXHIBM SCALE:- /� lr pit z � 3 Y+� ,•a •'+ s # 1+ a> ZE 1 • i f Wr y� M9 o. � J j r� L� r Y � 1 { 1HIM y� w-Imp, r� ' ..tf�✓i{^�w y'1PCy i�tfct �`�,r .,jy at t '� 1 7. k y t �' r:,+ ts.` �': • ��!�.t �.. tbY�i •rr a iY.i -i i`=� AV- Y - OKI itV. `k.,•a.� yr»y�. rC 1_yN� t'gi•5e': .fir �±.� y"�-,� v A! -i 343 .Tf'4A�'Sr� � w ..�. "4 ...P�' �.Air f+�`:.,..•y 's�¢�s^'".�.'�'� . r f d� tnr ` L ".. t •d1 -. IS . ,W f may:. � ee�� .t. _.• _.• t� NORTH ' . CITY OF 1TEN RANCHO CIJC,,kM-NGA + PLANNING DivisoN EEC!IFx?rr •�>f'srY��f'�rne4r�� a.�'{�r g°•p �-.F.e� �*srd�kr l - +'�` � r °� � - �ti v . sf�y,�.-7+i1''����y^:'•.n iD�Y�Q�$��"�. �J��"r T�°" � .re 1r -�+4' '' ^t„�G c 1• %tt Fj'1: r • 1 .s )yt•ft �. i xl '? r• oa>�v•••- �`a��•' +`1i �•r{p� S. {kJ tlt��irk t� t C��v�Dki�>� � 1 I�I �� • ``�;�b a �� 4�{;.,l\�t yr t � fic.x h. � t. F • �'.�t�t� a,Any��'.y�.�"�Y 4'.. sc i `ems �V.•'4r1.. =-K's �..,�v •'A;-., '.'�'� o. ...ems_. � [ ����� � �„ °� rfir� ; •�ri+S..;ram r� r: \I ��1� � :��,i`Fl ,•� !' �>�5::. - Kam: t�a0 ►��.'�ttiltEli � +ri'�,��((vv�,,j�0 �� e. �1 a �i a .;G-o�• � �spf r ,fiia r fr relic I�i � �`r� 1��3 �►AEI f ha �P s • c i t �1. � I /ill:•1 ..{ a� I MW At.. / * ZI �Ik`. i °" '�\ ' Vim.._.i'. \'�y� - -- I L�•. NORTH CITY OF ITEitit: C 05-3 RANCHO CLTCAMGi-"�l;A TITLE: � PLANNING DIVIRON EXHIBIT SCALE_. 7yyaCyi �yf� r i—� �► � fir` : ' i tic �►�s,: �:` {�(�,.,- .: t f. as 1 � i�r •�#Ai � a91 (❑� wt u c �•Ii a \ r� MI 9 $ I . A A i )t �'� If' � >•�' Mj� �.�'�R4ri 1 �u a r a _ _ NA �k iQJ 1♦ �� 1 4 jjfj o t'.,').MCAL STOREFRONT ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION/ELEVATION: P�IOI�I'I-I CITY OF ITEM. RA TM TITLE O CUC MONGA PLANNING DIVISION -' .• EXHIBIT- SCALE- t G -,4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA'tONGa PART II INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONME-%TAL CHEMLIST DATE:_ APPLICANT: MR 10 3t1 FILING DATEt f� ' ffgp 4$ �5 LOG NUMBER: ( 1.217 PROJECT 7E: 1-20 fEwteR k'6574 �� ---�------_ PROJECT LOCATION: I, ENVIRO:!E tiTAL Z.%7AGT.S (Explanation of all 1tyes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have signi�_icant results in: a. Unstable g •ound conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions,. displacements, c;empaction or burial of the soil?' y c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? y d. The-destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? �^ •e• Any potential increase in wild or water �C erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, it deposition? g. Exposu,e of p•:onle or property t) geologic hazards such as earthquakes, lantslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or•simila.- hazards? h. An increase in the Ovate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? / 2. D dsnloQv. Will the proposal have significant results in: age YES MAYBE , a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction 10 Of flowing streams,- rivers,, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? /" e. Discharge into surface waters, or any r1/ alteration of surface wacer.quality? �f• f- aeration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwarers, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interferenLa with an aquifer?' Quality? Quantity? ' h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? I I. Exposure or people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _ f 3. Air Quality. Will thi, proposal hive significant t T results iaz a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile f or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference w'.h the attainment of applicable air quality standards? e. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture ._ or temperature? i 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? f b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare -or endangered species of plants? _ Page 3 YES `ANBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area.? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? j Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results ]G in: a. Change to the characteristics of species, includiztt, diversity, distribution, or numbers of any,species of animals? i^ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique', rare or endangeit_d species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ✓ d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? v - 5. Poaulat on. 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? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ✓ 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in bcal or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property 9 values? 1. b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the Present or. planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives policies, or adopted plans of any government;-) entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of j existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? G-�� _ VW✓✓ Page 4 YES ;NYSE NO 8. Transvortation. Will the proposal have significant r results in: qF a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new stt,gt construction? r C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? r e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or / air traffic? ✓ g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? V 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. Safetv and Nuisance Factor. Will the proposal have significant results a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health th 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? e f. Exposure ofpeople to potentially dangerous noise levels? - �f g. The creation of objectionable odors?' h. An increase in light or glare? „LL Page 5 YES `_GYBE NC 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have its in.: significant resu a. The obstruction or degradation of ny scenic vista or view? 4 �+ b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive v site? ,n c. A conflict with the objective of designated }✓ or potential scenic corridors? — 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? /• b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? 4 �— e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control I�tructures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? V i. Police protection? /r ' J. Schools? V—/ k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 7• Maintenance of public facilities, including �G roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have-- -sgnificant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase-in demand upon existing �_ ! sources of Energy? b/ AOL c. An increase in the demand for Aevelopment of v IWO sources of energy? ' d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption t/ of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are.Available? G- kR Page 6. YES MAYBE No e, Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce-natural resource? v 14. Mandatory Fi_ n! dinrzs off 4cance. a. Does the project have thy; e,,czntial 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 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? b. Does the project have the potential it achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of Ion, sera,. environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one Which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- ,/ t "m imPWA, will endure well into the future). V c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an Individual project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, and probable; future projects). d. Does :.he project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly er indirectly? ��S/// Ti. DISCUSSION OF EIvMIRO.NHENTAL EVALUATION (I, e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). l i Cam- Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 17 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a Significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant affect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached meet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPARED. (—� A_find the proposed project LAY have a significant effect on the L� eavirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Title ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY, PART II CUP SS-33 2. Hydrology (b.?. The construction of this project will increase the amount of paved surf-.cc area which could result in an increase in the amount of sui—ace water runoff and a decrease in the absorption rates. Hw.ever, the proposed drainage system for this project wil` handle this increase. 4. Biota (a), (b) and (c) The development of this 'project will result in the removal of Eucalyptus windrows along Haven Avenue. However, the development of this project required the {darting of new trees at the rate of 1 tree per 3 parking spaces; 1 'tree per 30 linear feet frontage; 1 tree per 20 linear feet of street frontage, and 10% of the entire parking area to be landscaped. T'-refore, the City's landscaping requirements for this project will result in adding a variety of plant species to the site. 6. Socio-Economic Factors (a) The development of this project will increase the commercial diversity, 4ax rate and property values. 8. Transportation (a) The development of this project will cause an increase in vehicular traffic; however, Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard being a major special boulevard are designed to handle such an increase. l i d ' a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 85-37 FOR A MASTER PLAN SHOPPING CEN 'ER AND PHASE I DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A BOWLING CENTER AND RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQUARE FEET NORTH OF FOOTHILL IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 20th day of November, 198F, a complete application was filed by Brunswick Corp. for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of Pacember, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create,-adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on December 11, 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85-37 is approved subject to the following conditions; PLANNING DIVISION 1. The master plan for the shopping center is approved in concept only, and future development of subsequent phases- - shall be Subject to Development Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the master plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approvai. 2. The loading are.. the proposed restaurant building shall be provided at the southwest corner of the site away from Haven Avenue. C -a3 Resolution No. CUP 85-37 Brunswick December 11, '1985 Page 91 3'. Building B shall be moved up to the 45 foot landscape setback area along Haven Avenue.' 4. A continuous pedestrian walkway shall be provided to the main project entrance in order to create a major entrance statement, improve circulation and provide a stronger, more direct pedestrian link from Haven Avenue. Detail plans shall be included with Phase I development. 5. The proposed texturized pavement for all pedestrian walkways and connections within the shopping center shall be of brick" pavers. Material sample shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 6. At 'least one pedestrian walkway shall be provided to the south to connect to the Virginia Dare Shopping Center. All plaza areas within the shopping center shall be provided with pedestrian amenities such as shaded seating areas, kiosks, benches, trash receptacles, attractive landscaping such as box planters or potted annuals, and other landscaping. 7. Any fence proposed along the southern property boundary, to identify the two shopping centers, shall be jointly developed between the applicant and the southerly developer and shall bc• of wrought iron material. Detail plans shall be inclu(ljd in the landscape and irrigation plan to be submitted to the Planning Division for' review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. I 8. -Texturzied pavement, such as brick pavers, shall be provided at the two driveway entrances along Haven Paenue as shown in Exhibit "c". f 9. The proposed redwood lattice work shall be changed ,to contemporary glass block ;iaterial. 16. All building elevations facing the Deer Creek trail shall be upgraded with architectural and ornamental details to create visual interest and variety. Detailed pian3 shall be submitted for Design Review Committee review and I� approval prior to submitting for plan check process. I 11. The height of circular arbors and the tower structures shall be extended to break up the long horizontal roof ` line. Revised plans shall be submitted for Design Review I Committee review and approval prior to submitting for plan check process. Resolution No. CUP 85-37 - Brunswick Oecember 11, 1985 Page 3 12. Architectural details and ornamental details shall be added to the lion band area. Detailed; plans shall be submitted for Desir,i Review Committee review and approval prior to submitting for plan check process. 13. A minimum five-foot planter is required along the west side of retail A to provide adequate width for planting. 14. A minimum ten-foot planter shall be required along the northwest side of Retail Building C '�acause of visibility from Haven Avenue. 15. LA Tree Removal Permit shall be submitted for review and approval pursuant to Ordinance 37. 16. New windrows of 5-gallon,size Eucalyptus Maculata at 8 feet on center shall be provided along the length of the westerly property boundary. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Existing overhead utilities fronting the project on Haven Avenue shall be 'placed underground prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Time extension may be granted by agreements with the City En3ineer and the City Attorney. 2. An easement to provide access to the southerly 4 operty as shown on the site plan shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits or prior to recordation of the parcel map, whichever occurs first. Written approval for location shall be obtained from property owner to the south. 3. Dual left turn lanes into the south driveway shall be provided. Additional dedication of two-feet shall be required. 4. Right turn lanes into both lanes shall be provided. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHD CUCAMONGA BY: •Dennis L. Stout, Chairman Aft ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary C-as Resolution No. CUP 95-37 - Brunswick December 11, 1985 Page 4 I,, Brad Buller, Deputy Secrptary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly. introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; l G-ae rl a udi...�.0 A d O A .-- p 6cud0 UL 6. Y^oE E O� Y a x d n O Q U y b 1 p a oL u n o.T S. G C O y O d o A O c E d G d fi N Y C Oudo dYV9n A L Opp N.d c.Uy � ^ T Z dE SON x9� AOa fY� d 0Ug 1^ E 6 N E C CC y A x V au d'c A p d A L E p E CYy W d P O d6'a d E.d.14 �tL �E qup 3 EGr o' ,cpr x x G O o u 0 Y C O V.. d Y L y y .o Z. c a yE LL>O'EE LL 9> E VP_n L yT a O TZ n. CU6F o d TECH C'p1 d o A C d 6 C C. NN9 OQ dy N.�. yL Gr.d E yq d q O 6.p O L T N.. C 06M ZK r 1:p, .' d o+ O •E N 5 E ,y.,. M 1 y A d y AO LY up N 6LOdpY L U. c D d6 y d U y .O O Y Y d E O �..y u d L p O�Y x" xy E N p. O d..-y n 'r COi �C c G. dZ: d.^ N�d M'3 b. N Ah - C9 a M9 Y1.0 J E o cE E O ' 'er EL n' �+ O o n E.y i Lc u uA I p,r. lV uq u GE OL 6 x uu�d O 1 cp.y d cN and E. O rrfd. d M= d�dypL S \ A d ' i V r d O c Oa d E G C a api � jd G A O C Otd4 p AILy rn E a y d d O c� L pcja�q 6 NY nn L N f,. U• F QF. J N AI Q if1 i Qua\\ M < J F 4 '� _ 9 rOL C C4 1 Cd Omo�NOa:C awl]LC9i.pro G p.n ro Yup dU� 22 N u E E O uro o Hal A F F N N 6 a p t N �L 'O F uO od.m e q V Od.G so °1 Eu oq ev d4o v..;Odd a dcp ne ac.Epp pa�� L.oq oo•er.�ow LL v r�6L vN d =X O C a ��.UnN �0 E OL �N 1 Yy u ULy¢ En �n N .p9�.N NFU •o L y Ub �; x b4c� $�.. Cd OY4 dx.0 Ed^ , E qcEE CAN T 6Ll Ay ro N N T.d 9 Od ♦.. C. A.0 O d L OT Lr ^G C M C 6 dd^u. . e Gu i A Z efro Y^ v O r U wE JVc t Hm O. O•N L C L CI 0 a g GE C C L p N N' u^ d N 0 U E n Oa Elo. L.L . Gq~g^ Oq a.um a3 NdaO II'u .cr qL.n dA. O LN N d t �O: dOIC�C.Y pO GOa L r q.• OC. ' TdNW EOdro� YpL,= dg>.0 d x��u� Cdy un 9pSAL T.N �U p T O c >—.Ft at 4 E Ld Zyn NqE Pdv L. �.0. wy oto d. y' 9 d q O O .--is G K G U A C F C U t^i U YTS 2 Q EY66 CNYY N�NaTiL,2NdU G 6♦.aSn NpciM+C•6 W ]: CC QLL--a V1O.0 " Lr; Is G IM c�co �` or c^ a�' � gym: a vaNyv ov od eaN ei«r: �. qv u.. .p«i�ee •- �. A d a rL• 4a .n yap e,ro .o«nL N s Gq v o yd.�cMN o s dudo.^- i LO4Y- yN aOw N dx c d ENa�Oyb= MTL. ��7 OT O,O.�p dtN..TN pAE u0 S NX.e a.L EUC cON 'e=�OCV rf �Cr d OQaA Nd0 f..l.L +O Ea....C p�r^- O 4pad MNEN t� r ` 1.�U rn ay t yu d rtz N`�r roY Y t• C �-> U' d U n' N L �Y L E G^j 0 � N d �A>u N 76'y O aT YO �aW. F.d O.OU. r �ro aN O. L do. Z. uq s °' Ap vc -n. qy s qa N13 xge i o 9-0o .V Ov mO 9V'F' cu 6 q G 'dp O O.a�9C v d $ Div G o E 'oa e rH=' to nN d d o. >m c� q vu pv�n c.e crL~Hd tdcq rACvN A9v qNd- "yp aYn L.rNwL N� 0.uC w�CL.TG+n qp.o�- N'�r.- cetaL'IN EcE O LO g ^� o K was' -79 y a�.a ca w•� u p Yu Ux CZ 00' H C NY d. OF _ p: TEE a ni v .�2 .`o " ro d q"o~.n a o'....=p ,,..o. O y @@O.O. N D O• = dv4 3q.K., �L� L..�. �p L 'p r ui.O nCIAYO. ddnA. du> ED do nt fl N6 1�.0 NO 4. '6^-N.a yqq at.Y Juy 6d AM P1+� huYN.fq t�rC+s 60p a uL CO au �Y O OO.d •�Tq.� YZ C•d EL o O ^L a O•d q 900 p~ TJ C aE•,,, �� O of do T p�T a da 0 L � q N 2dd 45 VC 9 E N d o N 7 �• O 4 O O C^O L A a d.� a q a9 .3a m o a �cq I o Qd2 ua o L c 9 u o E aTi�. C q•N Cp. Z NpCN O•a E zd '"oq x .q d� L a.ido n f..l N I .�� U•C 6 O N T u M IIIIII eee^aaaiiix o d. a d d m a n BYO. ww T t N u E N C q E rda Eu Ltd+u _ nE N N g N <N^ 6\M Z•'O F•M t 6 N.Y Oa M 6 P 'G q 4 Y :tom O m p w Ot i • v d d u a d d e m a p n ^ C d d oa c a d a.c do n .-. q c u �^N. ' o 'at aN q N.,. a A p o N_. y p .dc ni.L o•.a ��•c^ 6 T' q q •� +� U U N p C N >'0. a_ > N. qp LY+nC rd6. d N 4' y L •r M • =A L Ot'y R� UTOO Ott C q a p d y y C N n d 0 • 66C L.E.L� N E E> L CN�. q L~ lol tll.. �. �.L pL9 dyg0 A N Y= t C aL+ •moo'44 C'N.p CVN� Nu o a oa: po w.o.-- nN S.d 'off Wit'. aLoq ,pie n$m� _.i uo �ty C q Gc. Y Nr� dO ed E q� 6T tO.rn ALL. 'Y Que� a9i.o Ew Y ND U.. ytN O q C C L p Tq •^yam qy n YEa L E'. CV V d� 3 tJ C L.M M Nu +••�L O tx d6 nd L QMu�i O 44Y-ta Y Q4N F�Gh ^ ..� oci T..>.� V^..p•� �.aYid9.aL V Q y r 6 N+•q q O p •� mI ��� e ��I >I QI NI �I ..t �I�N . C -aa W a p Y n- v ca «c y�V Ca d y NE.O.r. FEZ V�.NF O W OjG =MAW^ O N a ki V� Gn3 N W Y.n Cy Cn L'%b OId 2-2 x L UC.O V LG YI t N 1- .Y.b q Cu w t. .O N.^..L VNC Ous nd qL.0 U r�G~ Vqq NrLi�«E GC wy^ a. mEW � =E C �VV �py00 u u ..rp LK�wd Ov.�Y v Oa LCG C OC dIN. Y =ioi yOY nC.�uN ^ Ebal G pA O N T sV1i w. d . u ^Na— 6Y.+4� N ¢ YOY VyNdN YnAaY N bCl n. 1tl0 siz ov N.EY U NF�Y oa�Eo „ ad lunLEd U .a F O� O a J y� O OO.b �W d JCC>�y V d v1 Nn •d, b O O O q py0 G L^. d 6Ed LY�O L^ L 6 ^ E b9 � ^ au bL + 6 A W � Gd••• H CCN 1-�6>� SLY.V16 Yq F-U4L 606aWN 6+.mWpL Yd. \ HI G S ^ �.ca �n Diu �Nv vbo a`o i.e. eb cac ICI u'^ a L _ V nq O. = G �..o• V.. NVL YU Q�N 'OYC. � dLL a NY.d ^ Y•c� y Nr O^p ^n. oc� Yy NWa bcc N..0 nOL 2 O. PO Lvy � a C6 Ob V R ` ! C C � d. a0 u^n Ea �u nL • 44.dN. P QL O q Y D•u S. �Nq �9. oY E �y0 5.V ENN .� LN � �Lcd dN ^.a dy Vc LdC. N b. i N o -2 nN yw OC LOY! zSC ONnY N a� Ya N� .. S9� O. N E 3 N r L q.0 6W d a o« L.QC TO Y ^ aWu .,o r V 1^Na O.bG by C itl L ^o ~ C'VO ^9 �C� d C N Y b 6 F Y O E E hT.a� S6m� OY U UYi� IS L}IS �EY YMp 4 d 0079 9G GO Np.d u v M Oa.0- r•O cu r aE L dtr. C O.. q^ dC OIL NJ.``L y O Q dqmu O-Z 0 9rn { E O.0 d d C N '� T.:• .i w d.' N pp y N t u CE k 4' f n L. r and L rG w m� u ZN o C �^ ONNO LY OE~ C V y EdT.gb d u d E y N q L Y. O y 100 wo Ld^v ad,,, cl d. wT E.aL+ a=aq. EI'e W°dE' c ti N�1. dy A dw O A d9ru.R. uu v o a rq ^ L > d Lo N cL cc� di A p�r „0J od c gydad oo T LLOL Y. <OYYO FTbdq a •`.� 4�C a e S O CI > C OO�W O YO. yn toT4 <N COpL 6Vw NO b ri. LC lu ev c a c a c a q � •. y. L EE o a EO 99E L��.da CnY J C ',6 S A6 pylC yy, W9 �C � dq L w0. Va N VGdC. da CC p N�9 rrAA 5 EN 4 G AO ua E uOH 'C yt;d ��Cy M y d G µ^ Qu C. C1 p O 9 q y Q O,d ^ ^ qa q y a q Ya pl E O Ou NG no M L `N.o �a Ny a N u d �• N.v N uy m D'u dN dG GL a z d E N q b a L o a+ � G u p c oNlce w LL d.^ q L sLdN. ao ym u N E a nr a AO C c6 u n dg6�OI. F�.0 O.p. 9uC d.� VcY ` yE nN >GOB M ^q o-u ^L O due0 tOIO Oly O E OOi .q d. Yr C Y i. Tlq nORL.NAft d dy 'd aE u� EE ON O N do2.: H ndv OTIa3 CE nd y�u� N'N `q 00 4q A NV9N� KA9> E! C On•� 4 VN wt _ C bCw ,,.CCW ' WNO WYY �6, L'1�62 <u EO <OIY I•"O ! q � y N 1n f. e N�N. A•1 Q MI �O NO Y J." m O oq L a«'u to o n uG M-n •_ . _ �[ i 44 vu m L Z as`p; g � >P„Z ` C � �: q�U p C L o• NO C `q L xQ9y Y d n=a c �c'o cco E' v•r �drn« q `� c I .n � oi. i co cW ai i L CW 6�a OIq. 6_c z � i Iq JU ipLL� iN��EE Ci.J.�.� Wy Ox C M 0�9a0U L. ^� i • k �•�...:L qtx r ^u .� N.V Y., a 0 i u Y E c EE a0� Lp' a dq0 ECE E NK Cm Edd nq\T. pCii b� Cm iy p�^ .O CC y,.. 6� LA dq•Ltl qy YY �a >+�c � . Y �qj YL. U Ou � � QV\\\.� iLtJ SO IJ9 6 •r0 f � � 0 - 'a dT L GL N « E vY•• a q C L 6 • 6 O ' 1" mo du•^. c� Fm v1°C.r x L nrt. My o t CD .. ad �� at � .' E O6 u �•.. G L uq �iu „ .JI�• E E yo c ^Ca ^y 4 CJ �' O c. CF 1 ~ y . � q0 O ^ S •^ C ycq^. q .r Z. > O>1 Q •n O c ��L 6q QCI WT l tJ.ggxC 6 L. U^ c n Ltr •,• al riI NI "1 W u f C 1 F i _3 r' • da d01 � � Qv dG A O ' q Cam... • • O� -GO 'u u w N A C 4Jcu u.- f9. N ud d.N n n� apLi � oe =u i� ^apd 'c doEe iu AO CL 79 A O �6 yJ O10 O« • O.0 �'W dUa A GY Oy dt ��c c=:� �• pFrn e A `^y' n+' B�. .o^ dm A f.L p.C �. O O aL 6M� OOuO• 6 » C O� N 1V6 Q6 F`^ 6: B I'I O 0. 1 n N I.w10 W O N p .• _ ...O L= d u C 4 � L O • � A' N N " d W d O ^ AVN N 9d N� L.�O yam. N A O d p ^ A L ~> d� and p Aa ov $ .O- u '� ` Ntle C� p8 1?�I N CYC L •d- 0. L oe O MA Amu 4T LQ � A C y Bo `v 0.39 c c �. COQ ` StL F � d N� C. 'a � !• Q n w vdn N d d. p' YOn L 1.x d a L u 0.uLi ul .o C O. C.O. VC At ' o �a ^e. p O nd u v �"'O C � f�.« 6:6N 6v�1 Yt0 L .+T .• d.0 i.N n.. ' A s . ♦ A L � p CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA CAntal, STAFF REPORT .c l r- w r u O a F Z U > DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13027 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 57 total lots with the development of 144 single-family homes or 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low Residential, 2-4 du/ac), located at the southwest corner of Nigh'and and Etiwanda Avenues, east of P,irth Victoria Windrows Loop - APN 227-471-01, 02, 03; 227-491-1, 2, 5. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of subdivision map for 157 lccs and approval of precise plot plan and building elevations for the development of 144 single family homes, and issuance of Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Primarily undeveloped with isolated single family homes; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. South - Primarily undeveloped with isolated single family homes; Vary Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) wif' in the Etiwanda specific Plan. East - Primarily undeveloped with isoi;s. _9 single family homes and Forest Service Station; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwanda Specific t Plana West - Single family residential homes, Windrows 1 within ,.` the Victoria Planned` Community; Low Medium Residential (4-8 A-ulac) within the Victoria Planned Commur,i ty. C. Gereral Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). ! North - Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac). South - Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac). ` - East Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac , proposed' elementary school with combined park facility. t Weit - Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). ITEM N t --. ®ter• F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 2 i D. Site Characteristics: Vacant land covered by natural shrubs And grasses and a number of mature Eucalyptus trees surviving as remnant!; of past windrow grove. Tide property slopes southward at apprexir~ ply a 3% grade. No structures or improvements current:'-.. •ist on the project site. Along Etiwanda Avenue, a ;umber of out-parcels are interwoven almg with and lie adjacent `� 's; Ntions of the project site. These out-parcels are within the mciwanda Specific Plan and contain a number of existing str;cture� including single-family residences and State property with i Forest Service Station. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: This project is being developed as Windrows 3 within the Victoria Wines ?ws Village. Th,.- site is being develoPed as Low Residentia' 1=-4 du/ac) with a density of 3.5 du/ac. The lots within tha project have a designated minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. with-the lots on Etiwanda Avenue being one-half acre lots. The project site is bordered to the north by Hichtznd Avenue and to the east by Etiwanda Avenue. Highland Avenue will eventually become a frontage road south of the Foothill Freeway. Access to the lots fronting on Etiwanda will be from Etiwanda Avenue with the remainder of the tract being accessed from either Rockrosc or North Victoria Windrows Loop. The internal street pattern has been designed with extensive use of curvilinear and cul-de-sac streets to enhance the streetscape varlui y. 4 The majority of the project (144 lots) is a continuation of "The Gardens" series featuring three floor plans: two single- story and one two-story. Floorplans range in size; from 1,400 to 1;765 sq. ft., and all floor plans provided are three- and four-bedrooms. The 13 lots fronting on Etiwanda; Avenue are being proposed as custom lots only. '*A multi-use Community Trail is being proposed along the southern and eastern perimeter of the tract and will prov;de access from North Victoria Windrows Loop to Ff.iwanda*0enue- (Exhibit, "D"). An equestrian only Community 'frail is shown from this multi-use Community Trail tc Highland Avenue along the backside of the lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue. This trail, along with the recent amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, will provide a continuous and interconnected trail system from Etiwanda, through Victoria and into the Regional Trail network. A number of existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus, remnants from past windrows, are scattered throughout portions of the project site. The City Council is currently considering a Tree PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF 4EPORT Tentative Tract 1:",027 - vim. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 3 Preservation Ordinance to address the issue of the existing Eucalyptus windrows. With recent past proposals involving existing Eucalyptus windrows, the Planning Commission has determined that the Blue Gum tree can be a serious safety concern when adjacent to residential development, and has, therefore, conditioned that the Blue Gum trees be removed and replaced W.i ,h a more compatible species. The Planning`Commission recently approved a P—imeter wall and landscaping treatment for the existing ses-ant of Highland Avenue. The Victoria Planned Community -shows as an edge condition along Highland Avenue a 20-28 foot parkway with windrow style planting. Cal Trans has rather restrictive landscaping standards; trees at macure growth tN.°t have trunks in excess of 4" caliper ire prohibit,:, The Commission set a policy to require increased parkway setback behind the right- of-way line that would allow streetscape tree planting beyond Cal Traps control would be an effective means of overcoming this restriction. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee ias reviewed the project ?nd has recommended approval in consideration of the following comments: 1. The proposed trail 'should be provided as a public Community Trail, with the east-west portion a multi- use trail and the north-south portion an equestrian- only trail. 2. The proposed trail should be extended alone firth �! Victoria Windrows Loop to connect to Victo^ a Park Lane. 3. CC & R's for the *Tact shall nct prohibit the keeping of horses for the lots fronting on ftiwanda Avenue. 4. A public easGnent shall be provided along the common property line between lots 79 and 80 to permit pedestrian access to.the Community Trail. 5, Tile roofs shall. Le used exclusively on all building elevations. These comments have been included into the Conditions of Approval. C. Technical review Committee~ Thz Technical Review Conmittee has reviewed He project andaetermined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. �E -3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 4 D. Trails Committee: The Trails Committee has reviewed the project and has approved the proposed trail alignment with the recommendation that the Etiwanda Specific Plan be amended to show a Community Trail along Etiwanda Avenue to Highland Avenue. This amendment has been implemented with the adoption of Etivanda Specific Plan Amendment 85-01. E. Enviro^mental Assessment: Part-I of the Initial Study has been Enviroted by the appp icant. Staff has completed Part; iI of the Environmental CheNlist and found no significant impacts on.the environment-as a result of this project. However, the noise study completed for the project' indicated a sound wall is required for noise attenuation for the 'lots rearing nnto Highland Avenue. In addition, the second floor of two-story units will require building features to achieve interior noise levels consistent with the City Standards. For the 13 custom lets on Etiwanda Avenue, the report specifies that sound level !ould be in excess of 65 CNEL, and that prospective buyers ;hould be notified of the fact that corrective action may be necessary. These requirements have been. incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Victoria Planned Community and the General Plan. The project will not be L detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Victoria Planned * Community, the Development Code, and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing n The Dail Re orE. newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent. to a property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATIOPI: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all. material input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached 'Re,­ *,ion and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. Res ctully su mitted, 01, Brad Buller City rlanrar 6B•BC•ns ,� , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT I T,ntative Tract 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 'IS" — Tract Map Exhibit "C" Sections Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E) Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit 'IF" Conceptual Landscape Flan Fxhibit "G" - Building Elevations initial Study, Part II �. Noise Study Figure 5-18, "!immunity Trails", Etiwanda Specific,Plan s. Figure 5-24, "L.iwanda Avenue", Etiwanda Specific Plan Figure 5-26,."Eti;.,-nda Avenue Streetscape Resoluti3n of Apprwai with Conditions ' J IA- s r , .I ! • n ❑ i,,,,+` 0+w l■ N. r[ ❑IS �1 '' v J`, C G T ' o se �•• au■w ..� Figure II!-'1 I 9 teelnm- .. � �j``•`�;:�a�:r..:.•`x'a �•::�..; -� ; A�,.. . . LAND. USE PLAN ✓0. I �` i jj%� %//! °F��//. ®^ r/i �'. RESIDENTIAL C=]VERYL0Y7ua<"ou>,ue 3G.' e.r• _� LOW,....". EaEa .Z/Xe' a x r ■ =LOW-MEDIUM.•eoml.a: �� :.. rw .r Xr y//r/9 E /1 .lei d MEDIUM Ie gra•aa / L=�� MEDIUM-HICH.Ia•asara,ac�,: f O HIGH R w.AN R e,,: �� ��� %//•//• � � r_J ASTER .ANREOUI..cU COMMERCIO.JOFFICE ®COMMERC1AL G�COMMUNITY COMMERCUiL o� p���� _�-� .�...a L,C���,_,r •r,.�;;+a. C'�NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.. - o CM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL yF s 6Z.-OFFICE h "'•� ¢ INDUSTRIAL • 3 t C.�:INDUSTRIAL PARK r I GENERAL INDUSTRIAL rr-I GENERAL INDUSTRIAL' RAIL SERVED. • MM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE • =HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL t =OPEN SPACE FLOOD CONTROL/ULIUTY'COR. SPECIAL BOULEVARD • PUBLIC FACILITIES M" EXISTING.SCHOOLS 11,M PROPOSED SCHOOLS' C_, PARKS'IEMIM p."5 qpq•� r=CIVIC.CL',MUNITY 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA!,LOHRA GENERAL PLAN- . f CITY Or . ITLG G�'C` �.drblKt e9 � PLANNING DIVLSIO:V . EtH1I3t i w SCALE:____----- �a . � •' Its h����:► ���ti��.�Inm _ W .nttttnas lft �q►w !'-/c3j ;I In Bt . Ell 3.. t I m �� 9ttY1 i I .��Ill'• / _ l .----,• III. � rJ pl -W11191��r.�.Ipp tl�llltP -- °I 111111=/y�i� l�\III�VENU �a�:y!IO�i�•ZIiP�a ��'11et1; SS ,� ►,� 1. QI! t11114M 41��11111 ~ 11 1 � 111111HL•'r„i7+�'r/�tll r � �. • ji►pin unnq 1 uJ��r •` Into;,�I;tult�;U� t��nr d.���i�� pluilu I�tn��y�!(#�P �a�p 11 IS,'-off - _ III IIUIIIIIIIINIIII IIIUInYiilllltgll)�I(4rg11111rr1 I r �°mnmm�urlm `R 4 GI/llll -- i ��t�z'�u1►�nnnrl— vgum_ �_ln - i YIII r �r, �r S4 Y I 4 la 3 � a � k i • �� .o.n„� � � ,� al 10 G �U J . i I s.vl_._ _ •,��_ 4��,..,!/ice '__�I i ter t. �r - - MM y i i U h 15 cc C.7 M Li of Z cx 0 a JM LL OF- r NOW L CI)> F- N/GnLANU AVENUE Cal f• l f, 2 d I' t ti o � r • �Ql� .t .� r•.; I� �r =• a W 0 ' _ —��++^^**11 a t• j.. t t Ip a i w `01 ri A s iatY � 1 i t p PI'llr e In woo TRACT NOR ��� SHEET 2 OF 2 um Rwwlm IN. THE CITY OF RANGNO CUCAMONGAio Is •— � TRACT NO.12Ot8 _ I7` •i la © �. sr I t /e{IH _ 'Ia,.V } O W`♦.lO �I l/% � litl • f ����'�'-` ®a --�Sat p�• I11 O '.'j +Ime.a. °' ` •.Y In ` a to L.. Y.v (` u r' C' ru O I i FXISTING < G Im ItIQ LOW DENS"4.' ---�•`/ {,t - _ — '�I. RESIOEN"AL YRACT NO•S20d5. I OI err� a L_0 =�•" O am..... am Ij, O y ,44•l n ¢ rn of 0 „ 01 ds it ribs ....r r l u} ° it COE VLIILLIAM LYON k: MPANY�.~..�..°.�..�. ..�.�...»,....r. L�; _ f8 9 !9. ® E 0 2`O' • SHZET. I OF,2 IN: THE f..TY JF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN I VICINRY MAP EARTHWORK O!I�.NTR7E3 FLL..��. �,. ".•� cm nuxo aT. 1' /�'��+•7'_�. arc Ttnoo cr. 1 ..fir' " Nlfif.fNC fy[MUF ifVNT S&M C.Y. MCYV11/•l•.• ` �•�� - LEGEND. _ w�•'�'�w • OI1^f1IM STR[ET9 �� ,oW w i I ETIVlN01 AVCNU[ :Mh`:pfa•[ V urnoN Y•r {aoaos[Jwei[i i fafTu,utwu�•o{an Ifoslfos l �� _� T'PIiAL STR4lT sECY.ONt . IICrnON•� SCCTfON•N•N• ,�• THE WILLIAM LYONJ QOM7PANYO.w..d..,f r�. � o O• QGr ti� �� CI1s� '�',�► � r 0 � ��� ayl inl•I� p°� `` ��vi�v`' gt , MCI v pY .� irl 1 e _ �y �� �•� M9 ' Iw��� �.:Lily_ y$ rj � �C! t%� '�CiD In� lip�� •4 y�tr)Zi+�'—''is' • �t � q 1±� :y Alim �. o i1r : �cl o - :. T#'1: mw )))"NVV -i - ft J! 1 M r�pr, '1•��il •= CfQ : : O -O I► E�_A�� •.►r'.1 ems••-•� •. 'yi1 �`'� yr tr „ '�1 ZIP a OFF e,F— . _ 'n a ita �'-�� 1 �) q•�� Ursa, .�S {,i Jy i/ ';iD �1 11 lug INN lie •is n;' � �� f�! JIM t�, U r� fir►1 �� �� � ' .1. A MIN iQ � 1� l V 9�c��73113Q oo m IL - I� A 1 'M J W cr , 3 r 44 yam; � 9 . 7 2 S A 1 Tf Lt IC 1 :1 �s t..._ ii■R 3 �y to a1 tL 1 Fd 1 J W 1 Y p� _ 4. a HU013AW ci L R 4 � s _ 0 1ct fit( J r tlltiQ3�fA 7 �y! a ,�4 k om A%L ELM Auk' N m3dd073A 3G �• �' } y f � LL IEF W mMt. t r, r _ • ' �� ■ � IS�11111S—�I Ilyl��ll�lill�l , ; all_ �RIP .'ti 11171111111111111111��� OWN ME '= d.lr _ �:�: .. . ,t;a:#IiNiER a i i AR,-_� y - ► � � iilillil�F HMM r3� Chi06 �, ■ i �I�" Poll Lifull ZP Ing— F o s i f' NO ice`■� c��:= zse �N� 3 asri 9111111111111111 > >_ " ■ 'z� s _ �' ����i•`�! IIIIIIIN1771111 m � + �`q ���e�� "IIIIIIIIIilillll ,{'=may ■����i�I���. Y �_.+�:� ,����� };IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' •',, �a .„� �� x.r.. �r�;'`�-N i"�';�■ ��pmunllelul ? -I w ; rt■s�s'i��'`„'`a . :I r � kk``+f rit Rai I HIM ir■�r��■'J'ti�+ _ tr lot Pit NJ ra� �'rillfiiilti!�33' a1FrlFl Ilr■ �r r ■ r, PER �137 e uu .■i �.. M5 Fe to■■ i �_all t� .1 j. C O ¢ � a a LU 1 V W 1-.a W �'7 W 1--- W G I W 1 W sG I J u WWt W W WI'.Ti N I N Ni m u~ u u u is p C W JI 1 ul tul Ji .J� riL• r a W Nil G s d r i ! W ! I W o 6 C ¢W ` Q n tl WI Y W- i W �� i J(I _ _.'SI J JI. Wi W W Wi IT t W '�r.I W " WI i G pi O % O Lu i u S: ¢ 6 bi 8 G ro � a $ _1 o a D �'� LIJ ySQ j F N E 1 ro J Wl •• \ � '\ e f W c w o lu I W I w I M -2 C7 OJ ' 1 1 � W W lu I 1 W. » s 1 Su e >:: a Ike W • i a Q --=lt_, LU I '' ll. u JIM• LU .' 4 � wv � c wmia • Z _ Omani:rmgms 111� �l��Ilii� � 'M.gym � r„�s= dt3�1111l3� r I I'. I • ac.e-=wc 4 1 IN 14 _. fool "'Ful �7�U7 �s■ �tC! If��l�r�l ZI �I.' " v +J=yak ClJilll IU �I i�jti� !Z; Me'�IIIIII t s■ .Ilr�lll�ulllm ;ksiEn :: —::.�3a fif1111111ii�IIIIC zl� ii ZS■� := �i�;� u�I�IiI11111111G 2� ■ ' � • '�� ��aalaullm� 's CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA q+ PART II - INITIAL STUDY -. EWIRONMENT?L MzrKLIST DATE: `. t�l�a4S-TL to t`� j a"PLICA:3T:_�� ILL teta ��fb�I �p, ILI-G DATE:�.r ��j� LOG NU MER: PROJECT: PROJECT 'CATION: SoUT 11.1gr� �.an��o ���IG►:C�.�..lfl +� Mitt 1.`t'C�d LZ.��,�,. I. E:1VIROMMNTAL IMPACTS f xplanatior of all "yes" and "maybe" arsaers are required on a,tached YES MAYBE NO 1. Soil_ sand GeoloeX. Will the proposal have 1 signitirant results in: a. Unstable ground cor.iitio;.Is Or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacement$,, compaction or burial of the soil? c. ,Changa in topography or g--ound st rf-'-:e contour intervals? u. The destruction, covr.;;jng or modification of any unique geologic %r physical features? •e. Any potential increasa in wind or water l erosion of soil,, affecting either on or off sire soniitons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or prnperty tki geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landsl:;des, mud- slides, ground failure, or*similar hazards? 1 h. An incre%se in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral -csource? 2. Hydrol0-F. Will the proposal have significant results in: I, Pige 2 YES MAYBE No a.. Changes in currents, or the coarse of direction Of chanaewing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream b. Changes in absorption rates, erainage patterns, or fine rate and amount runoff? of surface water Alterations to the course or ,'Iow of flood eaters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in anv body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water gjality? t. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? — g• ChzInge in the quantity of groundwarers, J� either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? . Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount o:' water other- wise available for public wag,r supplies? 1. Exposure of people or property to water - --+ related hazards such as flood..iag or seiches? 3, Air Quality, 1t-21 the proposal hare, significant results in: a, Constant or periodic air emissons from mobile or indirect s ,rces? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air gnality and/or 1 interference wit:1 the attainment of applicable air quality standards? _ c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, afrocting air movement, moisture Or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal Mha•e significant results in: I. :hange 'in the ch• ateristics of species, Including diversity, distributio�i, or numbe+ of any species of plants? b• Reduction .of the numbers of any t ni ue -or endangered species of plants? q��:are 07 1 0 1� .1�8 P C-,, A hC�c� Pk kke`* �� ��� Page 3 YES 'LaYBE 1;,0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive specit, of Ah Plants into an area? d. Reduction in thA potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal*have significant results in: a. Change :in :he characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or mo'�ement of animals? c. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Wi ll the proposal have sigt.yli:cant resul ts in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or gru�sth rat ♦ of the huma n o ul p p ation of an area.� I b. Will the proposal affect exist �••existing ..musing, or create a demand for additional housii .? b. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: _ a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tart payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or. planned land use of an areal b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adapted plans of any governmental. entities? C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? kA-3 b Page,4 AMk YES MYBE No 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results-in? a. GeneraCi7n of substantial additional.-vehicu.. : movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street Construction? —_ cs Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing cransporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to ?�r effF ,ts-on present and Potential water-borne rail, mass transit or air traffic? g• Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resourctis. Will the proposal have significant results in: a• A disturbance to ' le integrity of archaeological, paleontological, aid/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have 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 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? w e. Increase in existing noise .levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous - noise levels? 00 g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? 1Page S Y�S N'.kYnE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista. or view? -�— b- The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c• A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant_need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? ' b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d'. Water supply? s e. Wastewater facilities? — f. Flood control structures? s g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection. O J. Schools? k• Parks or other recreational facilities? v 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? �. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of sub-tantial or excessive fuel or energy?' b. Substantial increase'in demand upon existing sources of energy? o C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumpticn of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable,sources of energy are.available?' Page,6 YES �! BE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarca natures, resource? 14. Mandatory Findines of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, Substantially re,;uze the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife pop;lation to drop below self sustaining level-, threaten to aliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the nu;.,ber or restrict the range of a rare or endzirge;tled plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California histu or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the di-advantage of long-tez-m, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relat ively v_ ti e brie., definitive period of time while long- lY ::= impacts will endure well into th,,a future). C. Does the project have impacts which a.le individually limited, but cumulativel�i c"si:erable? (Cumulatively consider,ble y means that the incremental effects of an (' individual project are considerabl._ 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 beings, either directly or iudirectly? I`;. DISCUSSION OF ENC'IRONME\TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above quest-ins plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 4a2,b A a,- VA*%a R�.r,ov¢ca> Wd-cti1 'Ca��'ar� ' uss�: p `ztGaSt�tGAa.1T t'?o�� selar IS.oppr t.lse.c_ -m t.tp-@+�,Jt3.�-tigJ� 1.t ��5�a�.4;.xz i.j«wn may z.,�-r ,..E -say��rUeeae-�°� o.r�Q. .lP�t.►c. mac. 3yt c S'Ct�tG ot"t;"gLO L45- OrQ4 ? "C%V- •��)c C/s p.�t.G ��a3 c t tas� 1.E+. Page 7 tt III. DETER`IaAT;pN 1 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the .Proposed-project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIO%l will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect an the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPAFED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIROMENT I:IPACL 2EPORT is required. Date �� 'C •. -= rt% Signature r tle 1 { 85/355 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES Ts i1LTING .4CQUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS ' August 5, 1985 MR. STEVEN FORD THE WILLIAM LYON COMQANY 8540 Archibalri Avenue, Ste.. B. Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF WALL REQUIREMENTS ALONG. ETIWANDA -- TRACT 13027 -- RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr. Ford:• In Report 85i261 prepared for Tract 13027, reference was Ar made to a six foot (6') wall along Etiwanda contingent on the 'exact development of these custom lots. We are now informed that access will be taken from Etiwanda in all cases for these lots,. This will result in the front yards - facing Etiwanda and the rear, yards being set on the west side of the lots. The house will shield the rear yards from Etiwanda. 'This fact, in general, removes the requirement for the six foot (61). wall. However, an particular Gases, some sound wall may '-�e needed for a portion of the rear yard, which depands on the exact house positioning. Therefore, we are revisinru our recommendation to eliminate the requirement for any wall at the Etiwanda east property line. However, we retain the recommendation that the lot buyers be informed that they will need to secure an acoustical analysis on their lots prior to issuance of a Building Permit to insure r t 1621 East Seventeenth Street,Suite K ® Santa Ana,California92701 a Phone(714)835-0249 \A -3 MR. STEVEN FORD August 5,._1983 THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY Page 2 conformance with City requirements, since the noise levels do exceed City Guidelines and some mitigation will be required. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do of hesitate to call. Prepared by: Gord n Bricken President AWL Yc-3� r , _GORDON 13R@CKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ,ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS } May 31, 1985 RECEIVED AN 7 1985 THE WILLIAM LYON CO. San Bernardino County Division A C 0 U S. T-I CAL A'NALY S I S T E N T A T I V E T R A C T 1 3 0 2 7 s- C I T Y_ _O g_ _R A N C _H: 0 C U _C A M O N G A f U Z. Prepared by; Prepared for: Gordo rcksn MR. STEVEN FORD President THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY r 8540 Archibald Avenue, Ste. B Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 - 1621 .EastSeventeenthStreet,SuiteK • Santa Ana,California92701 ® Phone(7'!4)83$-0249 O GORDON ERICKEN & ASSOC' I,AI" CONSULTING' ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEcR�S� S U M M A R Y An analysis has been performed on Tentative Tract 13027 it the City of Rancho Cucamonga to determine design features necessary to control noise to meet the requirements of the City of eancho Cucamonga. The proposed elements are summarized below: (1) SOUND WALLS Sound walls are required along +hland. The wall heights of the affected Lots and top-of- wall elevations are listed in Table 7. Wall location is 19 to 23 feet inside the ::urb-line at street grade. AML j Sound walls will also be required along Etiwanda. However, these Lots are custom lots and no i site designs are available. The Tract Map should notice future buyers that a six foot (61) sound wall may be required to comply i City Standards and all site designs should be conditioned with an acoustical analysis requirement. (2) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR SOUND WALLS Wall may be constructed of masonry block or other masonry material. They must fully enclosed the rear yards and have no openings except drain holes. (3) BUILDING FEATURES The second floor bedrooms #2 and #3 of Plan 3 p should use dual glazing. 1621 East Seventeenth Street,Suite o Santa Ana,California927Q1 o Phone(714)8350249 t i n (4) VENTILATION, Air conditioning or a ventilations system, as listed in Appendix 5 should be used on Lots 1 to 28 and Lot 144. Aft 1 -39 24IHr .�_—.�.. �• ___�_ • •worow•1•aeocw.wye�Sleo��oMMosow°�/ a Nuasai�t[a�i na.e .m.alz .auuu aUa. NiMtON•No•Mr1•oa•a�•�w�r¢•°r i-----�+ ��!��eiMM•MM••srsro•Mc••oog•arerNMrr•oaiiaM �• � e°. a1; • 'L7 • i 1 • o ° (` Ml+oew�eoe•e—�woasooa.MOMooaovoyr.+e—"'' ,<�••'� {�ou►••s••ewe�M.4.w•wea�esMMa I So•ys° w _�' . S ROUTE 3cm o / HIGHLAND AYE �""�'� • f. 4`i • /j AflK LA FaA •4� 1 ORIA AYE. ./ n �I easws•• � IR RRMMaas�a••rwo••[seM�oM °��.a•�•�� 4 / e.r.ser Equestrian Traits vE ,�•.� Bike- Lane(in pavojnans) r� ,• Bike Path Gin Parkway) F007HLL1 BLYU.�,... jj 3 of i ARAOW MVY�. •.� f I'� �:� fig.Ure1 ICOMMUNITY TRAILS ' � .3p Y' i -IAD Y: } Xl �lf78` wpe-r f.�leG.are-me> ` t tYe� � Palrns e�+yhns:' Informal s7Yaw� -Mnix cooaei mil= informal /0�0 111 t•SCR;.— / � tree.mix / G.,�Da Gnros� W 1 r� b7'G4T(dl W t,!37JI4-nllttS 'F 4f3'a,r6-'fc•cu(6Wd{h 16• 8• Ea. ,j Mt ' BROW �3 ♦�l SG��kS rejuired •,ps y 6(] ANIDQ AVENUE reR uire4 North of SPRR/south of Summit FIG. 5-2 ae1s�1 Irifarmaj Supp�emen S1�koak5 normal a `� Plent Ih a rpe mix Ty ps 4D Y /cu f rb r E 1 s eclal tect :ks re juir 's -al s4backs *��p c p ^ ACNUC � re lr , North of'Baseline 1 South of SF AR FIG. 5-2 Informal 1p�I.`an�tnSs, - rce Type ¢o • �t � � �, '� a as��� `� � A" ,� b .09 � ,: 'tea �a, e \� �'' •3 MIA rail,n par + + t L Rr.�k Curb street}roes;varies 2" per crate {tons s.. Concept for ETIV' ANDA AVENUE STREETSCAPE Planting Guidelines '• >t Street trees(in pu6itc ROW):per tree schedule Frronf yarn!trees: informal mix type er 1).( radon Plat7a,�Mon"l fine) 1 free min./ o'of rc rl ze all 21herfr e shad►be lis c-al.min. 1=rcnn}y�rd 1 eh�scapine g'rla(l be supplememtcd 6y approprla.-e s6rulDs t{ rau 1 - a FIG. -2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13027 AND DESIGN REVIEW' WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13027 hereinafter "Map" submitted by The William Lyon Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described: as a residential subdivision of 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community ('Low Residential, 2-4 du/ac), located on the, southwest corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues, east of North Victoria Winu:ows Loop - APN 227-471-01, 02, 03; 227-491-1, 2, 5 into 157 lots, regularly came before the 'fanning Commission for public hearing and action on December 11, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 13027 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative trat., is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract '.s consistent with the General Plan, Development Co%e, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design, of the subdivision is not likely to cause P- substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; {e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public 'health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflct with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. -�3 1 Resolution No. TT 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. Page (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13027 a copy of which is attached hereto, is hhereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: DEJIGN REVIEW: l 1. Each lot within the project. shall have a minimum flat (2% slope or less) rear yard open area from building to property line, or slopelretaining wall of 15 feet. A final detailed site plan which indicates the slope and retaining wall locations and , unit plotting shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Street facing side elevations on corner ltts and tt.e second s'.)ry o: rear elevations exposed to puLiic View shall be upgrar.,l with additional wood trim, veneer siding, or plant-ons where appropriate. Wood surrounds shall be provided.on street facing side windows which are in front of the side yard return fencing. Construction details shall be indicated on the w,,rH ng drawings (including specific lot numbers). 3. Corner side yard fencing -nd/or retaining walls shall be set back a minimum distance of five (5) feet from the back of sidewalks. All retaining walls exposed to public view shall be -constructed of decorative block, and all wood fencing installed by the developer shall be treated with water sealant or stain. 4. For all corner lots, the side yard between the sidewalk and the side yard fencing shall be landscaped. 5. All roofing material within the project shall be tile material. 6. ` Prior 'to the issuance of building permits, a report stating that the recommended acoustical mitigation measures to achieve required interior noise standards have been implemented, shall be submitted to the Planning Division, and the building plans shall be so certified by an acoustical engineer. Prospective buyers of the 13 lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue (Lots 145-157), shall be notified prior to sale, that these lots may require noise mitigation. Documenttion or said notice shall be provided to the City`V anning Division. Resol-ition TT 13C27 - Wm» Lyon Co. Page 3 7. The existir!^, blue Gum Eucalyptus windrows within the project site shall be removed and replaced by t? Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum). These trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon in size, planted a minimum of 8 feet on center, properly staked and irrigated. A Master Plan of trees shall be provided and a tree permit approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Details of new windrow planting shall be included in the final landscape/irrigation plans. 8. Design details of all retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approval ;.m the Planning nivision prior to approval of the final gracing plan. Maximum wall height including retaining walls and screened fencing shall be nine (9) feet, with screened fencing to be a minimum of five (5) feet high. Where this standard would be exceeded, graded slopess and/or terraced retaining wall shall be required with a r,inimum horizontal s�_,,aration of five (5) feet. 9. Landscape treatments at the end of side-on cul-de-sacs shall be designed to provide open view into the interior of the cul-de-sac. Design treatment shall include sidewalk connections from the sidewalk to the perimeter street. 10. A six fool high masonry wall shall be provided along Highland t . a consistent with the approved wall design for Highi +l,inue, and a six foot high masonry wall shall be t,, along the backside of all lots rearing onto the north . I west sides of the Community Trail. The - Highland Avenue wall shall be staggered and off-sat to increase the visual interest. Construction details of all perimeter wall treatment shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Maintenance easements may be required where perimeter wa:l encroaches onto private lots, 11. The six (6) foot perimeter wall on Highland Avenue shall set back a minimum distance behind the Highland Avenue I right-of-wiy beyond the CalTrans limits of Jurisdiction to 1 ensure adequate area to landscape the Highland Avenue streetscape with a windrow style of planting consistent with the designatd design standards of the Victoria Planned Community. 12. Prospective buyers of the custom lots on Etiwanda Avenue shall be advised prior to sale that these lots would be a subject to the design requirements of the Etiwanda Avem!o Overlay District of the Etiwanda Specific Plfn. 1-;-�5 1 Resolution No. TT 13027 Wm. Lyon Co. Page 4 V 13. The Community Trail system shall be full-i improved by the n' developer, including bicycle path and t, estrian trail. 1r Landscaping and irrigation shall be include(. Landscaping 1e shall include canopy shade trees, shrubs, and ground '•` cover. Details shall be included in the final landscape/irrigation plans and shall be submitted for p review and approval of the Trails Committee prior to the lu issuapr • of building permits. t: 14. The , .,dosed trail shall be provided as a public Con;nunity th ".:rail, with the east-west portion a multi-use trail and lu; the north-south portion an equestrian-only trail with appropriate improvements. 15. The proposed trail shall be extended along North Victoria Windrows Loop to co;:nnct to Victoria Park Lane. 16. A public easement shall be provided along the common property line along Lots 79 and 80 to permit pedestrian ie_ access to the Community Trail. The easement shall be �pw fully developed with sidewalk, landscaping, low level fc lighting and fencing. 17. CC & R's for the trace: shall not prohibit the keeping of horses on the lots that front on Etiwanda Avenue. ip 18. The Highland/Etiwanda intersection is designated as a "Minor Community Entry" by the Victoria Planned Community s and shall. be designed to the appropriate standards as designated by the Victoria Planned Community. nu 19. Etiwanda Avenue shall be developed consistent with the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan per Figures 5-18, 5-24, and 5-26 of the Specific-Plan. Street trees shall tr be planted by the developer at the time of street improvements. ENGINEERING 1. Developer shall install stcrm drain system "HII Through "H- S" of the Master Plan of Storm Drain for Victoria Planned Community. 2. Storm drainage fees for the lots along Etiwanda Avenue shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 3. Developer shall provide a drainage easement between. Lots 8 ' and 9 for overflow protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution No. TT 13027 Wm. Lyon Co. Page 5 4. Highland Avenue shall be designed to retain the "SUMP" of the existing drainage inlet to the satisfaction of Cal Trans and the City Engineer. 5. Developer shall provide the minimum grading revisions to the lots adjacent to Highland Avenue to the satisfaction ' ov' Cal Trans and the City Engineer. 6. Developer shall design the curve on Hignland Avenue to a radius of 3,000 feet tr the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Existing rock curb and gutter along Etiwanda Avenue shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the 'City Engineer. 3. The applicant shall pay prior to issuance of a building permit a fez in lieu of undergrounding overhead utilities fronting Highland Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. Said fee as estatlished by City Council Resolution shall be held fer s:,ntribution to future undergrounding of the facilities on the opposite side of the street. AM APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f _ BY::Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: �. Brad Buller, deputy Secretary 1, Brad Buller, 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 adopters by the Planning Commission of the �+ City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held G on the 11th day of December, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: f .AYES: COMMISSIONERSc NOES: COMMISSIONERS: - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 4 O C.L u�r L d V aY Oq . - NaO L CzQrTUF ^grY . .O L>.".adi .q aCGu=a. q ppE E Oq U9 d q G E N W 4y d0 LW � aN �.c mo •^, a�&r c C q O M L V 0 ♦O: dnan uu..0. r Y C � N Z tE Nq b0 u O A Nd .tea.... I Oa O V A 2 L U dui y d Y C p 0 O d V r L 6 C •i p toy yw E. 2y0 at O. E q-gVO SLR EE N^ O,u O m C L yr. c a N S Y N G Ot q T d 0 C^ N> L O.vd4i E y. E LOLC dV. -9-- - p N € dS O ^q N a dANMN C .4C0 b :'p. b. 4 CqG W Y TQCM b.E yrO. .'Y^ O O.O VLOL..VM �p.dT�. 6Q� OtC� L� a.cd> 4 O�r'Nr Y. 4�� UV..p wp ^T G rOEE V_ aG cC 'AydC N C.yV NN n�. WW. E C a O c Ot 0 o Q y rn O c E �^ y A d ! O� 311 C C 0�y Sr EJ L~� NL p L Vc N 'yiT 1 6 VA69I VA25 oIOCy N. dy 6N�du 3. 40Am. HL pL 4U Y1! 1: �I r Y2 ZE—.2 .a y Oo ED•gN � a ouEU O EE ILL N Y > Or E 9 C d •� _.. c p. o y u u+w n Lq t ao. d� � Yd�od i z _ m a yd cy s °i , o ti caN+ mpo"^q O Cl a N N k Y EE E L O E E.N... O n0 d l C M E tr. Y y Y (µ � N•. .S S O. 4 A HA 6ti=N9NL N� O. d a E a E62N uR LV sw W E ! 9a NG pV0 YOdt� � EN INR y SdN p� Qnry d o E d t u d t R b.�d u p u N E E d 0 4 O p Y EpT OddC sW du^ q O P EE NL On«d v 3.3� N� .Jai. V C Ln T G 9 d E d X^s y 9 G^d � MOq YN'y p10�ydN ♦�L y SL >� R 9.o y L NY9�N 2 a6qu R Q W C Y a 9 L d G E C q E u d A«N d � 6t• d CNC..� T q u W • V .Oa Y� 'E 4.a .CR RP I U W 00 NEf q y�Na^O'LdU N by C� y0 L ro NN dGr^'d E pl. Y G' Od p�? xLea. yd OG 9.0 sQ~N m 9 ...ON� VL Nam. GEG GP G9REd '�O Obi O .�� G�Ud aE Oq O.m pF YW EsN.R+.. ORd 9 qr0 jap COu^d, 4. VG •�N•P RNUOy. d^i d4- E L.Y G N � o u C p✓«C O.. 60 S R ds L r N t.O 9 0 u q > w S O 9 a VCu duc.� Ld�� U.6�. EEE.�a9 �6d p d G A E O L Of L u L ^ U+ ¢E w 6 6 o:N Y d� NN N N i f x N d u G 4��N Y+C'6 •U...-.2 �C �S L A«p N p.0 T V cCev 955 ou TZ s . N t N to S ^ Cp@>s.09 N^ q 6 usi T c O.6 2 d9Y s POx�C Yu.��s ' 0 0 . L w u 0It EE 4 N G M d E d L O pG6^e= p o.2 L u o ¢a 9Ag G C p t ff 4 ^G< E y<r 4y Y u 3 U d t u u C N i MY 0 C p N 9 9 u A>u u N Y O.L a p. say P W �N yp9v`�CJ aNL yL.-p�Y 6_ u0Y IL cLdR p� TT11�G �C,� YP1a6 O. C u Oq LY Ca CE RZ O. N�nLT dE.O. YN Cy.... Y N U �'>'cO• 6.N f�^ �O � L >tl A�C�LLd U�a.+.aU �u��Ya. 5. pIG 1� sR- pp do dyti Ry ,vuvLtle oc. •a,.q� Ns�y G rU7� Rd' C 4'a+C--Rya d dtiE .P.. Ca N. d6G�.P > r..,x YN ? dq a=w yG qC E> Vdq^Y JH d y♦C � V d N O N 1 O^dS Of G•.tl C� tru 7 s U2« s j N G +ep C U 9 pL Up�N V c� FEE ks 4T E 09 N2 y.�Cy L. ' M" NC p Y •06G`I 6. a a p = E L l aL. p{L G90 VX >NY Vp} 0:,.„ di ti u G O U9 d js dS.� d9. A d at R5R dpl OHO¢RCa O. N4 ACIR G.-N.0 NqR 6Y V96. RN.m..G..� sLd„d .CC06..+ Fu.Y CR F rnR¢.gG .•. •o �. m a .or ri .ter .�-•i e. �so aaaL c �A�e0 cL oea ELL t4 y pa r n d O b da p i L C.G ^.O 010 U Vb nZ=zv E 79 :E Ic u d x .a S b d.- 12 x Tu u� =i >MG my W.NNcz u«a Nc 41 U. E.ai L ~ N Y Y d:G a s L d G v o $ ono o :n oo-- aq ,o a nu�3 mK n^¢' nL V a w a avn aq voyc CL cutter y L� 9p u `u� mq T q_C a '_aA� NaA O r7A O ya bOa0.6N >NOb x.;. GBH. E�+.+d O 7!Ids L C Y gbNd aRT y0 C 4 pa q Ta W O E a n e Ap Oaii Gr F m >O G _ H E.Ou A 6 N G ^a «t a: ut xmx QN Q '>[N� FML 6 Y jai qq�uf Q.O QA� 4Y L.O.An am r D 3w •p a ;.� O;'. Oli Ed titm ' '�aF+ _ Y ply. •^- �M ltib«.00 d.y P= 1P� L> GA- Oc I yy EEOE J yY EEj. pni -ICO pyL. i�G. cOLv dpr GL ~ - N..r y N n6n1 > 3 .-.O t x 'dL C 90 L N OOy E N �•.. y ^ N S c u 9 p O n O C a N Im b % u a C. �1 N^ b _. fVV O^ •c , Ab E.c yt y nG f' q O p,NV i,CN pS U .V M A yd^^L6 a�Yi QM 4N�.m 6bN FGN Qbt Q9 HOfC.O6 QNpq �L.ac A00 �.,. ,N1 6N RC CA .da L ¢o^ E Tom. zo 9= x - C ^\I E O E c .� E`ol v U W L E .KI d QI * E 3. d E. U U Tc E n0 `E B. .�. 1.5 as a d « S w 0 3 V =U 29�a w b fI y^l EC `3 yL 9a x G >•�..d n L V L�.f c�dy d x u�, OE INNW^ C Z N• EE v p GO w y O Cy cn L Wy a W QJ �h O EN C N 4�r ,._ 6 M a E A ¢..VA �.. Aoo. o+, �. � u i1 t 0 Y a U C Y d a . y .0 Gl E d d 0 CG O�W E.�q T� ZU«.+' pN0 H EC « E O 9 O «O• 9L Ty. c V ya v_a A n a•� s 6 Oa OE>•Lu IL Ty YO Cp d� up c N�`.E �z ��6. d nC d 2a 'EE a q a2. E d O ^.v u 1 Y1. 6 C 6w6 LLsm N C L�N.•aN LNZEA do N�Od d O« O c �O CC E ...r nwo Ld 1•^gOA hJ 6k15 SLY.N 6. AA 1-a L 6�natiN 6^A.W L N t" nua' 1' Adak X.E `.p.55 a .L.Ou py E O A t D w c EP^ L «c Y Y.p. y CO q O u Q c E a x n y 0 An L G 2. � y 6 L YN '93, .+ M. d n p.ia qd� p T EM ONa V C: 07 a y U n N N O t a Ao aLA x� t odors L dy A.q >O�c v u'o . i Lingo Bw $ A pNEm I« Eq aut -Z wliy-, n`^q 2 n�c one. L-' w E x y Y .C.-. L9� A Ik C A as a2 d 1NA O^ n6Y o d U a—ol Y « „ u C O C> q Ga E'to C t d L L n ^ x n W d A n q Lt u < a .+ a, e.d tso o n OE a O «L. Ia �,', E O^ 9 o L C.a.x v q� a d N to + L U 4 W r d l a o Ud. �.. c29� ^ •€O Npd Eq� N NN20 C P L A 6 d A N E OI C d y T^ U q^ EW y _ C d d c Y^ 6 f NaY.�. NN 'C 30^ JLE^ Q �A.•C•N^ =A^ LOaN Eo E « L>a- • , -1 G n m C Y N+ Y W W W E Y m w-. - 19 ✓ ..r� N..6bd � C O u Ouq rb-bC O.Ed 'N A _ a ^� GV �. yE. LiLL c �Do A' m �'N Ja b r vI E O C +d pb • � � ^ �d N�.n Z a T yadi cw. a� L o� N o N 4J CJN H tia «o �.N 9Eb bt GO 12— Eta o� yapdq pTau db NE.L d.Z4 a WOD'Onq aTyC D 4 '� 4Cdr yC. tit.„ C A d T = E W E O C a E t A ^ N d O A > a C L 0u a >O o�- p E d= OL LLodU ¢OUYOO�A N U N I y E Q ^ U u i pp L d J a O CW 9a YO. `.N tfb 6N rDi ¢Y..+ C t•J 1 • ps LtT a O.d -0T d LG C COba .ry '.uY . \ ALE y � Ln b E d��0 qy i w_gg - > > fT� C. N LCM CN f. uL.. .2. J] 2b +. ~pp Deb ^� ^bfi L a a6 Y Y =a My `•�. AA. V c n L og bf-m4 d A. _ N " caEf o•q a oY b s S L a'a ^2 To au a.o ♦ {�E �a m bt E a ^� r:a C �.S � d A a,�c E a N 0 4604 as«. •. y N= G Atl n A V O .0 n C C A .fl CO 01 C ^NN y� U q m L m v C a€ T C� b G O O. Yy W E �.. >7 4. o u d a a a� •^p a a C .fib .0. 4 L D O tT d N b O 6 L jl = +il O� L vo V= c Y O i 1 E av „ Oq r o Ea ti ^A EO O� �O U ^.L N O L >.O a O DNLO 0u 1l Cd d a pp Np CN pN EYM EL �YI�J 02.q.N npLC� D �q= D N 6 a d C b...Y y N N A �U LL L 1p to U V N� 4 A A 0 O p►6..a^L W Nv. W.UCJ �.6 fa�a 2 Gy 40 6au FAD ¢ A J] Y. •. e N M. < tV Ol Q fff b }�-53 x o 1 b L Y my y �. xL x r cy 01,a6 N F6 ud n nu Oa U dU LZ YLL L CY !Y ^ q Q y9'N 6r L YP•L A .A,.NP Nqy G:5 N ?- Z aA No d " es moo. nea $ xQa� x o w 41 YEA A Y,E. cc� yy P �o a p Eu G Ac "a., rnA A •• d aW da^ "aa Qa,..� �Vu • YO E A GNO' Y,QLOy y �M O i CUB �c� Nti cv��L^ d u y Wa L.S;A. 6L Ap GL EQ Elf 9EY Y at L c� aa, dd n n A L a as oaa en ��a t Fd �Y C �ti «L �pj YE.L Y va a �. yA o Y.q.L 9L0 r C y 0 9 A L Lt C L O� x A•l Y L �u > 2 u NOlLll SG i.1V K O b - m T .-•Y '1 � .Wi b �I I x! �Ir I - i �I u ax Yoo m c U Y L c N � t .+C ENE y L YA O� M tl p�E 9 • C S T � O ��� a a v d SU O:r- 2N q .L p Y6 E .v. io. l at a IC UW /, O L CNL o 4G�i Y byC•. LO �s�. S L Y CV. � • V ' O Wr cj �r y YF - c C ^C CL ly Y N CQ E q nLY �9 Y� YaLi i Y 28 2 OJ r UY �Y 2 A l 60 98 OC O IO a �L W q ,+ O N 9 xq xE~ Yd c �= rY mH yC ~ x CdY Y O uM YL E x �.M O Lr V Eprn Y d y J Leo QQL WS L V.AA xOC QL tl�. d r gzh Ld r b Gfir.. em s. �'t a uu sa A AZ;2 Aa v � r A An a u E G y a ^J� ACq b2 d NO d^N�. V d L O.2W S� u b� d� u o,w•� �y A N � OU p• Qu7 G omu a U a N d 6.n a OLi U n C N d U ti C Z p 4 `� rd u am �o� N 61O d t u L� is a EE TG.s y ^L G 4 K C t F E 01� V,g T•a uu d _ 41 lod—I L O abc 1:3A�. OC cc 1p _ ss yA b O d 0 C G T y. Ed W. LLa�jL G 2 C lo uooa. , o U. CN Q 01W= L. A E� =.Y 'd ai NT �L • r w �RLC x� U. Ty M A b d YW. b Ao. CAC Y L � 01V V OU p. C.HV GQ• d� Fa C V d L _ d L S O 'N p � �''Ey r,a a d Go i � •G'"pd-� t o S b N O Out 6 V C L C y'.G G�o -= o. qa. AqO G d,, OO d0 .O- b Ldp Q. AOv K VU O C q UD• O L Y CW Q. O dO1 d O Gum dp OVc • LL 4C n � Lu'� @: O.0 b O O CCN �. A .i ai ciI v' vi wI is m cg a 14- 55� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA °�CAAj MEMORANDUM O O F ~� Z U > 1977 DATE: 9ecember 11, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS - CITY OF RANCHO _UCAMONGA - Planning Commission review and comment of general revisions and update of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines) This item was continued from the Planning Commission Workshop co Monday, December 2, 1985 at which the first two chapters of the Plan, Part I (Regional and Community Background), and Part II (Industrial Area Development Framework) were reviewed. Commission comments from the workshop are outlined on the following Action Agenda. Also attached is the complete Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report which includes a summary and the proposed text revisions to Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines). Please bring your December 2nd workshop packet to the meeting for discus- sion. BB•CJ:ns i .. l i . ITE:4I ari I ri�tCn LIO, CITY OF AML _. RANCHO CuC,\,%•10\GA -(1 - PLANNING C0y1I%IISSI0N } U a AGENDA F J 1977 MONDAY DECEMBER 2, 1985 6:00 P.M. (Dinner at 5:30 p.m.) Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center - Room 4 9791 Arrow Highway Rancho Cucamonga, California PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP INDUSTRIAL. AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS i Industrial Area Specific Plan Revisions - Ciz of Rancho Cucamonga - Planning U y B 8 Commission review and comment of general revisions and update of the ' Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part I (Regional and Community Backgrcund), Part II (Industrial Area Developiecnt F1'aaework), and Part III (Development ' Standards and Guidelines). I. Introductory Comment - Organization of ISP 6:00-6:10 I YI. Discussion of P-trts I and II 6:10-6:40 1�i...Discussion of Part III and 6:40-8:00` Related Issues/Concerns ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission will adjourn to the December 11, 1985 Regular Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commissioners Present: Dennis Stout, Suzanne Chitiea ' Staff Members Present: Brad Buller, Curt Johnston, Paul Rougeau Comments " Planning Commission discussion covered Part I . (Regional & Community Background) and Part II (Industrial Area Development Frnework) only. Review of Part III (Development Standards & Guidelines) was continued to the December 11, 1985 regular meeting. Tile following issues/concerns were raised: w Plenning Commission Workshop Minutes December 2, 1985 Page 2 1. Page II-1. Goals and Objectives - Goals vq"Ils objectives are not distinguished in the list. Two or three ove,—_ goals for the Industrial area are needed with measurable objectives related to each. A strong goal and objectives for high quality, aesthe?:ic development, particularly on Special Boulevards, must bG provided at the beginning of this section. Water conservation aandscap+.ng must also be mentioned. The goals and objectives should be repeated throughout Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines) so the intent and purpose of specific regulations is clear. 2. Page II-4. Industrial Land Use Categories - The five land uses categories are too complicated and do not achieve the desired purpc_�st% There is too much overlaps -so only three (3) categories may be ad;quate. Consider eliminating General Industrial/Rail Served and W nim• Impact/Heavy Industrial. Greater emphasis should be placed on Subarea regulations. Preservation of railroad service is a n-Ior concern. The issue could be handled better by designating properties which shall provide for rail service (via overlay district on transportation plan). The current General. InC •rial/Rail Served category does not require this. 3. Page II-19. Circulation and Access Policies - This section should be moved to .a eve opment Standards and Guidelines) to provide greater emphasis. Also, the standards for private streets are to be eliminated and a statement added prohibiting private streets in the Industrial area. r `. 4. Pale II-31. Urban Design Concept - Thig section is currently weak and needs overall restructuring and :improvements. Emphasis should be placed on high quality architecture, site planning, landscaping, screening, etc. Design concepts should be outlined by land use category and for Special Boulevards, such as Haven Avenue, Archibald, 4th Street, and Milliken Avenue. Other concerns which need to be addressed here or in another part of the Industrial Plan include clarification of sidewalk requirements, such as where meandering sidewalks are necessary, restrictions for on-street truck parking and water conservation landscape designs. Also, this section should be moved ahead of Circulation and Access. 1 5. Page II-39. Public Services —Toxic and hazardous material storage and waste will be a significant issue as the Industrial area developer and is not mentioned - in the Plan. Alt%ough other public agencies are responsible, the City should tread a program to deal with the issue. Procedures and regulations could be adopted as part of the Industrial Plan or Municipal Code. Staff should research requirements of other agencies. E x ,.� _._ to a C o. y K (D c+ w J ra n ,. can 1. 9 4 i 1 1 �1 1; CITY OF r RAitCHO C'IMUNIO GA PL A-NNIi� � l� �rI SIO T �� OOE�� J ?, 1973 WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 11,19E 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARR COMMUNITY CENTEP 9161 BASE LIME PUNNq,,HO CUCAMONGA,CALIRU ACTION L Pledge of Allegisnce IL 11011 Call Commissioner ,drker x� Commissioner Rempei X Con,Mssior x Chitiea x Commissioner Stout x Commissic4.er McNiel x III. Dec. 17 joint IIL Announcements City Council/Planning Coil ission workshop IV,. Consent Calendar regarding the Civic Center. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and nor-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at : one timc without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,, it shoo`l be removed for discussion. IV. APPROVED 5-0 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-40 - BANKS - The development of a twe-stor;T pro­�sional'office E ilding;consisting of 8,515 square feet on .53 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific' :r Plan,located on the north side of Civic Center Drive,west of Red Oak Street (Lat 6) in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park-APN 208-062-06. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-23 KIRSHBAUM - The development of ari office/professional center comprised of ti o 2-story buildings of 17,975 square feet and 27,700 square fee,:respectively,on' 3.14 acres located on the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road in the Office Professonal District- APN 207-120-01. C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12914-HIGHLAND VILLAGE Grading revisions that require additional -retaining walls, at the ' northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue. VL Direetoes Reports I. St_.ff directed to • I. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVLRIONS -.CITY OF r prepare revisions RANCHO CUCAMONGA —Planning Commission review and for Commission consi& comment-of general revisigns and update,.of the Industrial oration at a future Area Specific Plan, hart III (Development Standards and workshop. Guidelines). VM Publie Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear or this agenda. VIIL Adjaurnment 9.10 P.M, The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Reyalations that set an 11 p.m. ndfournment time. If items go bey:nd'that time,they shall be h' d only with the consent of the Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned to a City Council/Planning Commission`workshop dn'Tuesday, December•17, 1985 to discuss , the Public Safety and Civic Center-Facility. The'meeti;ng will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, beginning at 6:30p.m. l i Liz,a. . k V. Public Hearings " .The ff,<Iowing items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your nam.R and address. All such opinions sT.all be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. D. CONTINUED TO MARCH D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTP''_"_'E TRACT I2, i986 - at request 12991 - SHELBOURNE -A to'1 residential subdivision and of a—p ant ac-si;n review fors 49 single family lots on 8.9 sores of land in the .Low Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Demon Avenue, 500t feet east of Archibald Avenue- APN 201-252-21, 22.(Continued from the October.23, 1985 meeting.) E. APPROVED 5-0 E. E;NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMriNT with amendmef.€,, tv CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 - CITY OF RANCHO City Council Ordinance GUGA -NGP_ Art amendment to Title. 17, as recommended by City Nevision:;lModificathons, Section 17.02.070 B, Development Attorney. Review, Section 17.01..010G and 17.06.62OG regarding language changes and aci6tions. (Continued from November 27,1985 maethng.) F. `PPROVED 5-0 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9487- BRUNSWIC,K CORPORATION --A division of T97 acres into 4: parcels in a General Commercial Development District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue,north of Foothill Boulevard-APN APN 1077-401-22. G. APPROVED 5-0 G.' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDrrIONAL USE PERMIT 8'5-37 - BRUNSWICK - The development of an intograted»hopping center consisting of a 36,025 square foot bowling; center, a 59,400 squw^e foot retail building, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 8.97 acres of land in the General Commercial Disstriet, located 1,000 feet north of Foothill Boulevard, west of Haven Avenue -.APH 1077-401- 22. H. APPROVED 5-0 wood fencing to be H. ENVIRONMENT. L ASSESSMEINIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT sealed or stained :a!,,ere 13027 - WIli,IAM LYO 7 COMPANY—A residential exposed to public view; subdivision of 157 total lots Wth the development of 144 CC&Rs to provide for Keeping single family homes on 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned of horses on lots fronting CovImunity (Low Residential, 2-4 du/ac), located at the ftiwanda .Avenue; under southwest corner of Highland and 7Etiwanda Avenues,east of grounding of'utii ites fees North Victoria Windrows Loop-APN 227-471.01,02,03;227- for Highland Avenue to be 491-4,2,5. placed in 'interest bearing abet. i, r Vff I IY ri t WILLLu L'�CNAFRY REGI'NIL/ARS .. • to 1 f COLLEGE t�•1L' f V t 1 fy: - 71 — � • e Ye1wla w t• - E E - MNNNNNLNNMi• (•� r i t BatA lLr �.to a ) • • t (LION PAR C177 NALL I�� f F A O �•� IIwrct • a-�w • • 09 - Arlo. � a t ,, acA• • v 71 s s CUCAMONGA•OUASTi COUNTY REGIONAL PAir - ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORC` ♦ . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7 �• CITY OF RANCHO Ct Ck,i,10tGA s a PULNINLNG COVILNIISSI0,N •AGI ND'k 1977 WEDNESDAY D?:CZMBER 11,1985 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARS COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LL'1E RANCHO CUCAMON GA,CALIFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance 11. Roll Call Commissioner Barker_ Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout Commissoner McNiel BL Announcements 1V. %Consent Calendar The foPowing Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should.be removed for discussion. A. ENti'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-40 - BANKS - The development of a two-story professional office building consisting of 8,515 square feet on .53 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,located on the north side of Civic Center Drive,west of Red Oak Street (Lot 6) in the Rancho Cucamonga Lusiness Park-APN 208-062-06. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT` REVIEW 85-23 KIRSHBAUM - The development of an office/professional center comprised of two 2-story buildings t ; of 17,975 square feet and 27,700 square•feet,respectively,on 3.14 L%eres located on the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and Sc n Bernardino Road in the Office Professional District- APN 207-120-01. C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12914 HIGHLAND VILLAGE-Grading revisions that require additional retaining wails at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue,_ad Highland Avenue. r, V. Public Hearings The foIiowing items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice,their opinion of the related pr/je,, 1-.ease wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the r in mission by stating your name and address. All such opinions saatl be, limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project.. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT_ 12991 -SHELBOURNE - A total residential subdilt",sion and design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500t feet east of Archibald Avenue- APN 201-252-21, 22. (Continued from the October 23, 1985 meeting.) , E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMEi1DMENT 85-03 CITY OF RANCHO GUCkZAONGA - An amendment to Title 17, Revision.,%Modifications, Section 17.02.070 3, Development Review, Section 17.06.010G and 17.06.020G regarding language changes and additions. (Continued frorn November 27,1985 meeting.) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9487- BRUNSWICK CORPORATION -K-1vision of b.97 acres into 4 ,parcels in a General Commercial Development District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard-APN 1077-401-22.- G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM 85-37 - BRUNSWICK - The development of an "integrated shopping center consisting of a 36,025 square foot bowling center, a 59,400 square foot retail building, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 8.97 acres of land in the General Commercial Disttrict, located 1,000 feet north of Foothill Boulevard, west of Haven Avenue -APN'1077-401- 22. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13027 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 157 total lots with the development of 144 s single family homes on 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low Residential, 2-4 du/ae), located at the southwest corner of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues,east of North Victoria Windrows Loop-APN 227-471-01, 02,03;227- 491-1,2,5. r J VL Director's Repo►; I. INDUSTRUL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS CPfY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Commission review and comment,of general revisions and update of the Industrial Area,Specific Plan, Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines). VIL Public Commesta This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VBL Adjournment: The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If fts,ns go beyond that time, they shalt be head only with the consent of the Commission. The Plannuag Commission will adjourn to a workshop following the Design Review Committee meeting on December 19, 1985. The workshop will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Room;' 4, Rancho Cucamonga,, California beginning at 7:30 p.m. The topic of discussion will be the proposed shopping center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line(Conditional Use Permit 85-28). e r I� l G , MAP .._ '_, I F t fi' • •ia .,tt a. ■ j. : CWR(TR[EfON,y,IAR[ CNAffET ; al',_S"•[V 1 '4('Y' YI S_y__- _ BarNvi. COt.EOE I I�+.ik4 'maxLZ 9w.m. ♦ a, �, 3,3,. 'Y4 T l 9 IOA] 3 by ;i �-'�..._ •— - .. S -- —i- a Vlelmb ^.� IION$PAR C11T HALL ■ a 41 s ITa .r: o.�r ... . I p C ......... .....{. • C a IT 14 ■ x R F 6 I CUGYONEI_ ,I j GUAStt COONiY AEEtENAt PAM. ONTARIO:WERNAttONAI AIRPORT' CrTY OF RANCHO C= CITY OF RANCHI CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION NT-rdUTES Regular Meeting December 11, 1985 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Plaani;;g Commission to order ao 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Connunity Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,. California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Curt. Johnstont Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, L Senior Planner; James Markman, City Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS: Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the Planning Commission would adjourn to a special joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to discuss the Civio Center and Public Safety Facilities design. The workshop will be held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, beginning at 6:30 p.m, CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85=40 - BANKS The development of a two-story professional office building consisting of 8,515-square feet on .53 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial ^---a Specific Plan, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive, wes,,, `,f Red Oak Street (Lot 6) in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park - APN' 268- 062-06. a . I B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-23 KIRSHBAUM - The development of an office/professional center comprised of two 2-story buildings of 17,975 square feet and 27,700 square feet, respectively, on 3.14 acres located on the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road in the Office Professional District - APN 207-120-01. C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12914 - HIGHLAND VILLAGE - Grading revisions that require additional retaining walls at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHELBOURNE - A total residential subdivision and design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500t feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-21, 22. (Continued from the October 23, 1985 meeting.) Chairman Stout advised that the Planning Commission had received a letter from the applicant for Tentative Tract 12991 requesting a conynuance of the public hearing to March 12, 1986. Chairman Stout then opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessmenlr r"..d Tentative Tract 12991, T Shelbourne, to the March 12, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Title 17, Revisions/Modifications, Section 17.02.070 B, Development Review, Section 17.06.010G and 17.06.020E regarding language changes and additions. (Continued from November 27, 1985 meeting.) Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. James Markman, City Attorney, advised that it was necessary to add Section 17.04.030(H) to include language relative to Conditional Use Permits to the proposed Ordinance. He additionally advised that a section entitled 17.02.070(C) should be added relative to reconsideration precluded stating that "no application for a revision or modification shall be accepted for filing within one year from the do%e of any approval if the final decision making body rejected the substance of ,',- proposed revision or modification in. the process of granting that approval." Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 11, 1985 i � 1 f Chairman Stout opened the pfiblie'heariug. There were-no comments, therefore the public hearing was clo,,d. ` Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the 'rdinance, as amended by the City Attorney, to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT s, NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE r ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS. NONE -carried i Chairman Stout announced .that the following items were related" and would be heard concurrently by the Commission. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND':ARCEL MAP_9487 - BRUNSWICK CORPORATION - A division of a.97 acres into 4 parcels in a General Commercial Development District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard - APH 1077-401-22. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CC-., ITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-.37 - BRUNSWICK - The development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 36,025 square foot bowling center, a 59,400 square foot retain build -%¢, and a 51000 square foot restaurant on 8,97 acres of land in the General Commercial Disstriet, located 1,000 feet north of Foothill Boulevard, west of Haven Avenue - APN 1077-401-22. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. # Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Phil Fitzgerald, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project. Mr. Fitzgerald concurred with the findings of the staff report and Resolutions of approval. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Commissioner Barker stated that recognizing that the trees are in the parkway right-of-way, he would make the motion to approve, seconded by .McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9487. Motion carried,by the following vote: r AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIE1, CHITIEA, r.EMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE t Planning Commission MlnOes -3- December 11, 1985 G. ABSENT: CONC9ISSIONERS: NONE -carried is Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt ty- Resolution approving. Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 85-37. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried s ■ � � � H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13027 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY A residential subdivision of,157 total lots with the development of 144 single family homes on 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low Residerlial, 2-4 du/ae), located at the southwest corner of Highland and Etiwand avenues, east of North Victoria Windrows Loop - APN 227-471 01, 02, 03; 227-491-1, 2, 5. Dan. Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Coleman advised that s,aff recommended a change to Condition 11 of the Resolution relative to perimeter wall on Highland Avenue to read as follows: "The 6-foot high perimeter wall along Highland Avenue shall be set back a minimum 6-foot distance behind the Highland Avenue right-of-way". Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, recommended the following modifications to the Engineering Division's condition of approval: Condition 8 - The developer shall pay to the City an in-lieu fee for one-half the cost of undergounding the existing overhead utilities fronting the tract on the opposite side of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues prior to tract recordation; Condition 9 - The parcels fronting Etiwanda Avenue may be exempt from the requirement of immediately providing sewer connections if approved by Cucamonga County Water District; Conditicn 10 - The parcels fronting Et,':.,ra`:da Avenue shall be graded and grading easements as needed provided as-aoprovea by the City Engineer to enable driveway connections onto Etiwanda Avenue When reconstructed with the future freeway to the north. Commission Barker referred to Exhibit "E" of staff report and asked if of the three east/west windrows, two of them were being saved. Mr. Coleman replied that this was correct. Chairmar Stout referred to Condition 17 of the Resolution relative to the CC&R's for the tract not prohibiting the keeping of horses on the lots that front Etiwanda Avenue. He asked the City Attorney if this was the proper wording for this condition. t ,. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 11} 1985 James Markman, City Attof-ney:, advised that the Commission might consider adding no private agreement-among property owners shall prohibit the keeping of horses. Chairman Stout was concerned that this condition was written in the negative and all the developer would have to do is to be silent on the issue. Mr. Markman stated that this condition could be placed on the developer, but somewhere down the line the homeowner's association theoritically could change or modify the CC&R's. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the lots be annexed into the Equestrian Overlay District.. Chairman Stout opened the publie hearing.. Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, advised that the applicant would be willing to include in the CC&R's appropriate provision to insure the keeping of horses. Mr. Ford referred to condition 3 of the Resolution relative to the staining or sealing of wood fencing and requested a modification that this only include fencing exposed to public view. He additionally referred to Condition 16 relative to the trail extension along North Victoria Windrows Loop to connect to Victoria Park Lane and advised that this was the subject of a recent Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment to remove this trail connection. Additionally, the lots referred to in Condition 16 should read Lots 78 and 79. Regarding Condition 8 added by the Engineering Division relative to the. undergrounding of utilities on Highland Avenue, Mr. Ford stated that since Caltrans might underground utilities when the freeway is constructed, this would be an umnecessary burder to not only, plane on this development but others as well. He suggested striking the requirement for Highland Avenue utility undergrounding from the condition. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. ` Chairman Stout stated that he would like to see some sort of affirmative statement in the CC&R's relative to the keeping of horses on those lots fronting Etiwanda Avenue. Mrs Markmaa suggested the addition of "but rather the CC&Rs shall provide that those lots shall be allowed for horse uses'. Commissioner ;:propel suggested that the developer also be required to annex those lots into the Equestrian Overlay District. Commiss.touer, Barker stated that it made sense that the Equestion Overlay standards apply to that particular strip. Chairman Stout asked staff what would happen if the undergrounding of utilities is not provided for now, given the fact that the freeway may not be constructed for some time. 1 Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 11, 1985 B arr a Hanson,, Senior nror Civil Engineer,B , stated that staff N-)uld have no guarantees B that. Caltrans would underground. the utilities, they might merely move them. Chairman Stout sug gested that if Caltrans did underground the utilities, the developer would then be refunded the wonies. Commissioner Barker was concerned with the time frame which would be used. Chairman Stout stated t'dat the utilities would be undergrounded at the time the tract across the streEt goes in, unless Caltrans constructs the freeway within that time. James Markman, City Attorney, stated that the language would state that the fee shall be placed in an interest bearing account and if not used to underground the utilities within the specified amount of time, It would be refunded to the developer. Mr. Hanson suggested that 10 years was a common time used; however, it was not known whether or ,lot the freeway would be under construction within that time frame. He suggested that it might be more appropriate to refund the monies if Caltrans does underground the utilities. Chairman Stout askew for t,.`scussion regarding the wood fencing treatment. Commissioner Rempel stated that cedar and rsdwood fencing was best left in its natural state, therefore would not recommend staining or sealing. However, if the rest of the Commission voted to stain or seal, he would recommend the fencing along street frontages be treated. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would prefer to have all fencing exposed to public view treated. Commissioner McNiel stated that he would prefer not to have wood fencing at all, but would agree to sealing or staining the wood fencing exposed to public view. Commissioner Barker stated that ae would prefer sealing o.' staining all fencing exposed to public vie;,,, Chairman Stout concurred. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Ten"ntive Tract 15027, with modifications to include all wood fencing exposed. to public view to be treated with stain or sealant; deposit in an interest bearing account of the fee for undergrounding utilities on Highland Avenue; CC&R's to „ insure prevision for the keeping of horses on the lots fronting Etiwanda Avarua and requirement of developer to apply for the annexing of those lots into the Equestrian Overlay District; Design Review Condition 11 modified to I state that the 6-foot perimeter all Wong Highland Avenue to be set ha,, . a ' Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 11, 1985 i minimum of 6 feet behind Highland Avenue right-of-way; and the addition of 'Engineering Condition 8, 9, and 10 as,proposed by staff. "Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEi. STOUT ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC cpp PEVTRIONS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Planning Commission review ano comment of geu._�' „evisions and update of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Fart III (Development Standards and Guidelines). Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff rrport. I The Planning Commission expressed support for revisions/update to Part II: , as presented in the staff report with the following exceptions. Revissd language will be presented at a follow-up meeting. 1. Page I1I-9 - Automotive Rental: Conditional Use Permit requited with keeping of vehicles on-site basea on available parking spaces. 2. Page III-34 - Section A.5 - Metal Buildings: Preclude all-metal buildings from General Industrial and General Industrial/Rail Served categories. Add provision. ",r quality design of metal buildings, in the Heavy Industrial as es. 3. Page III-35 - B _ '"en Areas: Replace word "loggias" with 'gazebos". 4. Page III-36 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Clarify intent of pedestrian connections in the Industrial Area. Primary function is to serve persons working in the area, as opposed to shoppers in commercial development. 5. Page III-16 - Equipment Screening: Add statement discouraging massive roof equipment. Require effective screening or painting of equipment to mitigate aesthetic concerns. 6. jy, III-17 - Storage Area: Allow limited outdoor storage in the Industrial Park category. Conditional Use Permit may be required. Require complete acne=erring and establish maximum height (6 feet suggested). Planning Commission.Minutes -7 December ', ;��85 Ins r� 7. Figure III-3 Streetscape Setback Schedule: Consider special cjscumstances where the streetseape setback could be determined by the function of a street as 'a_local'cr secondary, versus the right-of-width (i.e. in cases where a developer provides wider streets than required by the City). 8. Page III-25 -D.S - 'Frees: Add statement that t,x size trees (24tt or Larger) may be required where appropriate. Also, trees are required to be planted along property lines at a minimum rate of one tree per 30 linear Feet or less depending on tree species. 9. Page III: 9 E.3 Parking Spaces Re_nuired: Research appropriate definition e ' _asking requirement for Multi-i-3 tenant buildings. Add statement � .,erict ng. conversions of Industrial space to office if additionzI parking is not provided to meet City standard. There were no further comments. .DJOURNMENT I-tien: Moved- by Barker, seconded by Chitisa, unanimously carri•ad, so ! jeurn. The Planning Commission adjourned to the December 17, 1985 joint 9E _ 'by Council/Planning Commission workshop. 9:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. ff Respectfully submitted, I. i Brad Buller fF Deputy Secretary I 1 r i - Planning Commission Minutes 8-- December 11 1 8 95 � y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA nL6 STAR' SPORT ¢OO > DATE: December 11,_1985 'sn ` TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM; Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-40 - TANKS - The development of a two-story professional office wilding consisting of 8,515 square feet on .53 acres of land in Suhdrea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive, west of Red 0,:iK Street (Lot 6) in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Par; - Ar14 208-062-06. I _PPvJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: t A. Action Re uested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, proposed office/tennis complex; Industrial Park District - Subarea 7. South - Existing industrial buildings; Industrial Park District - Subarea 7. East - Vacant; Industrial Park District - Subarea 7. West Hall and Justice Center, Office Buildings, Vacant; Industrial Park District - Subarea 7. C. General Plan Designations: Project Site -Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South Industrial Park East - Industrial Park"West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant and rough gra a with no structures or significant vegetation, Street improvements for Civic Center Drive have been completed with the exception of drive approaches and sidewalks. II. ANALYSIS• - i Ei A 'General: The developer is requesting an Environmental Assessment for the construction of a two-story office building T totaling 8,515 square feet. The site is part of the Master i� ITEM A � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment for OR -•40 - Banks December 11, 1985 Page 2 Planned Rancho Cucamonga Business Park as shown in Exh'.'nic "B% The proposed site plan appears to be consistent wish the conceptual Master Plan. Upon' approval of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner Will grant final approval of th_ project based upon Conditions rec=ended by the Design and Technical Review Committees,. B. Environmental Assessment: Part•I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs. with staff findings, then issuance of a f Negative Declaration would be in order. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for OR 85-40: !<i ectfu11 subm"ted; Brad Buller Aft City Planner BB:NF:ns Attachments:. Exhibit "A" .- location Map Exhibit "B", Master Plan for Office/Tennis Complex of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Exhibit "V-�-•Datailed Site Plan Exhibit "O"l- Grading Plan Exhibit "E"' r Landscape Plan Exhibit "F Elevation Exhibit "G" Grading Plan k Initial Study, Part II Y sp 4 r ' a Ld �J1,g 417./7/J19i-� r.. DAOY BLVD i t PARCEL MAP 79Ld. _p F At No. 6725 IL.P �f 7 ' I �� RM.e v a I` I F.MB pM.ib ( Pbf 7494 .ilk 9r•a,ir � .nr u4.� a•k rM.a� � �e6�.. . 4 r Q• n � P.M.Np/99?t y � f �o a sS 8/41:4Z ± P iUi YS?t/ I P=l e:r+. i. Fit. O i _� 40 ,.lPMN1/Z97 kK R t 4s�•r. TRACT 1 - 2204. t1 t NORTI ' CITY OF rfEM.- I R.ANcI�.: CUCAMONGA T PUNNING DIVISION EXHIBrf-C SC / k Ii V a^ •���ti n ^+�, �OIL loll ��r• ��. � ����e�^s l�`I l�l iir tee' '' `�!�'—'�t 4F �4'att ~yam _ r,�_.G:�' 1'� '•�. =',!'� � �",�.'r �d� �n .+:�.r161ia ti tr.•.c �,�iil w.� h—r�aa f •, '+ �� en.,s::-..-w—�e-- ar.�.�. m•+nn�e,w-as�`�.r y r Existing Ps"strisi Esesmsnt T9 TamYa ComWs: Fuxwe Am Qkaaay y Trs y 14 j R- JITITI ISO? f ... $ LOT 6 Proposed Bu6otsp FootjO%rh3. -,: •,r�. j, cow let TP• �•O�too&kk f 1'atlo Watt - ExkAkv Cub amt Butter Aceesa Fa 924.37 To Cl LJU Avs. • s 183;00 c.VIC CENTER DRIVE MY NORM CITY OF T RANCHO, CUCA IOI\GA Trfu: f7j Ae0 1,9 0 PLANNING DW SIOIV EXHIBIT- _SCALE: / x a... c - taaoo `or • �+r---�—�"�`—°—�i"��� --,.�e erg: rj� 8ktb �� M1 �i E14+att1$Oradod Pad •- Ep T,o Finials Pad Elovattod 1t7II.E i r wit Lt!T 7 FkLfloor Elaw.t173M t it t •LF AC Payktp LOT 6 LOT 8 • rb . E■te urzv ilY.dad Pad +, t ri �jnnate Wa& 'E.k►hp Oradadkad - E.tating graded Pad W-6*P&VN ,j e to 0 L.andaoaPN O - 2t'�-��--•Hxpm"-al/lxaea e'aamm" i k\ Dmh Pipe Banuth Ddva AWvW Pwkxva a To Ow"Guitar CIVIC CENTER DMVE 111 iy f `s NORTH CIS' OF RANTCHO CAL C"O1`TVA Tj s PLANNING DIVISION _ EXHIBIT —.SCALE- s A- OEUCAlYF-*W POLYANTNEMOs PLANTAIals AL �. LAWN AREAS. _ SHRLMS&6ROMQ COVER AREAS SCREEN. PLANTING • `I//tl�"� < �PARKPIG 1. 6ERVECE WALKS ,.. ✓rr�y� ��. BLf1.CaXi tSLDG IdAl7 ENTRY AlYA3AL COLOR. PARKM t t COURSYAFm Twt ?• •• WATER FEATT$2E. BRKX PAVM - • GEATWALLFERN KAHTWO MADE CMO CENTER OR j CITY OF, _ ' �^�- r,����,(� (� rrEM: ��� ` RANCHO '1�1,1Tl�CalY1VI�rGA Trfu: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIB.rT:.. SCALE: �. ... .. �.a.. ... xi.>:�••-nx.r Y+t55�rcW ..-s'1`Se1-✓�5't'e.F.'+.$?�, •-� ��` s .������ - ��1%:,� \i u' ,.,, ;;fir. Y �� � r• Z-z. l�l•��Srii��i-■■�� w J. - � yr: jay lwi■OL X7•EIy ' ■� e NUNN � .�. r t = , �� .�3•'max �y— � '' .�,r i r'��iY.�ll�[i[ik � j' a+;i,� ,�f►-�} v�y�_.{.��s. •:1-i Ott■■■ ■tt [ � �,� -►.:� , - l_ 4 ■� t It■■�'■ Insn�IiettrR _ _� E [t�<Sr i iii f.�ws` �' �'.MIKE A i i....i ■■■1 is EVE I w 1I11111 .. ■i�-■i■ -iii am 21, MINIM it uaiii��■ �.. t RILII 1 t 1". GI1y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT FILING DATE: LOG NUMBER: Acow, A,?A•5 -5-O PR0.IECT: PROJECT LOCATION:-Aj{f 5J9 Q 01IIG PF lf-01 9.P bt1. I. ENVIR0%MENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets), YES rL4TBE NO I I. Soils and Geolog y Will the proposal�, p osal have P 3lgniticant zesultS in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? L. _Disru?tL^ns, displacements, compaction or �l �. burial of the soil? c.. ,Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓r e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? y� f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? y � g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- 4. slides, ground failure, or'sinilar hazards? h. !:.n increase in the rate of extraction and/or •ase of any mineral resource? 7, Iiydrolor��. Will the proposrl•have significant results in: Page 2 YES ',AYBE No a. Changes in curreptsi or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels b. Changes in absorption rates, drainag ..erns, or 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 V alteration of surface water quality? _f. Aiteration of groundwater characteristics? g'. Change in the quantity of groundaaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or utrough zterference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public *ater .supplies? I. Exposure of people o- property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches?' d/ 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in.. a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? f 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 conditiops, affecting air movement, moisture y or temperature? ? 4. Biota r Flora. Will the _ in. proposal have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, 3rlud!ng diversity,'distribittion, or number f any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare zl or endangered species of plans? ?age 3 YES "'A ti0 c. Introdustion of _ new-or disruptive species or Plants into-an area? d -- — I . Red--cti on in the potential for agricultural P ctzo rodu ' n ' V Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results V in: a. Change in the characteristt cs of species, including P ' diversity. ity, distribu ' ! of any species of animals?distribution, �r numbers 1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive of n s eci,es v animals P mal s into an area o r> r result in a barrier. / to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have ,significant results in: a. Will the proposal :alter the location, distri- Aft 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 addtieaal, housing? _ ` . 6. 5ucio—Economic Factors, Will the proposal have signi=icant results in: _. a. Change in local or regional socic-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property / values? b. Will project costs be equitably distribt among project ber-",iaries, i.e., buyers,' / :ax payers or T t users? 7, Land Use and Plannine Considerations, Will the j proposal have significant results in? � j a. A substantial alteration of the present. or i - planned land, use of an area? i A conflict with any designations, ol,;pc�tives,. poiicies, or adopted plans of any g:rvernmental entities? •c. An impact upon the qulaity or quan,,ity of if existing consumptive or non-consumptive / 1 recreationai opportunities? u Of f Yagr.4: YES :L4YBE NO 8. Trap`aortation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additonal vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, (Zr demand for - ,. new stre.t construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or l demand for new parking? 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 water-uorne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, f bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Rescurces. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safet•r, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health razard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? i C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous / substances in the event of an accident? _ a. d. A.t Increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or rl-i exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? S. The creation of objectionable ors? h. An'increase. in light or glare? Page 5 YES lLaFBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? j b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated Yj or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need_for—new systems, or alterations to the follo wing: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? v% d. Water supply? �! e. Wastewater facilities? /✓ f. Flood control strn tunes? g. Solid waste facilities? f h. Fire protection? r 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 in r � a. Ilse 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 V r' new sources of energy? �. d. An increase,or perpetuation of the consumption t of npn-renewable forms of energy, when feasible � i renewable sources of energy are•available? Page 6 YES MAYBE No e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or siarce nataral resource?'- 14. Rianda_ try Findings of Significance. a. Does the proj,nt 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 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 h2story or prehistory? V b. Does the project have the potential to achieve y short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental. goals? (A short-term impact on the environment: is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulativeny considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of pr-.st projects, and probable future projects), i d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either divectly or indirectly? r II. DISCUSSION OF M IEONMENTAL 'EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures), Ask! _ 4 "� %.. -. w`,.�}:.x'�^I'C'•.. h ,4`fibt'Gf�P4��fiR •' Page 7 III. DETE'JMINA?'ION f1n the basis of this-initial evaluation: I'find the ptoposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. LJI find that although the proposed project mould have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be 'a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet,have been added to the project. A NEG. IVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED, ED(--� I find the proposed project . 'have a s g c e:nvirnment, and an ENVIRONME, ic I, ACT REpRT isanequi ect on the Date �L J S` nature �l/G� PI�GI�n Title I, Al r, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAY40NGA c�CA .STAFF REPORT O s O F z U > DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Pla nine Zommission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, `Assistant`Planner I SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-23 - KIRSHB;UN The development of an office/professional center comprised of two 2-story buildings of 17,975 sq. ft. and 27,700 square feet, respectively, on .3.14 acres located on the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road in the Office/Professional District - APN 207-120-01. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIG... A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing commercial and multi-family residences; Office/Professional. South Existing single family residences; Low Residential. East - Existing commercial use, church, and multi-family units; Medium Pesidential. West - Existing mobile home park, (Medium Residential, City of-Upland)., C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Office North Commercial South - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). East - Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac). c. West - City of Upland D. Site Characteris': cs: T•re project site is vacant with no major plant life or cultural/historical significance. The site j slopes from northeast to southwest at approximately 4% grade. II. BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeing on May 25, 1983, t e�Manning Commission reviewed and approved a Master P un for the ? subject site (DR 83-11 - BARASCH). The approved Master flan snows -a driveway access at Rancheria ive (Exhibit 911). The new proposed Master Plan is consistent with the- previously approved plan, with the exception of deleting the drive approach-along Rancheria Drive. ,4 ,; ITEM B _' ' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental ...c,essment for DR 85-23 - Kirshbaum December 11, ',,SS Page 2 III. ANALYSIS: A. Generals The project is intended fyr medical uses. The project meets office parking requirements and will have vehiculae, access from San Bernardino Road and Grove Avenue, with pedestrian links from public sidewalks into the site, and a pedestrian link to Red Hili•Country Club Drive, (see Exhibit C ). In order to buffer and screen the project, from adjacent residences, dense landscaping and a six-foot high block 'wall till be provided along the east property line. ,`Also, all exterior lighting will be directed away and shielded from surrounding homes. B. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the environmental checklist and found no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with said findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration,would be in order. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends issuance , of a Negative'` Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Location Map Exhibit "B" - Master Plan (Original) Exhibit ''C" - New Proposed Master Plan Exhibit I'D" _ Site Plan: Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Y Exhibit 'IF" - Original Design Elevations • Exhibit "G New Proposed Design Elevations Exhibit IIHII - Concept Grading Plan Initiai Study,.Part II 'j p n MR Im 5 i n �,a�r rw• � t� • • r* Pit IF ZIA fD GYLtY m OfIv , -- '�! I. � 3•. ram.- �...;.....� -= r,.�..........olr.,.,.,�. --°, �� 1 r i gy BSI lY li!3t I I '1 t - 1 .rj ar IL - c•,I � In i t....'� s - � - 1 i r'•i ii17}��' a. t�y .�._�I B F a E:3•' S � 1 a .<.y P'��p'y�1�-�. � i 4 7: Y.-�I� �_+ .�jm� ? �. � 171 try •-�_1==• ���*-��� � _ 1 v!WIN 1 r fit GROVE_ MEDICAL CENTER " " RANCHO-CUCAMONGA, CA (3arorch 1. �� h......L......f f.... .h•winrs DrnnnrT{aac g�.� ..�......-4>o cr+r• i '.i. i GROVE AVENUE For a Ilk ......... y- t idE _ 2s i $ V k s -in IR M � ���a R.D. WILUAMS [� ASSOCIATES �etr� CENTER a PPment Consuttantr fSp Rtt4 lw;t edlt'a�Reabtkswtekb.errr0 \�., lrtnnt-rare - '1 r� �• u L pill • � � C , ItWi - r fit; r;� Ord 01 Hug ■■ MOVE CENTER : . r GROVE ff AVEPUE Alm, I uasr �}t•� r�l�I 1 'I�i-i-� ��,�t -_I -i--� ! III--,-_I Allih Fa 1 1 _ .• � ` lt. I'v"�..� :.1 1' w..� ,Zeta- : , ; yy • t m ,� a,rq } I I •v t Q 3 a T O & o w2o c y 2 Y W y 0 a xs a oR.D. WILLIAMS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES CENTER Pladninp,/Hcrelopmeflt Cofltutlantt par An..t..l.so—r,t,aa.c..aaa,,ta tnx : i T �•-' { ♦' s ' 1ti�t ! t, ^' t.. s � ♦r 3 �- a 1 /yI r�ii�i� K. � y t v£�t'r b� r Yt -\ i't �t Iti ! ! I r * 't` ..y��`t�" \S�•�jvt ►1 "'t�.?' _ t ?. Is a Z.rf "3. j +a 7 i ti.'f r^ �1�•..F]�"�!1 1� t\ k Y} t t La , tt P r tMJ 1 J. 1 •I t L> 9 t! t 1L' �. � ?.� L ].tf' >I \: � • �ll ( !4 L i •. t � L t R s!:t t ., y� y r..c t 1� •. 7 4 t.7 n 'a �. is ! •�a t ,I. v ♦ < •. L- : ✓ J ty ell co co 133 �+. a - •d..[r ' firs d •' Id d! �tA Ev� r ROVE--MEDIC a[. .OEE�TERi , I :RANCHO-i CAMONGA, CAB Developed•by: Juniper.Propertlae �•-.� •"�� ���r 1 A _CR01fE_.N1EUICAL_CENTER x -., h RANGttu. �.�.AN[ONGA, CA __ �'.r:• b8Y0l0¢9db7i.J�Jfli�9b('.�OF1Blt�i • .r.��r ra�c.r ' I RD In ciow I IS aOl Ja® r GROVES R.D.rtILIM` S :.. Q' I tNTE�N'R. Plsnntn�/Develop@pnC Cantvltartt IL_• JI a.rC �'"� fSt�a.r..ewv�fllisti]m'e�]kCatcri j ; t,. I T •,�Mt. 1�1 --� :.•$:.�= � tEii� r.{ - Mgr, SE ME SUES } Y t X ■ �.T 3yLc 4. } i , �.► 1e ril� 7 L� c t f�l }'��'R�4�1 ■. Iasi' [ I ;A i i I GEtOVE AVENLE f _- —Qn -"� «`u_-�y •mac i.��-� __ -� ,'F• .,� . R—d �-- t to 13 • % Q, �e z ` I _ __ ! � � z m •,ei �: - .t:�•j�i oa i_ Ila N. ' tY . t a mMICAL AW J sC�Le..�c,xt�..nE.w,rye x:tS E U ;l C NT , mentConsulta�nt»t, t„i tr -CITY Ofi RANCHO GUGASONGa PART II - INITIAL STUDY &TVIRO*fEN= CHECMIST DATE:. ,��I/. ,�,�p�— • APPLICANT r FILING DATE: />Z S",5�•2 3 --T LGG NUMBER: -� PRQJECT:-�•JE /79E1�iCi3G C'Fir/,TEj� � •/� !•.'���.O�L f�l..yd�', TRD-MCI-LOCATIPM.-StV d TAL (Explanation, of all "yes" and "maybe"sheets). answers are required on attached ':"ES bIAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology, 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. ..Chage in_tnpngraphy rs.grnund.st+rfarp • ••ranrn„r•�s1.er�als? � • d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. July potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site aonditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 8• 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 extraction and/or use of any mine_al resource? 2. Hydrolazy. Will ttie pr..oposal'have significant results in: Page 2 TES MAYBE No a. Changes in currents;-or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption sates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? e. -Alterations to the course or flow of flood Y waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? / e. Discharge into surface waters, or-any d/ alteration of surface water quality? v 'f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?' S• 'Change is the quantity of {' )undwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? -- -- h. The reduction in the amount of water ether- wise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will ta Proposal have s3g.lificant results in: Cons;== or periodic.nir•'emissions from mohile • - or indirect.sou=_? Stationary sources`: _V/j b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or ✓ Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality stand.-rds? / .i c. Alteration of local. or regional climatic conditions affecting *' y ecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota '. � Flora. Will the proposal^have significant results r in a. Change in the characteristics of species, ' including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? i b. 'Reduct;,on of the numbers of any unique,rare , '� i •or endangered:species of planes?p _,y t ? , ' Page.3 • I YES `:.4YBE N0 C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of 1 plants into an area?, d. Reduction in the potential for rgricultural 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 1[ or endangered.species of•animals? _ c- Ts.troduction of-aew or disruptive species o animals into an area, or result in a barrier ..to_S�,P nip,�,�.,, emit Of-animals? �,-,- .or:mov t .d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or _- wildlife habitat? ` Y 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the Proposal alter the location, distri- butior., density, diversity, or growth rate of the,human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? b. Sacio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in. L. ,Mange.iu local or region ;� socio-economic characteristics, including economic or ccxmercial diversity, tax rate, and properly values? - / :+- Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, ?.' tax payers or project users? / 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the ji proposal have significant results in, a. A substantial alteration of the prese-.+,or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon thi qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities?r � 3 n . Page 4 YES :fAY3E N0 8. Transportation. .-Will'"thi proposal have significant results in:. a. 'Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing s.',reets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or {/ demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-tion systems? e. Alterations`-ea-present patterns of circula t.ioa.or•movement of people and/or goods? -�. 'AlteramIrnss-:to ar effects on Present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or- air traffic? 9. Increases in traffic hazards-to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural- Will the proposal have V significant rlsults in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources?` f 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Wi?1 the pro;osa_ have significant r Ults in:. a. ..C.reaz-fon.cf any-healih -"hazard? ba=d.cx pas�.ri,t 1ea12h b,. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ? `-• risk i� , A of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? h d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic ; i = organisms or the exposure of people to suc�i organisms? / f j e. Increase in existing noise levels? { f. Exposure of II people to i Pc entiallY dangerous Brous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h• 1An increase in light or glare? % Page 5 YES. :LaYBE NO resu 11. Aesthetics. Will.. the proposal have significant lts fa: a• The obstructiosi or degradation of any scenic vista or views I b• 'the creation of an aesthetically o f nsive situ? C. A conflict with the objective of designated: or potential scenic corridorsT 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the have a significant need for. zuaw systems, proposal alterations to the fr-llcwing: a. .X1 ecsr3c power? $_ 14atnral, afi.-Pac��nd gas? - c., Communications systems? _— +. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? _ f. Flood control structures?' g. Solid w:_ste facilities? a a✓// h. Fire protection? �(/ 1'03;ice protection? Schools? -ar.-W-her xacreational facilities? `/� 1• Maintenance of peblic facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? / M. Other governmental services? f� t c ' 13. Enerey had Scarce Resources. Will the proposal ' have significant results in: a• Use of subs.-ant'-al or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase-in demand upo sources o£ energy? n existing- ' c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase.or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable fozms of energy, when feasible renewable sources ex: energy are,available? :T 3 Page E YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable orscarce natural resource? E .4. Mandatory Findin s o£ SSRnificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviro went, substantially reduce the habitat: of fish or wilditfe species, cause a fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, seduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant cr animal or 'iminate Important exampl es les of .the ma 3or'p iods of California history or prehisto,3? b. Does.the project have the potential, to achieve — short-term, to ;::he disadvantage of long-term, ' a.,� foals' (A sho rt-term. environment -tesm f=pzct ms the ronment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure we11,.3ntn Lhe.future). C. Does theprojoct have•impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively corsl"^prable 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 �a on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 73I5CIISSIOA"DF_ER['1:gON'1E:'TAL EVALTIaiION Lhe.abaxe. ues :E•, of off{rmative answers to 4 t4nnc plus a discussion :f-Proposed rzitigation-measures). 7— �4h �G /llga/-d f f K vow Yrh44ff �v.s/.s'sk re c7;Q.o a 7lo LN/GG 6E e r/ E2 - i�/� LisZ,E v..� dye ,�ffE de7y— .CWgfml /. e Pace. • - � III. "..TER:4, ivxTlw On the basis of this initial"-evaluation: find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ild a NEGATIVE DECLARATION Will be prepared. I find that although th:k proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect iz th.Ls case because the 'it eation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. A NEGaTIVy' (—� 1 find the proposed 1_J eirvirnmenE, and an EDIVIROy�T MPACTy liave a REPORT fisarequired.nt effect on the OF µ Date ra �.L�.HfihCait� Satu��..w,e� Title 1 f S i F CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CVCAMO STAFF gdEPO 7' �R �Vq z t � 0 C7 [ Z v a 1977 DATE December 11, ?85 TO: ^•hairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO mENTATIVE TRACT 12914 - HIGHLAND VILLAGE - Grading revisions that raquire additional retaining galls at the northeast corner of Archbald Avenue and Highland Avenue. I. BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 198r, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved :entativ;\ Tract 12914, for the construction of 78 single-family units on 9.75 acres of land (Exhibit "B"). The applicant is requesting approval. of grading revisions that affect the intersection treatment at Archibald and Highland. II. ANAL7,IS: On October 14, 1985, tine Building and Safety Department i reviewed the final..grading plan. The Building Department notified the Planning Staff regarding grading revisions that would necessitate a 6-foot high retaining wall at the corner of Archibald and F*ighland.The applicant, Pannon Design and. Development stated that grading revisions were necessary to-adequately drain the lots to the interior street at the southwest corner of the project site (Exhibit "C11). Since this project is located on a Special Boulevard, Staff presented the grading revisions and 6-foot high retaining wall elevation to the Design Review Committee on November 7, 1985. The Committee recommended y-foot�of landscaping area along the back of the sidewalk ..ith a double retaining wall, 2 1/2 feet high, terracing up to the main perimeter wall. Both walls wi.:.l be curved descending from 2 and 1/2 feet at the center i radius to 1-foot at the terminus, and will consist of.River Rock mater-al (Exhibit"D"). The corner landscaping statement will be treated with specia:; Accent planting materials as reglired by Conditions of Approval _ T;Mtative Tract 12914. I ITEM C :'LANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 11, 1985 TT 12914 Highland Village Page 2 f III.. RECO.MMENDATIO(f: Staff recommends approval of the revised wall design by I43;':.3ta action. (' Ttespectfully submitt , f Brad Buller City Planner BB:HF:das Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Originally Approved Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Concept Grading Plan Exh=Llt "D" - Revised Wall Elevation at the southwest corner,of project site 3 t 1 i i 1 _ SG,_ nu ,•.-_-mot ..��..�-_. � .r. � • r..n.Y L r ■ f � II V., I h 1 0lL' t tl all111 K • it I' i; ,�. �� �`;'� q�,,i��g 1 Highland "v100ags tract Ca I o rancho t aoaw�d 12914 '"" z r ` �-o.�.•�•.••C �• P�_1--. a � TA 18~mod Ae g1113�r-^ •ILI '��. 1 �� � ill , X>= _�- i _ _I r l�•_- J•-ly � j �r'(i �t-� �,r:e- r i� � ! _�-_-� rz Iv Ao If •fitt� .1i I° s `• �. , � i �;--t �.�'tJ.� 1' ' i pipu t--} _ _ /• � . �, '�. 1. � :I � m nz D { 'l if , 12914 a _ c-S �3 a P\ 1�1((1 / ■ t .3 '!•"D .i LLD ,r�j• S � III CITY OF RANCHO CJCAAIOhsA a3CQM T,�7����1,y� p1����T� N,, i7YL'li'.�.liYLl•�SV lATA x 1 r ci. I.n O11 �z 1977 (' DATE December 11, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of tie Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assooia:e Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE3SM%*;.,I AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - aHELBOURNE A total re.iidentia:l subdivision and design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres-of laaa in the how Medium Residentia. Distvict located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 t feet east of Archibald Avenw, ?N 201-252-21, 22. .(Continued from October 9th meeting.) BACKGROUND. At its October 239 1985 meeting, the Plenring Commission continued the public hearing for this project to this regular meeting as - ,, requested by the -applicant. The dvelooer is again requesting a continuation to reviae the entire development plans to comply with the City's Codes and Policies. Attached for your;review is a copy t:f the letter of requeat from the appli.ant, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be continued to the March 12, 1986 regular meeting so 0-at the applicant has sufficient time to complete the Development Review process prior to Planning Commission review. r { '.. BB:NF:das t Attachment: Applicant's Letter of Request k. i ITEM D eC ELBUKN�E ' �f� e �E�trtD r; �z C. RANCHO CUCLhtONGA LC a 1985 <7f J �71SPAU02t1'213,Q'516 A� , a_' 4 . Shebur'ne Development Cx3rpor=icn i 6660 Measw dro Boulevard Riverside reditrroe 96506 a t7147 760-363C3 { �� r :�_ :; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVONGA �uc.�^9�l STAFF REPORT O Q O DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Title 74evisions/Modifications Section 17.02.07OB; Development Review Section - 17,06.01OG and 17.06.020G,of the. Municipal Codes regarding language`changes. I. BACKGROUND: A. Revisions/Modifications: The Revisions/Modifications ser:ion of the Development Core allows an applicant to refile for Planning Commission review to modify any portion Is. of an approved project, such as site plan, grading plan, landscape plan, architectural plans, and conditions of approval. Unfortunately, this creS %es a "loophole" whereby a project that was denied and/or appealed and denied could be resubmitted with the same design that was preyious.y denied. Further, the current language dc,:�s not proviee any 'limit upon how many times a revision/modification can be filed, denied, rei'iled, denied, etc. The Planning Commission hat stated that it is not the intent of this section to circumvent the appeal process for the original approved project. Ttis amendment would clarify the intent of this section of the code and eliminate this "loophole". The amendment would_ accomplish the following: 1. Eliminates the possibility of an applicant, with a previously denied Revisions/Modification application, to refile for Planning Commission I review for the same revisions :.r modification within a one year peric,l., B. New Applications Followil_g Denial: In regards to new application follow ng denial of —a project, minor, changes are proposed to Section 17.060.01OG and '7.060.020G, in ordor to correct a typographical error as follows: g ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-33 December 11, 1985 Page 2 Following the denial of a Minor Devclopment Review application, no application for the sane cr substantially the same use or on substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of V;t Public Resources Code that would not require subsequent or supplemental environmenta'. imp,,ct report and recommends 'issuance of'a Negative Declaration. This finding is based upon the fact that Development Code Amendment implements the existing goals and policies of the General Plan which were fully analyzed with regards to environmental impacts during the general Plan EIR. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been adve ised as-a public nearing in The Daily Report newspaper. � t E V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Caiimission ( adopt the attached :resolution recommending approval of they proposed amendment to the City Council and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully subbmiitted B-ad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ko Exhibit "A" - Propose-4 amecdments to Section 17.02.070B, Section 17.060.01OG and Sect-,oq 17.060.02OG Initial Study, Part II Resolution Ordinance EXHIBIT A Section 17.02.070 Revisions/Modifications A. Minor Revisions Administrative. Minor revisions or modifications to appreved site plans, conceptual Grading plans, conceptual landscape plan,, or architectural plans may be approved by the City Planner. Minor revisions and modifications shall be defined as and shall include the following: 1. Floor plan changes which do not result . more than a ten (10) percent change; 2. Parking and circulation configuratiens which do not change the basic parking areas or crculation concept (such as relocating whole parking areas from on,.- area of the site to .another, or by adding or deleting circula';ion areas that could have potential impacts to adjacent or surv�;ending properties); 3. Outside bu';ding configu,% rions which do snot create a greater bulk, scale, or change in l e line of sight; 4. Building placements which do ;:ot change the general location and layout of the site 5. Grading alterations which do not change the basic concept, increase slopes, or building elevations., or change course of drainage which could adversely affect ali scent or surrounding properties; 6. Landscape modifications s:hich do not alter the general concept or reduce the affect or amount original'a'y intended; 7. Architectural chances which do iot change the basic form and theme; 8. Exterior material or color changes which do not conflict with the original architectural form and theme and which are consistent and compatible with the original materials and colors. It, addition to the above guidelines, the City Planner must determine that t the 'circumstance;, standards, ordinances, conditions and findings appliczble at the time of the original approval still remain valid. The City Flanncr may refer any minor revisions or modifications to the Design Review Committee for their recommendation prior to his final decision. B. Major Revisions - Commission. Revisions or modifications to site plans, grading plans,:landscape plans, or architectural plans which are not considered minor as described in the previous section, shall be considered a major revision. Also, any request for a change in conditions of approval shall b3 considered a major revision. Major revisions shall be processed thl°ough the sama'approval procedure and author-ity which granted the original approval. The applicant requesting such revisions shall be required to supply any necessary plan:;, vs deemed appropriate by the "ity E -3 Planner, and pay necessary fees to cover the review procedure. The decision of the approval authority shall be final unless aapeaied in . accordance with Section.17.02.080. Followinq the 'denial of a. Major Revisions Application, no application for the same or su stantia v t- e same revision shall Fie filed within one year from the date of denial. Section 17.06 Development Review w: Section 17.060.010G nlen_A plications Following Denial G. New Applications following Denial: Foil,Iiwing the denial of a Development Review ap cation, no application for the same or substantially the same use 2M the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. Section 17.060.020E New Applications Followinq Denial G. New Applications following Ltenial. Following the denial of a Minor Development Review application, no application for the same or substantially the same us,- &&.-',he same or substzatiaily the same site j shall be filed within one ,year from the date of denial. I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART I1 �- INITIAL STUDY r::JIa0NMEHTAL CHECKLIST DATE:- APPLICANT:-- FILING DATE: LOC NUtMER• PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATTIN:____j.�� I. ENVIROti?ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). i_ YES MAYBE NO I 1. Soils and Geoloev. W-1. the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes 9_r geologic relationships? I b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. :Change in to o ra h or p g p Y ground surface —� t contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification` Of ;my uti.que geolcgic or physical features? a• Any Potentia' increase in wind or water ` erosion of soils,site conditons? affecting either on or off f, Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? f 9- Exposure of people v(p p,e or nr:Nperty to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazar-ls? h. ki increase in the rate of extraction and/or vse of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrolocv. Will the proposal have significant results in: E--5 • Page 2 YES MAYBE NO a. Changes i.1 currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streamst. rivers,'or ephemeral Stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, draina: Patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water raneff? VVV c• Alterations to the course or flow of fl,od waters? / d. Change in the amount of surface Water in any V body of water? / e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change i,•, the quantity of groundwaters, either t?.rough direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? . Quantity? `� AdUk h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i- Exposure of people or property to water related hazards giich as flooding or seiches? S. Air-- 2813ty- Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the attainuent of applicable air quality standards? N/ c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? G. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant resLslts In, Ah a. Change in the characteristics of sijecies, ircluding diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction oi'the numbers of any unique or endangered species of plants? . rare J . I ?age I YFS `L3YSE 10 C. Int-oduction of new or, disruptive species of plants jmto an area? d. Reduction. ip the potential for agricultural proluction? Faun:.. Will the proposal have significant results ir.: a. Change in the chire.cteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to he migration or movement of animals? d. Aetera-lration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? / 5. `ovulation. Will the proposal have significant V xasults in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bucioa, density, diversity, or growth rate of the huaau population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, ar create a demand for aL';i�-ional housing? " 6 So_;o-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have •.ficant results in _ Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? � b. W311 Project costs be equitably distributed among pro i-Ct beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use any Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have aignificane results in? a. A substantial ,,iteration f tha present` or planned land' une of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? ' C. An impact upon the griaity or ouantity of l existing eon,-umptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? - / Page 4 YES. ,r�Y3� NO 8. Transaortation. Will the proposal hav;, signiflcant results in.. / a. Generation of subr,tantal additional vehicular / movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? S c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or 11// demand for new parking? / d. Substantial impact upon existing trarsporta- tion systems? / e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of pec2le and/or gocids? V £. Alterations to or effects oa p- ;.sent and Potential water-borne, tail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles. bicyclists or ped-strians? 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 Fac.tors. Will the y proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential Lealth / hazard? b. Exposure of ueople to potential health hazards? C. A risk of explosicn or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of indiv;duals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such f organisms? ✓ e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dan;erc s noise levels? b. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? Page 5 YES �aYnE NO 1p It. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: • a. The obstruction or degradatieta of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offens've ✓ site? c. A conflict kith the objective of designated or poi-ential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Publ?c Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new s •�.IIs, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? f b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systw,.? �. d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid wcste facilities? h. Fire protection? I. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? I. Maintenance Ofpublic facilities, including y~ roads and flood control facilities: m. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resoarces. Will the o osal have significant results in: F'- p a. Use of substantial or excesuive fuel or energy? b. Su; stantial increase in demand uprn, existing sources ?f energy?Ask 1G, C. An increase in the demand for developme of new sour,_,es of energy? / d. An increase or perpetuation of the const,,aintion of nonrenewable forms of margy, when feasible �' . renewable sources of energy are availcLl=_? << i� . Page YES NO y e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findis of cance. a. Does'the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, c:ausa a fish or wildlife population to drop below "if sustaining levels, threaten to elim nate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range Of a rare_ or andangared plant or animal or eliminate important exLmples of the major periods of California history o- prehistory? _ b. Dp_s the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to phe disadvancage of lone-term, envi=+•nmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, u;gfinit?ve period of time %+hile long- term i ~acts wilt endure well into the future), _ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but curuulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effect:, of an individual project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, and probable ;Future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? R ZI. DISCGsSION OF --m-11konL9TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to het ..,ve questions plus a discu.zion of proposed mitigaL'• on zeasures). 1f `O o = - _-,.-1 0704 o - 185 P� G� AgedPa o Pa'g � f . Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project coUM NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fir.,d that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case, becaus,-the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLA-1ATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project 'MY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONM4T LHPACT REPORT is required. Date Title AMh RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSTON OF THE CITY OF RAN(dO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMM'-NDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 85-03 AMENDING REVISION/MODIFICATION SECTION 17.020.07OB; NEW APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING DENIAL SECTIONS 17.060.01OG AND 17.060.020E OF THE RANCHO COCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public heLl'ing to consider all comments on the proposed Development Code Amendment No. 85-03. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings; A. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. R. The Amendment is warranted to clarify the intent of the Revisions/Modification and the New Applications Following Denial sections of the Development Code. C. The Amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2: That the Rancho Cucamonga Punning Commission has found this amendment will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on November 27, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED. 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt 'Development Code Amendment 85-03 regarding the sections on Revisions/Modifications and New Applications. Following Denial. 2. That a certified copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council h APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ILTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Uanm s L. Stout, Chairman ay. Resolution No. Development Code Amendment 85-03 Page 2 ATTEST• Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December,_1985, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; E-' 1 F a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 8E- 03 A.MENDING TITLE' 17, REVISIONS/MODIFICATIONS SECTION 1:7.020.070B AND IEW APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING DENIAL OF SECTIONS 1.7.060.O1OG AND 17.060.020G, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION is 17.02.070E - Revisions'/Modificiations is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Major Revisions - 'Commission. Revisions or modification to site plans, grading plans, landscape plans, or architectural plans which are not considered minor as described in the previous section, shall be considered a major revision. Also, any request for a change in conditions of approval shr;1.1 be considered a major revision. Major revisions shall be processed through the same approval procedure •.nd aut rarity which granted the or gin:l approval. The applicant requesting such revisions shad be required to supply any _necessary plans, as deemed appropriate by the City Planner, and pay necessary fees to cover the review procedure. The decision of the approval authority shall be final unless appealed in accordance with Section 17.02.080. I'rollowing the denial of a- major revision application, no application for the same or substantially the same revision shall be filed withinone year from the date of denial. SECTION 2: Section 17,060.01OG and Section 17.060.02OG are hereby amended as follows: Section 17.060.O1OG 'New Applications followinq Den: l: Following the denial of a Development Review application, no application for the sameor substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial. Section 17.060.020 G. New Applications following Denial. Following the denial of a Minor Development Review application, no application for the IMF& same or substantially the same use art the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year From the date of"denial. P E-�S PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE DCA 85-03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 11, 1985 Page 2 AWL The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15)'days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this llth day of December, ,1985. AYES; NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do .hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular (special, adjourned) meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the: 11th_day of December, 1985, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 11•th day of December, 1985. Executed this 11th day of December, 1985 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Beverly A._Aut a et, City Clerk Aft CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cvCA STAFF REPORT O� O DATE: December 11, 1985 t977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9487 - BRUNSWICK CORPORATION A division of 8.97 acres into 4 ,parcels in a General Commercial Development District located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard (APN 1177-401-22.) i i I. PROJECT AND SITEDESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of parcel map B. Purpose: To provide 4 parcels for commercial purposes C. Location: West side of Haven Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard D. Parcel Size: Parcel l - 7.10 ac. Parcel 2 .672 ac. Parcel 3 .846 ac. i Parcel 4 - .345 ac. Total 8.97 ac. E. Existing Zoning: General Commercial F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G." • Surrounding Land Use: North Church Street Drainage Basin South - Commercial project (Virginia Dare Winery) East - Terra Vista Planned Community West - Deer Creek Channel and Existing Industrial (Data Design) H. Surroundin2 General Plan and Development Code Desiqnations: North Flood Control Open Space South - General Commercial East Terra Vista Planned Community West - Industrial Specific Plan Area ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 9487 December 11, 1985 Page 2 Aft I. Site Characteristics: The site is an abandoned vineyard sloping gently in a southwesterly direction. II. ANALYSIS: This parcel map relates to CUP 85-37 on tonight's agenda for con�si eration by the Planning Commission. Construction of the street improvements for the entire frontage of the project is to be completed prior to occupancy of any building. The construction of the portion of the Haven Avenue median fronting the parcel map will be deferred until it can be constructed under a cityy contract for a larger length in order to provide a uniform landscaping theme. The developer is required to make a cash deposit for the cost of one-half the median fronting the parcel map. Overhead utilities exist along the Haven Avenue frontage of this project. No services are connected to the line and frontage width is felt sufficient to warrant undergrounding. The project to the south has been conditioned to underground the existing overhead'utilities fronting Haven Avenue. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff hasAOk completed Part II of-the 'Initial Study, the environmenral checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed _in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input a 3 elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9487. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, g BRH:BK:de Attachments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study r �.STRE'EF *=`� 64.78 Ac u/t. A �. -s• •�.+• ro .zor as a,�„ - .1 aO K 1WAC 1.03 AC 1.03AC 1.03AC 1.35 AC -` l.IIAC A+ % Y. I.71AC La ,•8. rn ,03AC 4 9.97AC- ®. •• 1.9tAC 14 t 27AAC o° 40 © PROJECT _ _ n 7a li .z.esaC 0' Iz i C. TAA I m I k 9.6aAC: PM 83 3 t ! `( � t CITY O ! PROJECT: PARCEL MAP 9487 RANCHO CUCA,MONGA' TITLE: vzc I MAP jNGINEER1NG DIVISION F-3 EXHIBIT; 1t A 11 TENTATIVE; .wae/ 1 or t PARCEL MAP No. 9487 IN '"a "TV O.sANCNO CUCA-ONeA a...{■.[/>I.I.Y •,:t•1 t< .1 Tr..1 x.. 1I414 •' •r... 1. ■... 1s& .r 11... ..... 10-21-I..Q{• •1 ■..• s.1,p<1.• C...V. OR euouer toss —,— {.n•. to Y u u•.. la CHURCH STREET O,t./l.. C•111..trs< ■UT. MEDIA Urr Ro<N■a-ara■ A� ;: ■r.•••i aC•,... TYPICAL SECTION _ IfaU • •1■....m.{; HAVEN AVENUE s•.1 ■• ...C.111. OOr�O ' jjj lz rate■< <Tai BENCHMARK f. fu-D 1aei..`< ftl Ul •1.•rl r.�• x •f l 1 stet. /•.. MI SOs•� s •lAln ■1 <.1 i 1 • AUr •1 l I •A O.O t[O LAND { 1.• Ytl..a.U,a.l •1.. 1,11 . 1. u,vH• s.•ll !I+" •1•,4N tAAI•l :It...a.•/s2a N<. 1'f D.•. i+y I• a l.l•P\...0.1. . C•. •U . ■ Is 1207.■• N 1.-i s I let..A I11 .I.a G t e. t.r. r1.1. .1 .ai a•o.•.uT P.Rf:FL 4 %.� •••�. ix .l.>...•1 ...b•rlr sla. Du•CulYe/.....••..t,.•UaI 4/y rot, a !f^ '• .UTILITIES Does Caaa[.ex AMNat I14•.f{9 / / ,'ry,X. X. el ra■-c - •. a .lr r ter ■i.v1.1 / e o J / o ereA. c a c ... a ... ... l.a i[t[•NexaT.i.►■— c■wH.v ARCEL 3� !I ►oru-■ nr•r• c 1. sots., � as I o �1•�' % • M-EL f la So {i.� ^ ?.lot Na q : tx Is rOOTMItt .Lr O.a Is - ! ^ 1 ''-j41 • AaAorNICNwAr - + . '. `:�. .�a.�.• ,r�/ IIi �. • 1 _ 1 L. Vlc laltr la■D. 3 r _ ` FOOTHILL. SOULEVA013 ENVIROMC.NTAL REVIEW alp APPLICATION uz. INITIAL STUDY - PART I GENERAL For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed. and submitted to the Development Review Committee through, the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Planning Division staff will prepare Part. II of the Initial Study and make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one of three determinations: (1) The project will have no significant environmental impaA6 and a Negative Declaration will be filed, (2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report f should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: October 30, 1985 Project Title: Deer Creek Shopping Center, Rancho Cucawnga Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: Phil D. Fitzgerald A.I.A. P.O. Box 1581, Ponca City, OK 74602 (405) 765-0678 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: F?est side of Haven Ave. North of Foothill B1**jd. (Lot a, Tract 2202, ng. 67 & S7 7-/2.San Pernadino �ty) location of Project: West side of Haven Ave.,"North of Foothill Blvd. Assessor's Parcel No.: Lot 14, Tract 11428, Book of raps 158, pgs. 19. 20, 21. San Bernariino County, CA. List other•permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency issuing such permits: Buildincr permit — City of Rancho Cucai[cnga. P_pproval_from San Beznadino County Health Department - Snack Bar f� it EI t I-1 • tC PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project:- 'Bowlinq center, .Shopping Center, and Restaurant. Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: Project acreage 8.97 acres proposed buildinca. Describe tha environmental setting of the project site including information on topography, soil staMli'ty, plants (tress), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets): Rbmaraohy - Flats land slopes gently fran North to South West corner of U2U_�ei'ty Soil Stapil i-v Apparently sandv xai th adequate beari�ncr ca . pacifies for a 1 stary 1T.1ildinixs --;- -Plants - klitire site i='an old abandoned _ vine and with scrub bashes fhroL+�hout. brae encolyp uses line North of Haven Ave and are to be removed as per instructians from the Cites of v Cucamcmaa .ancin. Land Animals— No a t land animals exist exception may be roc]ents. No cultural. histcrical or scenic cis are located on the Lard. An acent s intr center develomrent to cur south 1­ Veloned in concrete with an old structure f' _ or V' sa it-c�• a Dane Win The aroposed shoppina center echoes the.Win influence. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a serie p s of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact No. This ro e-t should staitd'on its a�n remit Grin i not be a part of an -the-project. i F'I-2 :• - fir- �"� . BILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many?aEpx• 20. X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? X Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): Removal of giant eucalyptus trees at request of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project will generate daily:__520 cr.p.d. 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project: aD=. 600 cars and trucks, 9. Estimate the amount, of grading (cutting and filling) required for this ' project, in cubic yards: 17,000 cy, cut & 17,000 2Z fill 10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented -re true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further unders-cand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation ca be m e by the Planning Division. Date:C--�--r Signature ; 4 ; Title_,�(2G�-lCl -{ fad i I-3 .- RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The fol wing information sh:ild be provided to the City of ''Rancho Cucamonga Planning ivision in order to aid the school district in assessing their ability to accommodate the proposed residential development. Developers are required to secure letters from the school district for accommodating the increased nc,,m r of students prior to issuance of building I ?emits. Name of Developer nd Tentative Tract No. ' Specific Location of oject: HASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family ,;nits: 2. Number of multiple family units• 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy, Model' and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range e F 8 - ' i 1-4 - RESOLUTION KO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9487 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9487) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9487, submitted by Brunswick Corporation and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, baing•a division of Lot 14 of Tract 11428 as recorded in Book 158 of Maps, pages 19-21, records of San Bernardino County; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 1985, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS', on December 11, 1985, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is. consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will net create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on December 11, > 1985.. • SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9487 is approved subject to i Approval the recommended Conditions of A� p, pertaining thereto. ' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. k PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY, i Dennis L. Stout, Chairman s F—9 ATTCST: ,T Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, dG 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 I^egular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the Ilth day of December, 19"I5, by the folloviing vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: lr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMEKOff CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: West side of Haven Avenue TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9487 north of Foothill Boulevard _ N DATE FILED: October ?7, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14 of Tract 11428 NUMBER OF COTS: 4 as recorded in Book 158 of maps pages 19-2L GROSS ACREAGE: 8.97 Records of San Bernardino County ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 1077-401-22 •ttir�t*�x.•�e�,s-;r*�k****t�,t��r�.-k�ht**ter,.r�,t-:�:t-max**:rye*��rx�t�r*�nrt��t�x�xz*�rx*ter DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Brunswick Corporation Same Derbish Guerra& Assoc. 12311 Seal Beach Blvd. 124 East "F"SSt.. Ste. 12 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Ontario, CA 91764 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the MuniLipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way and all r_,,sary easements as shown on; the tentative map. 2. Dedicati, "t be made or' the following rights-of-way on the following .s� additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _• 3. Corner property line radius Will be required per City Standards. X 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows on Haven except for two openings as approved by the City Engineer. X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring {' access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all commorn ' roads, drives or pa~king areas shall be provided by C.C.p -. and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, �1 6. All existing easements lyi,;,g within future right-of-way are to Aft be quitclaimed• or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements,. X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 3. Street Emprovements f Pursuant to the City g Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 15.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approackes, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. _ 2. k minimum of 26-Foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way sliall be constructed for all half section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements:" Curb & A.C. Side- Ur-iveStreet Street A.C. Median yet lame Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other Avenue X X **X X X X See G. i MP * Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter **Meandering Sidewalk 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, 1 fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X - 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by. the City Engineer prior to issuance or an encroachment permit. • 5. 6ev.eloper shall coor�inate, and where necessary, pay far the relocation of any pGwer pales ,or other existing public utilities As necessary. X 7. Existing overhead utilities fronting the property shall be t undergrounded prior to issuance of occupancy ,permits. Time extension may be granted by agreement with the City Engineer, +; and City .Attorney. X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types air, °d by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. tights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. X 10. landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and y approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X 11. Concentrated drainage ;lows shall not cross sidewalks. !p Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. i C. Surety Surety shall be Posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing ccinpletion_of the public improvements, 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for t;ie following: Aft s. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of a71 on-site drainage facitites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit for ' D. Drainage and Flood Coptrol i X 1. Private drainage easements fo r .cross lot' dr ainage a shall required i g all be and 9 sh all be :delineated or noticed on she final map. 2- Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage � r study for the project shall be submitted to the CityEngineer for review. S• A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff `i -3- �� E. Grading X 1. -Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building. Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. _ X _ 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall 'beprepared ty a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the •time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitt ed to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. PP P F. General Requirements and Approval; Aek X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood ood Co ntrol District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water 4 X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other X 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prier to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street. constructon. X 4. Sanitary server and water systems shall be'designed to Cucamonga ' County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. P ; . I X 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other ` interested - encies involved. '::!,-oval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. l{ -4- -� X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee- that'sewer treatment capacity will be ravailable at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless >,aid certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planed Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical condition, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the -City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit issuance 9. Prior to recording, a,deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be , submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench-marks referenced. 11. Notice of intent,to join the proposed Median Island Landscape District 'shall :be filed with the- City Council prior to recordation,of the Final Map. G. Special Conditions X 1. An in-lien cash deposit is required for one-half the construction cost of the Median Island on Haver: Avenue prior to recordation of the map or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. X 2. An easement prov?ding access to the adjacent property to the south of this parcel map shall be delineated or noted on the final map. X 3. The Haven Avenue improvements shall be designed to include: a. right turn lanes into both driveways, with a 901 long' reverse curve leading into the stacking lane portion, and b. dual left turn lanes into the southerly driveway and Town ' Center Drive which will require placing the curb an. additional 2' from the construction centerline (491 vs. 471). V :Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: it CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��cAn ro STAFF REPORT a t O O F � Z U > DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-37 BRUNSWICK - The development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 36,025 square foot, bowling center, three retail buildings totaling 59,400 square feet, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 8.97 acres, of land in the General Commercial District, located 1,000 feet north of Foothill Bou':-+lard, west of ,Haven Avenue APN 1077-401 22. Related File; Parcel Map 9487 Afflk I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of shopping center master plan, Phase I site plan and elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of a 36,025 square foot bowling center, and a 45,400<square foot retail building. C. Existing land Use: Vacant D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, Ceer Creek, flood control; Flood Control District South - Vacant, Virginia Dare Shopping Center under construction; General Commercial District tasi Vacant; Community Commercial District in the Terra Vista Planned Community West Deer Creek, Industrial use; Industrial Park District ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF"REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-37 December 11, 1985 Page #2 E. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Commercial North Flood Control South - General Commercial East Community Commercial West - Industrial Park, Flood Control F. Site Characteristics; The site is vacant and is an old abandoned grape vineyard with shrubs and bushes throughout :the site. The land slopes gently from the north to the southwest side of the property. A row of Blue gum eucalyptus windrows exist along Haven Avenue. The developer is proposingto remove the windrows and replace them with new street trees similar to the Virginia Dare Shopping Center. G. Applicable Requlat_ionns:: Shopping centers are conditionally permitted in t' he General Commercial District, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commi-.sioa. Ix. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed shopping center consists of a major retail building and a bowling center with three satellite buildings that front on Haven Avenue. At this time the developer is proposin3 to construct Phase I of the development which includes the bowling center and the major retail r. Buildings A and D as shown in Exhibit "B". The development of each 'satellite building wou'Hd require separate Development/Design review. Also, the develop- has submitted a parcel -map with this shopping center wh,.-n is also being considered by the Planning Commission at ,this meeting. A separate staff report has been included for your review. Plaza areas have been provided throughout the site with r pedestrian linkages. Proposed elevations are of a contemporary style. They feature stucco wall materials, dark bronze anodized windows for the store front, standing seam metal roof, several circular arbors that provide building entrance statement to the main retail building and bowling center, and [ other architectural ornamental details as are shown in Exhibit F ' G1, G2 and G3. ` B. Design Review Committee: The Design. Review Committee has V:, reviewed the project and found that the overall site plan with 4, it's building orientation, style of architecture, plaza, and. P=� -a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-37 December 11, 1985 Page #3 open space landscape area, complies with the intent of the General Commercial District of the Development Code. The Committee has recommended approval of the project with the following conditions which the deveioper has agreed to do: 1. A loading area for the restaurant building be provided at the southwest corner of the site away from Haven Avenue see Exhibit "C"). 2. Planter area north of retail building B_be increased in size so as to create a major entrance statement that provides continuous pedestrian: linkages from Haven Avenue to the shopping center (see Exhibit licit). 3. More pedestrian oriented amenities in plaza area such as shaded seating areas with attractive landscaping, fountains, public art and/or kiosks, benches, trash receptables, and other street furniture be provided. 4. The height of the proposed tower structure and circular arbors extend above the roof line. 5. The proposed redwood lattice work be changed to glass block materials. 6. All building elevations facing the "eer Creek trails be upgraded with architectural and ornamental details to provide visual interest. 7. The proposed retail Building B be moved up to the 45 r foot landscape setback area. 8. At least one pedestrian walkway be provided to the, south to connect to Virginia Dare Shopping Center. 9. Wrought iron fence would be acceptable along the southern property boundary to identify the two shopping centers. C. Utility Undergrounding: Overhead utilities exist along the Haven Avenue frontage of this project where no services are connected to the line. Since the fronteige for this project is wide enough to warrant undergrounding, and the project to the south has been conditioned to undergrounding their Utilities, Staff is recommend`.ig that the developer underground their's too. G 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-37 December 11, 1985 Page #4 D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has identified one adverse Environmental Impact. The development of this project would cause the removal of mature Eucalyptus windrows along Haven Avenue as the trees are within the parkway right-of-way. However„ the developer is proposing to replace them with the appropriate designated street trees for Haven Avenue. Further, the developer is required to provide landscaping according to City Standards which-would add and provide a diversity of plant materials to the site. Based upon this review, Staff has determined that there would not be a significant impact in this case because the rr;;t'rgation measure described above has been added to this project and the Conditions of Approval. If the Planning Commmission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative DeclaratioG would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: 1"'he project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development; Code. The project, with the added mitigation measures, will not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In additiop, the proposed use, -building design, site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with General Plan and Development Code and all applicable provisions of the City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper the property posted, and public hearing notices were sent to ail property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Planning 'Commission consider al3 material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings, issuance -of a Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Permit 85-37 through the adoption of the attached resolution and Conditions of Approve-.l would be in order. Respectfully,submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:cv (a' LA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 85-37 December 11, 1985 Page #5 Attachments: Exhibit "A Location Map Exhibit 118" Master Plan and Site Plan Exhibit "C - Detail changes to site plan _ Exhibit "D" Detail of Plaza Area Exhibit"E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit"F"-- ConceptuaT Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Elevations Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions i ��Jr— t'•t�'!� a k'a �}�n f� I t J $ � ram{ ' +cry �: ;^ ^�� Y Lf 1�Ai i_� q�' �•F�b � � I� E .�aie.l of �D� `i r.a''rr"�^4 � •o� IL)G4p js,t��,'-r�<en. t i• .,�a C d�.ab l`y' ,E"�.r"R'a Q.:^\• �G" ry! 1tLi ;PM Itemit..- k I ,I rr PMB84•J4 74 rs � s.r 4 ro � 1II.���f,"� "y� t v (y�1 1. $��i' � �(_^.'7.�� n'•i< ��eG �.?•F. 07 Oz ', 4 V n,f1�N1 �� �Io •I ^ ��11 Q�� : a z�j. d `^ ras �I ,,•..� 4 •. N r `rzr a I 1 •ns131 ,tv/„i r n�itr qo K' o ! s4:.1 es/ie»- eao14 s. as•s/c JTT<F ,R•. c Q �tl .—J `r t I� RIRG6L AGIP 79L3 �_, j'G /^ '. r P.,rre er��r3.� 'ff, 1:1 No. G72�.... i ill,t t� i�`!:; `r•-, 7RK W 9525 t' ae �r�—•T u —1 Nb.X;ses9 tTpuO NG(' /tilr t. p'7. p'✓2..� of°. NRA J -r?tT'jv'—• 'ta W fit, 03.Y5' 8250 ` ^G he"O 8eoK GJ(J NORM CITY OF rrEiNii: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE PAN j I�'G DIVISION EXHIBIT. SCALE- �► "' ii1 4� � •= a`I`_�� Sat L lam: t .0 � •, t d 3' �9 ;r•Y Lt% ��. ��i Lr.��+y�L M�y. uMaw a , I 3 � 7„ti '9i aS''�.1.• t aa.• f� �r �' , � r r �Y �..,Y. r� J'1�L.1,.. 1 �� a": i A'.Lrr �' r.'�., • :t' ' (� ! "t♦K�t.of f y�p•a', ,4 ef. ..�-;•i t o `�t' "`�e.t i } �•n1f°L�r.r.t � I�.. 'C.'�,,,�• t s�q .'i� iY '?�:'a Z`di ' .•�q-�e.�. �,F`,tk� +c r,. r+. "`3t a.,,. -'et, '•x It•��' �'^•r _1•Sa•� u �r�' �•.�,e+ „ R�I� 'sl, ay °�'a� �'�'�' t fit• • -ri .�.� �F ri N r`��iii0�,•fin [`��": owhz ti , y tit t y >•w., 4j'�.ZsS.a ;C -a r..c-• 'tip' �„{. ._nG '' ia�;e.� � tom. ih.; ���}�•.e. � ro`7 �. 't`.yin" y 1�.�'&:�r�i y. rf'yt4. 5{ t i 4t F1.} •;Y`S ,i.` 2•'y, �4; ? ?. •>.•f i _ i* �, I w':i fi`S'IR ,Vr,a. ~} ��• 't. • r ti: • k 8�,� e.i Ja a`t `r�s;�� �r_,.. y.� "i V S'is,tab�� �a 'fi � 3yf i `.r � .1•�l} i.r .1 NORTH CITY OF z R4T�TCI�: CLTCAMONGA r>NI. � 'y' m: d PU-NN N DIVISION XHIxBfT:_._ $gyp ; ' z Et fAr .Y'!j}�iSY4 5§T�fs+��Itr;rs.t';r'`,�it,� zx'�L'{�f J�y� Y t- (} Yy A �y'zr. x r do•p/>C�jn 1.,£e„ �F _. +yam ' i�p ..s t z ,c•r r�.-;'^ 1�..z�`F�rt'.`' � a 'r�y 3?�l!r"y��r t�ds,�k�• f}'7��{.^�Q'!'i� cr k�y � 'y� y • ,tr;, ��y� i} ,�.i�r .ty 1sXa a 1J s Fir ju i S ... i• ea O°° FH r �q,�}f"�r-S.�'':tt..t k3�� z ff�n.�r �/A ti. .'1: f �5.;>•. }. '�,ryc-•c„>..,,."����'6.�.i+rsy� � +. Cty�` J2"..k r-`ds,-. � 1t� � ", kY47y;l� ;s.1_s.,y fJ` P 'Ny�'.'r+, • . r=gy. m •r ♦ l � IN moo rs���`I►IPlllt , �. •T- _ ��,i -- a I� 1 • 1 c 1i Il urn` I r�► ,fig ---������ L�T� �.��£z;��R '_�: i •dim.>s_r v2—`—� ��4 .r�1T ��i-P- ti`� ��. t • 1 i. 1( .i� it - �� + — �� .•• \ :"1. ..to t ,�._ i1I t P - _- . n NTH CITY OF T rFEi-vI: RANCI IO CUU MONGA 'fITI E: . PLANNING DIVLST�Ji�T EXHIBIT: _SCALE. na ' T, J w n _ F ° � V �\ i K MF JiF E ►tom: t;5 lot- Y T { .« II t a F� P A 1 � !'�1-�/t .C1.,.• ( •fin 3 (` vg Nly,MW IN � 1 fi nn 1a 6~ _ STOREFRONT ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION/ELEOTION:- NORTH { ary of ITEdf RAl\CH0 C JC'AMONGA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT_ —� Aft CITY OF RANCHO CkAMONGA PART II INITIAL STUDY t. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: /- APPLICA`T: {�Q/IIUS/w�1CfC r FILING oA�:Aff l0 3tJ_a5 LOG NLiMffiER:_ PROJECT: S//l)�/fl�61�Ei17°��.• 4C nu S4GT tW/(�iJ6 hfrm PROJECT LOCATION:$rq I. ENVIRWZIENTAL IMPACTS (EXP12zztion of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO L Soils and Geolosv. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions,. displac;.ments, compaction or V '4 burial of the soil? C. •Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d• The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? { •e- Any potential increase in wind or water �G erosion of soils, affecting either on or,off site conditons? Wf~ f. es Chan — I g in erosion siltation, or deposition? Z. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? r h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. !X_ol 0_5M- Will the proposal have significant results in: F . I Vage 2 YES u4YBE No , a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream G channels? b• Changes in absorption rates, runoff? drainage or the rate and amount of surface wateratterns, ff I c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? r �I• d• Change in the ✓g amount of surface water in any k. body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water.quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? f g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? Aft h. The reduction in the amount of water other / wise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air ualtZ+. . W{ll the proposal have significant results in• a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? �✓ b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the httainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local e or rEgional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results a. Change in the characteristics of species, "j. including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? 3r. • v _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique -or endangered species of plants? ' rare /, '. Page 3 YES MAYBE No c.. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural t^, production? _g �+ 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 or endangered, speci^s of animals? f c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of ` animals into an area, or result in a barrier /^ to the migration or movement of animals? v° d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 1/ 5. Fooulation. 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? v'` b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Econouic Factors, Will the proposal have significant results in; - a. Change in local or segional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial dive'-sty, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equi*ably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the 3L proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or. Q r planned land use of an area? t/ b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? q c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-corsumptive recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES. ;?AY3� NO 8. TrdnSDortation. Will the proposal have signifi resuIt. in: cant a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c- Effects _ on existing parking faciliti3s, or demand for new parking? d•- Substantial impact upon existing tion systems? transporta- tion e• Alterations to present patterns of civcula tion or movement of people and/or goods? f f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or f air traffic? ✓ g. Increases in traffic hazards to rotor vehicles bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturban ce to the integrity of archaeological, ' Paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health. Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the v proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential heal hazard? tt,. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of Explosion or -release of ha substance.• „�a; the. evens hazardous 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 l s?people noise levels? to potentially dangerous �( Z � 9. The creaticn of objectionable odors? h. An r crease in light or glare? Page 5 YES L4YBE NO 1pAft 11. Aesthetics. W311 the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal lave a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the,sollowing: 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? /v I. Police protection? i. Schools? k.. Parks or other recreational fac-iities? I. 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 in: 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? cq _ Page g YES :!AYBE NO e- Substantial depletion of end: nonrenewable or :scarce natural-,resource? 14. Mandatory Findin s of Sitsificance. a. Does the project have the Potential. to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels;, threaten to eliminate a plant,or animal co=unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a-rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of f California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future), v c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulati!.-ely considerable means that the incremental e�.arcts of an Individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, ` ant.probable future projects), ./ d. Does the project have environmental effects / which will cause substantial adverse effects _ J on human beings, either directly or indirectly? FI. DISCUSSION OF M-WIRO MENTAL E�TALU.,TION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the abC�e questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). a C Pace; 7 III, DETERMINATION On the basis of this initialevaluation: 'I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect. in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a signify o-Is effect an the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMNT MPACT REPORT is required. Date_ �iggnn. re Title i ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY, PART II CUP 85-37 2. Hydrology (b) The construction of this project will increase the amount of paved surface area which could result in an increase in the amount of surface water runoff and a decrease in the absorption rates. However, the proposed drainage system for this project will handle this increase. 4. Biota (a), (' and c The development of this project will result in the removal of Eucalyptus windrows along Haven Avenue. However, the development of this project required the planting of new trees at the rate of 1 tree per 3 parking spaces; 1 'tree per 30 linear feet frontage; 1 tree per 20 linear feet of street fi^ontage, and 10% of the entire parking area to be landscaped. Therefore, the City's landscaping requirements for this project will result in adding a Variety of plant species to the site. 6. Socio-Economic Factors (a) The development of this project will increase the commercial diversity, tax rate and property values. 8., Transportation (a) The development of this project will cause an increase in vehicular traffic; however, Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard being a major special boulevard are designed to handle such an increase. C� -ate i i _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING COND"TONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-37 FOR A MASTER PLAN SHOPPIN �G CENTER AND P9ASE I DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A BOW'.ING CENTER AND RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQUARE FEET NORTH OF FOOTHILL IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEKEAS, on the 20th day of November, 1985, a r,�mpiete appl,nation was filed by Brunswick Corp for review of the above-desc- `.ed project; and WHEREAS, on the 11th day of December, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Corr-mission resolved as SECTION is That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Th,-,^ the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create zdverse impacts on the environment and that- a Negative Declaration is issued on December 11, 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit. No. 85-37 is approved subject to the following, conditions: eLANNING DIVISION 1. The master plan for the shopping center is approved in concept only, and future development of subsequent phases shall be subject to Development Review prscess for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the master plan ;hail be subject to Pla.:iing Commission approval. 2. The loading area for the proposed restaurant building shall be provided at the southwest corner of the site away from Haven Avenue. C a3 Resolution No. CUP 85-37 - Sru,iswick December 11, 1985 Page 2 3. Building B shill -be moved up to the 45 foot landscape setback area along Haven Avenue. 4. A r.ontinuous pedestrian walkway shall be provided to the main project entrance to order to create a major entrance statement, improve circulation and provi�e a stronger, more direct pedestrian lick from Haven Avenue. Detail plans shall be included with Phase I development. 5. The proposed texturized pavement for all pedestrian walkways and connections within the shopping center shall be of brick pavers. Material samplp shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 5. fit least one pedestrian walkway shall be provided to the south to connect to the Virginia Dare Shopping Center. All plaza areas within the shopping center shall be. provided with pedestrian amenities such as shaded seating areas, kiosks, benches, trash receptacles, attractive landscaping such as box planters or potted annuals, and other landscaping, Ask 7. Any fence proposed along the southern property boundary, to identify the two shopping centers, shall be jointly developed between the applicant and the southerly developer and shall be of wrought iron material. Detail plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plan to be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. Texturzied pavement, such .as brick pavers, shall be ^;•ovided at the two driveway entrances along Haven Avenue as shown -in Exhibit "C". 9. The proposed redwocd lattice work shall be changed tok contemporary glass block material. 16. All building elevations facing the Deer Creek trail shall be upgraded with architectural and or-aamental details to create visual interest and variety. Detailed plans shall be subli1tted for Design Review Committee review and approval prior to submitting for plan thee`. protest. 11. The height of circular arbors and the tower sti-;ctures shall be extended to break up the long hor,,zontil roof line. Revised plans shall be submitted for Design Review Committee review and approval prior to submitting 'or pl-n check process. { Resolution No. CUP 85-37 Brunswick December 11, 1985 Pare 3 } 12. Architectural 'detail's and ornamental details shall be added to the sign band area. Detailed plans shall be submitted for Design Review Committee review and approval prior to submitting for plan check process. 13. A minimum five-foot planter is required along the west side of retail A to provide adequate width for planting. 14. A minimum ten-foot planter shall be required along the northwest side of Retail Building C because of visability from Haven Avenue. 15. A Tree Removal Permit shall be submitted for review and approval pursuant to Ordinance 37. 16. New windrows all 5-gallon size Eucalyptus Macuiata at 8 feet on center shall be provided along the length of the westerly property boundary. ENGINEERING DIVISION ' 1. Existing overhead utilities fronting the project on Haven Avenue shall be placed underground prior to issuance of Affilk occupancy permits. T*me extension may be granted by agreements with the City Engineer and the City Attorney. 2. An easement to provide access to the southerly property as shown on the site Tan shall be recorded prior to issuance of building*permits or prior to recordation of the parcel map, whichever occurs first. Written approval for location shall be obtained from property owner to the south. 3. Dual left turn lanes int,) the south driveway shall be provided. Additional dedication of two-feet shall be required. 4. Right turn lanes into both lanes shall be provided. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stilt, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary � a s i Resolution Na. CUP 85-37 Brunswick December 11 1985 Page 4 I, Bead Buller; Deputy Secretary'of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs AdWk I C A A.Li y D.O t E E L O p� L 6u0 p> O.>. o. Au C n A€ T FF A OEa C.T C`o CV N O u O Z s c's 'a�pn EE y EC Y u ;v>• La u pyq GI C w E VO OyO O i 6 uE N i C B. €� VY ice^ ca N.. qY0 ILu E.EO p C.. iI AO _L °l" cwo.�ACY.. tY'ca _a. ar won o o fE x m N n T EE o C C AC. d0 Ncp OC N^ aL O� d 6 ON E,C.^ pa a0 ,E • pca E� i u g TY C C.T N V a n > E A a E E N L O L O NTO N AOM EE. AVp T G v4 AO C YT C O 6ioEEpu O Y M E6 Md E u �E EOYNL C O j G y' N^ N O O^ p V T E 0 6 u 0 A n V;N L.e I+• F-. Y LAM -a�a.00 Y M C C C C E n g L v¢C EN F O-C t _ gE GLp IOy>. C O +' CO NBC N C mob c p as a BE . o to c�� '• c o o. t;A.a, c y BE I 0.e T �allo , LYE _. � � •,\ V A Y O E nN Ty E L •rYA C N u w y p E Y G C p.E ; i xT L am:Own G-.. 'u F• w O " C Ly u E E C Ask >Y C �3 L v rw 5 1p� t] A u E q p W V t. .s L • p p L U G E N NN nJ1I G 6 Fa-A 6�I ONLeO+� ' w M F N Y H J ti l.1 !•f V lR Qy6 a6, Ili ttO 6�. Y I I I u^ Eda dE uC ya CW OL u0 =�� L c o s ^^N^O a O u O• �p O _OO:VL[i UL L E u S'UIN u E... u d g9vd y,0y N Ea9N E. d yG 9 Ty EOO 9 dmW C Oo« q< V n EE G S L Ep nLp , q z« d«y 9 n0 9x � • O' L x O E ^ � A G L q.^ Z. pqy 6 VSi�d ada x d a3Z�. yL S p N A _Al 90<O' d E p�O��WN MYL L 9=y EG G O 2 O' ^E L 9 'O .-. d u O.N+� a• ddo d v<°1 _ t.xgH � aa9 o� Sdva w A�oOa O dd LQ ,. � 6N� 01« A <E6 ycE .oEd.O Lq A dOgd 9 .YO C ad pp V O NE y n y< T E G.O C �'O of d 2= L c ><y p w p. Y >,a � v � �c spa u> < dz _ roe,y V O SE ii L q� Q E.:n n CNu m.- 1R.=q.v<Oi vTii s Sn dtl �.r VSi x ed=i« Uri G c 60 rl � til I ( ^I N! MI A`I NI u o u av m« N PS cq d o ��i c�uyi pL _i d. iCC C OYO'L AL CO•x ppyY 4oL0 �u- L� C. W LL Lx h. O' C a7Ed OON.S S.s <,d.V�6 _oyy'd cnaxgE y�_� A d t.2 ^B� N=N A A = do .0`y COi y.N 61yY t qC Nc V6 N d N..=.. dae U m a0 3 ��Rt Y tl Ap y i^ V O.O. t= n x N O.C.< Y< Q•C p C p m d oon ^6 N q A N C O O C L A u 6 E o.] N A CEO A 2 6 wQ c N. 2 d�0 ydT Gym Sa 2. u.R ot> SEGQ Laq�'� d i p, « a wa w 22u "'a i G 9 y 2L 9 < 9E O« 9"c' Cnd p Ep q N 9 L d • L j LL A L c�Olb 0 9 of _ dd QO ^+20 O dq d i= �yC A.>v O Eq.._E dx y � y Rd.E nccA Aa•x- Ntt N� � s —mu p=p x$<. n u V € 6 L NOI O. r E Od �q O x OLL �` Lldc>N unic�T. n9 d O u o E> CA I�ti nCq 6. II I I d 0 u G O D u Y O O O O G N N L A« G L O\d E L L v 6 nC p. lup rn G� cn c E o V d p �pl DA d dq 9 q NdG 001 jL a'y `'^ d p G CNyy� .+i x,„ VL V ^9ux a� �w p dLN �dy� S a � O1mpd nL OOOO Ly0 yt Nc O�q.+.-IN06 E OAC Ld y E9 y� G•. y^ LO .G.p N LZ N N OH E T5a. lo E C`E L N d A d q L j D` 9 q C V p T nM M 2.5 •'d VI OL LaYC FF M. 1>6C .NALd EH 6a Md� rLi 01010 y.-. OCY t^Uc OdC�i 0 4 A, C1 �. LpaO .p�d 9C d0 L a6p aC wE La.Gdd O�. E E n.-q YqN . CG t „ .G.G A? A>A p. .G Is my �6a 9. � oa dnu re cy' ya EE C� N L^' a.0 '^ O C.9 x apit t-. ... y N L Eu a bV �da> LyCC NA L. Q as rn t 1i" pL Nnnxc c .. q�. Y ply �E> L NM CC � } x u'GAi v �m y6 66nN d ^'ons e!.2 a q p E An p M� O 'O ay q r 5 b<+ =C L �G, '>'O nmpc9d dL.a au i d �o N L'a" Q,Lu oY. EU O d 9 � Vd v0. yL `pp L o�gE'Q axLa - ` c� oNa � n Y udYu n N L O E t y D•^C G :c 6 O.•O- yl O t! y� L C EE Oup A N _ p x A N L d w� T. f.J 4N NM y.y. O V n O V G O d Qg --L p YC� O^ Z EA Y �T � dL G VgO.0 E Ca QM w O 6 ow.m Y 60 N k-Ch .GU Qo H O i¢ ` L CC6 4 4q WG.QM vgiNYO.. (' +•.I N��^i 6 .�NI I1.. pI NI N q N d.-•Y d =C`c crov dv .1wiu y01 2 E l.0 O EQ C .a Y. E+d Fp • d A� E. S.da. `�a • y,,.'e a n .A, d cN�c dv u o; vu :c �u qd y d' e> i m w u d p C O U d J Y L O j C N` F LSi CTw ON••`� O C. LL n�Y� CNNdp a uy a du f.i r YC O 0.. OOC.Lr V .1 yFgq o? C W Y i d�e 'd 0 0 F C L N q, Y C t. L G7 y 0E0E0 = qi. uU 3 �'�r u'Ni CO.`uFF `g pN«d{L, .O NaqJ�01+G� CudCVO.Ob VdM`F�A�EC�p�Y; c'u 6v`' yO «uIA Va au dO g rL��VYIy ^OG ayEd.add CC. ao dO �u O E -q -�g qd YQ^ qn +O q` q. Y^Q �L b(OJd�O L� W 40gw uq�E Y.. yC c L y O cO p u c �q6 C.. 6YM40 YAK V. DLO DON o uETa u 3.. uNOdly >S F• N y > 0 6 S I �c u � ou q o �+ !rude C n^ C 3. y 0 4 m C` E E^EE `O G UI T LqL Ga TrU L.o Cyd ,� d O.IJ Ol oy. nqud ENLa+ 00q = 6 updOTW Y Ty O ddN Cnd6 L 6 O N e q L L'^y q o o E u `T• f �Ciw N6Ld tL, .�.' E LdE O o t., ;L 4 N N 44 6,-} qVN 1� 6H 3Y N o FOWL 6CRalLN L•..qY.C, IUacz . s ~ • a �v a� ��v ado d lla .wo W i•'•� }q N ;L y 4 04 WQL ': - A� "^ W�n..ow,gp <"tea d� �L:. 4s "y vL xu n`N u:�'�° .Fs vaL .. Ao v' vA Ny ai n pua ` E °1i L >o�Q,po^ �w LN^ 'ate pupa ' .d A —M. api L _a N 4LL Ipil Y.q> q 'u� d n0E _.O d C=N nN y d..4p. C L'^ C.Lq sC ' dC> N= OCr-O .rG Cca ' dL y"q N' o.0 q Odd Y dN' q O N V K y^ >_ CY C pCC yL C.Y•� C2i9 "ip.E y {q c 2 w W. adcAN S y�q e~ E. NC uu='i ME .tea a n R p �Cd 2 6 O pO O EV T � Ny d'u,�d aV- v u N d L e p y m i'- > u A= o u n O N^ a+T o g VME N_N d ^u 0 6 0 w L~ O a L>C N p CwLm EE Od n o �dL ma^w O�pdq Ca nq>. 4 9 A a `d9E .0C LOuI .iif3O ONnL n O1 o a.m 4 w v �Jcp,,,a w ea +a�'`o >€ caa.SO i C N L R'Og. 6 d A Y A O LL WL - y o C EE d u u U O p G.•y�,� U d d W O OIL L N O .••, ^ L d u .p p Olt pLIE LdOt � �=NJG Lai+ inN ... Sp... .yJ IE'.- 6 �4�q..c. r ovN d Bop E..c..,. L`�`�•Ep� E2 6 WY Y r -3c o CG p V Aq,M S-1 d d q Ny OLD q Ell;RV G OG• _s O E N d m j b a L e•9 N a m y b M ig = 2 d L C O O o u » L >C �O\e a'C���G wJ4 �•• y C.f. G� pia �a LA G.S LC S so, �9.0 Z Nq NS N�. GCo • u. d,^6 ou YO.d A Q E L C d ? d d g N T o v iqt �. L mL o.A� o.. y Y out Lad •n 6wv T d LY E. '. ` d O Vu G L'.0 0 SG �� A YEEL FN id yO� pga.6 V.�O L dE -o VCnu O. E S L. Nrc T ud E QEa _N 94 L E c0 dr d Ad o d.•. G WEd Yd. Y, a2 NMI Pope N o Roa a GLARYG u u �o .11 o w 1 4-10 u °'08 ug Y c qyq G O C OI V N R Y E 04 •• rA Y V^p =FN t p A-Z C A ON u2 CGgp 2 '.O LLmaY QO YO OtA = Mn_M, UAiOG O• d O:O�IY Cwp. 1! 1 •+N CJ9 4 q C p 6L n C UY o a 2 V •+ N Pl C N � tp~ �^ J , 1 LOs dOsd !• Y LC q OSLpY O].s LON ^N R a o rc � d a u o q c •• cots «y W a.A�.� C� q, Zqi L G. V •, C. qa• A • 0o«LMee sb 010. •� dpt. of Y. C>.CM LGNM d'G �N Wm a TpC '• ^L d v� LUC ( . m Qi �� O dad•Y Y q •� SCR 6. q'p�sY 6 VOs N M OD Ya.CC 3iq 0-. ou 'o GMa pp °Eta E 4 cEE A O A a CI �•p H C q m a' 4.Y c A Y L ^ ^L'NN 1 d Op � �oY � • 9 G TL dC d.0 yY A q� q.^ d ONYR LVr A� Epp aU • G C G1gr^•« rLMp1 NdUVL O� ^ O Y q d C= Q ME d a d C. L E N S COONL -10".r _ u N� a� Vf q.G AL O Yp •O C C O 9 yL..G 01 N d. p'p Yq ict V EQQEY P NN O �Vw.� • �' y6. ug C �F � W� uq •� C9 dy • Y VN +. * E ^ .G 6a d.0 •p O.•• YN N d. 0.EE. 9uAi W. LL. ). C �.� dq �C d6 dy �Y ^• ~p6 VO-dq.U � �V g9K8 G i.. Nd Oiu A . T o a L%y d�"N oc A•GO G CO V dgpd0l rnR Cat • p `q E O• ? ec ee d �y. i^•wa. Nu. �.^ ac a�r «. 'oa o `•d M N u '• .d..�;G. c$LN Y Ra Y y b1 • ✓1 < T €. « •- b O•. Y O V. N Q,YLaa> O N i.Ci o` vp o ;tz o Ny oq om �.� 4 vi v�qn.• Q Ro ooze.-� ` %c J x Yo. 9 R L c�... Y LL M•r� WNO W f �6 1:J�pT Q� QO QOsu Fo 4 A ,p. y N 1.1 q` N 1•f C Yf •p `� I I I � ��•I i I i . 0 0 o m o v c `a d T M q s c au_ - d� a Y •� � 7 LY 9 d N pbLy � �a N � • ]• Y yn k d nE q +J. •O J n E S C O� y A +L• i cW nn. oo''° u'c... d cEpi C.. T.N uy Quq • Au y^ �> L?A yY AO •-T. C>.LY^ N I..lt C L apY cia p9`� Ey L CA S np`. cL E� 6.adi C dA L z d = C O d e�a:=AO d TYL W Uq Owp E L �C LyC NU^O EN. y qy VC Nq y y T T= p W u 9 W Ty N n n A = .^ GE III. `\\ N6 �•p- QCN+p• NOw� V19 6•ry QLI W R; 3C tf9 Q W a p T� y.6PC 9L C y Q.d W `". ... ¢— V v v y q E 9 p N L 6 a�'• `0 Gd _ O � � 6 MR L•� yt qd'N CL a tJw L MG N'• «d 'n a.A a WN u u c€q n z O.O r O � CY L � V _ +•6M LC 6 Nrn• a•. W a w • A.a E- A r L u^ a rn > Y � ! � n a O p•' V� � L W 6N 4.?L WY O eJ N.F NC V p 6 L4Y 6 O t �0 � 1 �I y ^• N of I W 9 N � N 3a �` O.i. d U C C � .� 0 a D •`a G«� N E c « y E N c + d p ow �E. _ M � -9u -4 E eap d` > •� Vq �6 C L �._-. pT dwu ONC y Wp N.0 a 'W VV LQE N O..p N ap ad ct L V V N uc 0-2 C E C Ttu: yN � qq Lk it p u � 6E C^v 6.V J c E Gq dgra d �Wr ^ TT 9 Dd pL •C oy E Ow l L d > 6N^ AC d C a_ NI �I II �I �I �I o QI 1 d «« DA G mho c. cT u« C�.O O « Ypp Y ^Y L. Loyd d t. ^ q N.E E ^ N a 6 E AEx .9 • d O O qM L =Mpn N. L, D1 YQ yo. T N C^C.L d 6 y C. dy .5 Z; Dp p6uLi En G V ' et �•S u d ILL L a T r L d G d cC. u A V AO YY_ ly is Pp9 y L 9 u •c^ V dOpi > �W C W O 2 d9. L .� a V Cy DT FF LL ^ d 90 C W L O d O« Z tA p C 61 d TU CITE:OF RANCHO CUCA1�lONGA �i3CAA'10 STAFF REPORT 0 0 F ^� Z U > DATE: December 11, 1985 1977 TO: Chairman and Memaers of the Planning Cc:'mission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook,, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13027 WILLIAM LYON ZOMPANY - A residential subdivision of 157 total lots with the development of 144 single-family homes on 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low Residential, 24 du/ac), located at the southwest corner of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues, east of North Victoria Windrows Loop - APN 227-471-01, 02, 03; 227-491-1, 2, 5. I. PRuJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of suhri-Vision map for 157 lots and approval of precise plot plan and building elevations for the Development of 144 single family homes, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North Primarily undeveloped with isolated single family homes; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwanda Specif4r Plan. South - Primarily undeveloped with isolated single family homes; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) within the Etiwandi Specific Plan. i East - Primarily undeveloped i- h isolated single family homes and Forest ServiL_ Station; Very Low Residential (1-2 du/ac) within the Rwanda-Specific Plan. West - Single family residential homes, Windrows 1 within the Victoria Planner' Community; Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) within the Victoria Planned Community. C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac). North VeryLow Residential less than ( an2duac . South Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac). v. Easy Very Low Residential (less than 2 du/ac), proposed elementary school with combined park facility. West Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 2 D. Site Characteristics: Vacant land covered by natural shrubs ail grasses anc a number of mature Eucalyptus trees surviving as remnants of past windrow grove. The property slopes southward at approximately a 3% grade. No structures or improvements currently exist on the project site. Along Etiwanda Avenue, a number of out-parcels are interwoven along with and lie adjacent to portions of the project site. These out-parcels are within the Etiwanda Specific Plan and contain a number of existing structures including single-family residences and State property with a Forest Service Station. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: This projeca is being developed as Windrows 3 within The Victoria Windrows Village. The site is being developed as Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) with a density of 3.5 du/ac. The lots within the project have a designated minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. with the lots un Etiwanda Avenue being one-half acre lots. T,-o project site is bordered to the north by Highland Avenue and to the east by Etiwanda AvRrne. Highland Avenue will eventually become a frontage ro, t south of the Foothill Freeway. Access to the lots frontfi t on Etiwanda will be from Etiwanda Avenue with the remainder of the tract being accessed from either Rockrose or North Victoria Wind',ows Loop. The internal street pattern has been designed with extensive use of curvilinear and cul-de-sac streets to enhance the streetscape variety. The majority of the project (144 lotsi is a continuation of "The Gardens" series voaturing three floor plans: two single- story and one two-story. Floorplans range in .size from 1400 to 1;.765 sq. ft., and all floor plans provided are three- and four-bedrooms. The 13 lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue are being proposed as custom lots only. -A multi-use Community Trail is being proposed along the southern and eastern perimeter of the tract and will provide access from North Victoria Windrows Loop to 'Etiwanda Avenue (Exhibit "D") An equestrian only Community Trail is shown i-hm this multi-use Community Trail to Highland Avenue along the backside of the lois fronting on Etiwanda Avenue. This trail, along with the recent amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, will provide a continuous and interconnected trail system from Etiwanda, through Victoria and into the Regional Trail network_ A number of existing Blue Gurn Eucalyptus, remnants from past windrows, are scattered throughout portions of the project site. The City Council is currently considering a Tree C PLANNING C`!MMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative 1` act 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 3 Preservation, Ordinance to address the issue of the existing Eucalyptus windrows. With recent past proposals involving existing Eucalyptus windrows, the Planning Commission has determined that the Blue_Gum tree can be a serious safety concern when adjacent to residential development, and has, therefore, conditioned that the Blue-G:tm trees be removed and replaced with a more compatible species. The Planning Commission recently approved a perimeter wall and landscaping treatment for the existing segment of Highland Avenue. The Victoria Planned Community shows as an edge condition along Highland Avenue a 20-28 foot parkway with windrow style planting. Cal Trans has rather restrictive landscaping standards; trees at mature growth that have trunks in e.-cess of 4" caliper are prohibited, The Commission set a policy to require increased parkway setback behind the riyht- of-way line that would allow streetscape tree planting beyond Cal Trans control would be an effective means of overcoming this restriction. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has Am reviewed the project and has recommended approval in consideration of the following comments: 1. T' : proposed trail should be provided as a public f Community Trail, with the east-west portion a multi- use trail and the north-south portion an equestrian- only trai" 2. The proposed trail should be extended along North - t.;,.ria Windrows Loop to connect to Victoria Park Lane. 3. CC & ,'s for 1�'e tract shall not prohibit the keeping of horses for the lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue. 4. A public easement shall be provided along the common property line between lots 79 and 80 to permit pedestrian access to the Community Trail. 1. Tile roofs shall br used exclusively on all building elevations. These comments have been included into the Conditions of Approval. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has: reviewed the project ana-Tetermin d that, with th€ recommended Conditions of Approval, tha project is consistent •tith all applicable standards and ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION STAF,° REPORT Tentative Tract 13027 - vlm. Lyon Co. December 11, 1985 Page 4 I D. Trails Committee: The Trails Committee has reviewed the project and has approved the proposed trail alignment with the recommendation that the Etiwanda Specific Plan be amended to show a Community Trail along Etiwanda Avenuc to Highland Avenue. This amendment has been implemented with the, adoption of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 85-01. F. Environmental Assessment: Par' I of the Initial Study has been completed by the .aPp scant. Staff has completed Pa u II of the Environmental Checklist and 'Found no significant impacts on the ervirornent as a result of this proje, However, the noise study completed for the project indicated a sound wail- is require for noise attenu.-ion for the lots rearing onto Highland Avenue, In addition, the second floor of two-story units will requii!a building features to achieve interior noise levels consistent with the City Standards. For ;_;. 13 custom lots on Etiwande Avenue, the report specifies that sound level would be in excess of 65 CNEL, and; that prospective buyers should be notified of the fact that corrective action may be necessary. These requirements have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS This project is consistent with the Victoria Planned Community and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compii?nce with the applicable provisions of the Victoria Planned Community, the Development Code, and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Dail Report newspaper, the property posted- and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMiMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all material input regarding this project. If the Commission con:urs with the Facts for Findings and .Conditions of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a ' egative Declaration would be in order. Reaatful y su mitted, Brad Buller C1ty Planner BB.BC:ns PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'tentative Tract 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. December 11., 1985 Page 5 AttachmeSts: Exhibit "A'A - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tract Map Exhibit "C" Sections Exhibit ='G" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit 10F" -• Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Building Elevations Initial Study, Part II Noise Study Figure 5-1.8, "Community ;rails", Etiwanda Specific Plan Figure 5-24, "Etiwanda Avenue", Etiwanda Specific Plan Figure 5-26, "Etiwanda Avenue Streetscape Resolution of Approval -with Conditions I i S =� .is I -'� R.aeha •� © c G'� � W • Ef 1 � �tt S'_ __�� u C� .IS i\I.. _ ��� '�nh.., � � �-ewer I � r ...,•�� ' 1 7c.W.:�m"7- i)i% Figure Ili-i LAND USE PLAN ii I{�/� /i RESIUENTA� f.=w f E L7.;,0W LOW<teu'rr� [—.-j LOW-MEDIUM4-SWWAC. MEDIUM eta eU,•aC em`` ___ __ :�!%/ ° / /� /11 +'• • MEDIUM-HIGH u•t.pr.ea — •�a 6/r /,X3'/ t t t//!� 3 / 'j^` Z=' � HIGH x..mw.<a r_� ® MASTER FUW SEOUIREO COMMERCIAL/OFFICE a °e, 2 � I� ,/i% %j l�i/J'�•-•;.�_ I • ®COMMERCIAL C7 COMMUNITY.0 OMMERCIAL1�/10 NEIGHGORPYOD COMM„n MM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL € SM.-OFFICE INDUSTRIAL 1 5 8 2 L.:NDUSTRIAL PARK C3 GENERALNDUSTRIAI, On GENERAL INOUStRUih/ ' RAIL SER6'ED MM HEAVYNDU$TjW1, OPEN SPACE ' L7 HILLSIDEAts.L:,jrIAL. OPEN SPACE O FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CC) e SPECIAL BOULEVARD PUBLIC FACILITIES 21W EXISTING.SCHOOLS PROPOSED S.HOOLS1 C_ WkS'QMSTI,' VAWn S S,,M•pT L-`rIVIC COMMUNITY • - CITY OF RANCCp CUL'.'�MpNGA GENERAL PLAN CITY Off' C- �IOi\G� �T RANCHO CU Ei is TITLE: , PL ��1I ENG DIVE10tiI +, _ EXHIBIT: 1 SCALE: `�f p0��p���99 ter,•� �. F.�Ifl1�W1=��2^��� �i�•1 Irn= �� tl �l�i ■ nut j 1 �umu>z--�.ron 11nm lilac — atM a,1111 ages I - -m THE WINDROWS .VD�- _ r KlM4CHp ZI MH 'i } _! w 1 ' t � w �. , ROAD AOL .e� N �. _ I cl N 0 a � o � '� 53 a 3i l i Ql) C HIM v el R o z v PZ f n , g :ovn s a�kz3r P_. Gs;, s Q� x y i l ifif $ •i II 7 � i�s 3 � h II �t ll�� � I .1 �1 � •e . L� _- _ _ HIGH 6 p���� �_ —_ �..�. _✓✓.^'." s�'... --�� rr�oo���.; ly L35 419, R i` ei � •a �. ^ „�.'�-___ ' --�r:•� - __ V ivy- _---' r �/ r � , f aria 4 f""�.—•� ":\ .��7. .easm'.cs.--_cam Orcnvro r t t Poor ' x �, r A y l • a _ / �+ 'qw, • f: r f ;C U +I h via n Q �3: Wrc �c W C W w t z CC 0 Q 3 z f cc :. CC 1 0 gg I _ $ cr) DLU OW Lu � u • sa v v uj LU I d , LU Cj) 03: z 0 < evo BOLE 5i ZE Z U ocl Qgftftwow Ass ®jm 1. w cy ZF ca —0 l� W� F— 'I NIGNLANQ AVENUE r——� u;� _—�------� ;' � ,•�.4�.,— �� .a �_•r-- --�--ate�'^ � a � `.2 VQ o r a . t h. t • I h� c ; r s'1 ( �i�� ' ! t� '1 _—• mil' a_tn.r_c r__�_ `�� o � i el� � vk .1 o . � 01 ( a rm r z-. O p y11 j 3 L1] # 7 1{r isd 'Ilt §FitlE ai$� tQ s to NO. 13027 .9EEY 2 OF 2 TRACT IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA no wrgl m 14 1 .I H i 71 70 ZD Id `— 4.iL Q _ TRACT NO.1zo4e ii lJ I I 6 I 1IY. III O I EDoi ��. Ill • (�4 O O.O... -.. _ !�{{I EXISTING LOH DENSITY ® HESIDFVTIAL ��' * �`�� IIIO �� ,,i �O Z� O El •• li �� IIL� rl ill :h TRACT NO.12045 t 1 '' nn'v F /a • i�f�.nl 170 4. lr wQ • v t ro Of• 'J£� �ccrdrrvn �ro_� 10. 17 rn ul Ilk �11d n - li U N 95, ffi 91 99 IN •101 , go 1rj bbit it � IQEBWALYV.A M LY®N Te.ait■ 1 7 . SHEET 1 OF 2 ' IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONCEPTUAL GRAQIM.PLAN Ask %na4 Y MP EARTHWORK OUANTITIES lzl GY. CUT 72=ry, \f {�yylUtD `��4Y WPCt 36ppp Gam. —' �1. �•~_ LEGEND �'—"�' • w22e�ion srntlrs �'�. n. waeua e'S�wa- -1-r-• a. w l Q nn,nov stcnoN•p_r. � � T- roan aan. " ltnuwG +vtwt noroaaoo+aea � •aerosao uo,w o,uv .�iiiT.'�'fa•. M 110ptWS! �vl1M1I! . P._ �1+• NoiRu�xnunla awamlex tDof A Ft L E!T itE ONS +]tRroN.•p.p• 4ECTION S� StC'fipN•H•N• Y{TION'a-�• l ltenoN•e.a LMTHE WILLIAM LYON MPAny D as"a.p.-— • �,O�'¢���'`",ate i .Ogre use 13 C! 1� � •z'�� <i O o ro � 1�>_� t Cl +D sv xa s lu 91 Iw Doi Qm c 7►CI ID �� �ysl�a cl. lima *:?1 0 Alnl Llaf till �� � ttty9j1 Qe `;E1c � ■ G .7 r i Q��3lu1n7�1 "•'�� A Yf, �7Q1 - Y �g PG lgerdd Packet Page w3 �f d may%. `y�isw'�L�• ��1,�����N��N• �11� �c— D iib)low maw �:) ST. ■Yp Y�I o�1��� ��� YCI j. lid 12 a. � ��y�i�i�3yJ�1 ��, �b' � �rqi � �{►g"i p <I aa'v►rria- ,c�yv aaiR_t_\ .�*�• tr'y, `w� �, � ��:. •1� ,� d;l ` • /' . . . ' SEf3®l3t19 36i1' 1�6 R � VIU0131R ¢6 it wt • J a m¢' A ---- 1 — -- n _ 1 rc i� nr C 1 a; I r YT 1 fit': F'9sY; M.yy. �ii4 I E aLuYr+, i Ian {, alp r�vt■r 'a,�t y l III 11■ism � s- r c3 . J 11 �l��i�111 EJa '� MOM JMV711'11f& Ohl Ix Y ¢ L F W11 r s ME, Mr w' A-- I o� A' i 1 nr 1 . � �°tc� a I ■ ■ �I I4 songin », 1 / -sit .s;' r . r xo rr a � C T T Aft WHOLDIA i' cl Lu I Z • 2 Q - i J uj m� � m ,w. [� F4;� •� `), rJ h � eV t !■ 'lam S■!� +-etmunuunul�i � =z�■-, Bill Bill yyy� 1 ■', 11111111111n1@II11�7 `rrN�� f■ �_ 1�IIIIE' �3 '■':fit„■■ w�».,,. a7 �_ !i' i�-�3`���■z�.s�� Mal �,ai° $lII� = g-■■■� ■ ■��' ] ■ alllllllllll�l .ia"`�a�' ;]�♦� _�■ ■�■�tif�: �,i♦�1■=i■f allllllllllllllll tea= p � o ��a ■;i{�ir�� � :■yra 1� �0�)1��• ai."SIIIAIII_I IJ :�ac��.iff I ��I i�a� �� �'�i�le'■�. :illli IIIIIIIIIIIII ,. 'a-si :ai i 9■ ex■ '1 . J.�`�■" °E111111111011011 :a�r- �� �:, ■s� i :�:;T: '"'�'�'�■ �IIIIIIIIIIIIII' �.'.:sia '�.f a i' a!-'w'ww•r.' M fi ��.4 sr, g W� O ¢ ,� N�� B J X. {� > >: a a gi J f� J ��--y} Jj W �I W J i LL W 1—f I W' 'jam^, W 1--• i W I W�. O O w W W' 1--V W lei W RF--J1 W .� N. N. C G'. O O 1 0 V V W W W WI WI I W C f ) ' W 6 O < I < < w W ai R N _ • e NI O I 6 O Lu • w, tl n wl J W $ I E JD e14 }—may I N I •, i) JI I j I Ji .II J La W J J / � W W _ W La*`t Lu 1 W ' W N N u) cc t 6 RV-ld Z N'�'Id bi s 1 O s La � a � 12, ' m tu93 g [l I W B ._.�� "I .J J > u to LLI W J p W CNI Is n o LU s II W' m . > y E3 K co 14, 1 W Q ` al ¢e I (�['If� PI I fib -�1 �7I. [9 i� 1:11 =F 5I�tl II. •Il iill W 'ilI 11 11. I 1 O II `S G 11 //ill I E NVId L 81�7d •... .3.i lN�l t}.. .t. f '` iii�' '' �I•.e�III - _ _ill ■� ■��H_ a`•e =y��a71111�� s a�=X5 lift 1��77 �#asgi_sisal ME tMail ,_�;►:.it ,�� :--=��� ■ ��a�= !tF����� m a—':IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII —�� � � t '"�-';{'f ■� I�IIIIIIIIINII N a ■ ? I�Ii RSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 ORION j N, �' --is ?N)11111111111111N —t-� ��■ 9I91 s>a?-cey•�� / ��a� INtUNNNNNINI on ■�. I:JNINtlIINWN ��.�.�:1:111111111NI N �; �� a ��p S;_IIIIIpJNII�f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONXENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: G�M�i6�� APPLICANT: �� ILL.4A.M FILI:iC DATE:_C'IAY Zq � 3 LOG NUMBER: PROJECT; t�¢aT� .tiBL�tVLsca.! 1�75 F 1 PROJECT LU..ATION: I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached, sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1: Soils and Geoloev. 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 -sit? C. .Change in topography or ground surface routour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification` e of any unique geologic or physical features? .e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion Of Soils, affecting either on or off site canditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 9. '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 extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant v results in: `A` -a Page 2 YES :14YBE No Aft a• Changes in currents, or the course-of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream .channels" b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sur runoff? face water 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 quantity of groundwate,,s, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? . Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i• Exposure of-people or property to water related hazards such as floo6ing or seiches? 3. Air_ Quality, Will the proposal have significant results In: a• Constant -jr periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, 4fecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota — Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribt:tio:., or number of any species of plants? b• Reduction of the numbers of any -unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _a� page 3 YES M-ANBE ro c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? . d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural -— production? z Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. 2hange in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals intty an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? E d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. 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? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: - a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or. planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, MW Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An iLpact upon the qulaity or quantity of 4xisting consumpave or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? _3 - P-age,6 YES :'AYBE NO 8. resultsrtation, Will the proposal lt,ve signifi results. in: cant a. Generation of substantial additional veklicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for, new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? 2. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? .000 i 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 historical resources? 19. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the prop.osal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 00 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 uxposure 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 light or glare? 1 Paso s YES KkYnE No 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction ar degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? J� 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal 1� have a significant need for new systems, or alteration: 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? y� 1. Maintenance of publ-.c facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental.se_vices? 13. En-rev and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant ree,-ults in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fu el or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. new increase in the demand for development of new so�.rces o§� e:+rrgY? An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms ofenergy, when frIsible renewable sources of energy are available: Page,6 YES NMYSE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural rdsource? 14. Mandatory Findings of 5ienificance. a. Doeao he project have the potential to degrade the ,�uz.,'.i!:y of the environment, substantially reduce-trie habitat of fish o€- wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining Levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate imporl-ant examples of the major periods of Cai..for^ia hi_tory L> or prehistory? b. Does th,t project have the potential to az'hi2ve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one Which occurs i;, a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long terru impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable weans fl+: the incremental effects of an indiv,cival 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 beings, either directly or indirectly? _ I1. DISCUSSION OF Eh,%,IRO MENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). p.G�rtPsr�Fz cp ttitrsup F �� licarn �+�+.r(QTu•s t1uw c�e_ Rer"vW_o t-t�•t+1 '( o�1ar%r ' a.�t pr�a,�t-c c �.,f ttS Gat_=NC�-�- fZ��.sFzrff•- �o�1�v�� t-a-�� �xc� �r�s �,��.t,�s .oe'�4 n1oT �aoppT 11Bcs *it? U(+- nttZA��cq-1, \Tt �✓p a.,.tG� t.�tL.L7 'fZPlf'�.t1�T IlJ �slm.`s.\GL1S �1��1Zt.•�/a �(�,�y �PaLxG.SJS.�-��• "�o tYt�GPE ­k,�1tiz Loss lS`�11Ji4 L-IIhLDR�41g 11e'A-f � MAR- �-a.. 8P'.�t..iG •��3C.,{�FL;� �,�, �u�?t-1'C''ttss irlh�.Gt-tGA'T�• . 1— Page 7 III. DETE3�S_ I� ATIOn On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIO;? will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, the will not be a_significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachedsheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date �Z •� - --��f�--�� Signature. --�-- II / 'Title - I! 85/355 OR®ON _RRICKEN el ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS August 5, 1985 MR. STEVEN eG.(G THE WILLIAM LYC?N CnMPANY 8540 Archibald Avenue, Ste. B. Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF WALL REQUIREMENTS ALONG ETIWANDA -- TRACT 13027 -- RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr. Ford: In Report 85/261 prepared for Tract 13027, reference was made to a six foot (61) wall along Etiwanda contingent on the exact development of these custom lots. j We are now informed that access will be taken from Etiwanda in all cases for these lots. This will result in the front yards facing Etiwanda_ani the rear yards being set on the west side of the lots. The house will shield the rear yards from Etiwanda. This fact, in general, removes the requirement for the six foot (61). wall. However, in particular cases, some sound wall may be needed for a portion of the rear yard, which depends on the exact house positioning. Therefore, we are revising our recommendation to eliminate the requirement for any wall at the Etiwanda east property line. However, we retain the recommendation that the lot buyers be informed that they will need to secure an acoustical analysis on their lots prior to issuance of a Building Permit to insure ]621 East Seventeenth Street,Suite ® Santa Ana,California92701 a Phone(7T4)8350249 MR. STEVEN FORD August 5� 1905 THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY Page 2 conformance with City requirements, since ache noise levels do exceed City Guidelines and some mitigation will be rewired. Thank you, and if you bsve any questions, please 'do not hesitate to call. Prepared by; , a-z r :/3 e-W— Gord n Bricken President j, is 4 1 0 GORDON ERIGKI N & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING'ACOUSTICAL'and ENERGY ENGINEERS May 31, 1985 RECEIVED JUN 7 1985 THE WILLIAM LYON CO. San Bernardino County Division A C O U S. T I C A L A'N A L Y S I S TEN T A T I V E T R A C T 1 3 0 2 7 C I T Y O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Prepared by Prepared for: Gordo iri=nMR.. STIVEN FORD Presid President THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY 8540 Archibald Avenue, Ste. B Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 { 1621 East l3eventeenthStroet,Suite K ® Santa Ana,California92701 0 Phone(714)835-0249 C CORDON RRICKEN & ,ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS S U M M A R Y An analysis has been performed on Tentative Tract 13027 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to determine design features necessary to control noise to meet the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed element;, are summarized below: (1) SOUND WALLS Sound walls are required along Highland. The wall heights of the affected Lots and top-of- wall elevations are listed in Table 7. Wall location is 19 to 23 feet inside the curb line at street grade. Ask Sound walls will also be required along Etiwanda. However, these Lots are custom lots and no site designs are available. The, Tract Map should notice future buyers that a six foot (61) sound wall may be required to comply to City Standards and all site designs should be conditioned with an acoustical analysis requirement. (2) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR SOUND WALLS Wall may be constructed of masonry block or other masonry material. They gust fully enclosed the rear yards and: have no openings except drain holes. (3) BUILDING FEATURES The second floor bedrooms #2 and #3 of Plan 3 should use dual glazing. 1621 East Seventeenth Street,SuiteK Santa Ana,California82701 • Phone(714)835-0249 P (4) VENTILATION Air conditi.onir.= or a ventilation system, as listed in Appendix 5 should be used on Lots 1 to 28 and Lot 144. �A^39 q�� r . . 24 Try RTRFET °7 ���e�e�•�i•ni�nu � sTedr,�� rr. � u.pi��e•o•evs0000•�u=oo•oe°° o. if •ve•oo•oe.eogy.oee°e••o°�tewe000a.oevsims•« �.' a - I.t°°°°°•°o•ev°.e! wvosoewvsa000wvo•. - o°° •°:°eeevessn°vaa�Favo•a•wae•ei°s•.osS•s•eo• �! o ROUTE 3Cg . WGHtJihO AVE • TORtA JI ryI �C •f•°� I TORIA AVE C 1 � I •�•� - 660 0 36a0' e•ww. r��..RRoa•oeme�eeoe••vsawoee.�sooi °°•&•/ ogomonI ° I` • G e- ° J r a o = Equestrian Traiis vE —mm Bike Lane(in Pavement) •,�• """"' Bike Path(in Parkway) � e _ jFOOTHIU.BWD. a ARROW v •' (title figure �C®MiV UNITY ® 1 0 TRAILS - �—A rx }1Y1F�' where Y he ng G tree h0 go FG{Yfe ��• lsf. informal F�SR, / tree mix /� tYpc c CD ^'l Gur6s Ca„•bs ' ,wr MRW ' Y• .ko'eosrau�,o 7 i s• I te�lxc e&—aik in rru�:ti m�n�mS ±48'u+rb-�o•cur�Wsl{If IS:' 6'j Fes.gi�r�{{ s eual s4bae.�j ce Pow t —its Serial sekl�cles 3 _requirra recfu�—r ETIWANDA AVENUE North of SPRR/South of Summit s FIv 6®24, f ! . •� Ir�orma� u� letnen� StlkOaks f cenm �Pg & w�l��pe��pers \ Informal . 1�aHfilhg ree I mot {' c r c D 5-Z p 6 o f' \ ' Y�i s<dC /cu Gurbs� '1- F1 ma s eual xl;6&--s es'sow s coat se46acks reguwr_ rcuir_c ETiWAIVDA - A ENUE _ North of Baseline/'South of SPRR Fo . 5-2 �rtformal plan��riSs, Iree type G�D '" u k . '•,I J fire-, 2 tom / O 4- { + + Aft ` J Rca--i;curb street frces;varies i d fl- per Grass seeElonS 1 c-Etlwari{a Ave.. Concept for ETIWANDA AVENUE STREETSCAPE Planting Guidelines Street trees(in fn Wie— ROW}-per tree �hedule Front Yard}roes: informal mix type co'(L or�onphne,¢�Mond211 Prne} 1 tree min./?o'oF ron aee 25%Of free ohs(( e4"6�x size all o her treob shall be 15 cal.mlti. i=rcml y�r.4 1aert4scapi tie m:,hall be 5upp1eme4c4 by anrorrra-e skrubs 9 -�� FIG. ®2 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13027 AND DESIGN REVIEW WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13027 hereinafter "Map" submitted by The William Lyon Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 45.5 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Low Residential, 2-4 Ju/ac), located on the southwest corner of EtiwandL and Highland Avenues, east of North Victoria Windrows Loop - APN 227-471-01, 02, 03; 227-491-1, 2, 5 into 157 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on December 11, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has.recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION I: The.Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 13027 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent +with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) fhe design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract w'11 not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, fAft now of record, •for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. TT 13027 Wm. Lyon Co. Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a NeS3tive Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 1.3027 a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: DESIGN REVIEW: 1. Each lot within the project shall have a minimum flat (2% slope or less) rear yard open area from building to property line, or slope/retaining wall of 15 feet. A final detailed site plan which indicates the slope anu retaining wall locations and unit plotting shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Street facing side elevations on corner lots and the second story of rear elevations exposed to public view shall be upgraded with additional wood trim, veneer siding, �-r plant-ons where appropriate. Wood surrounds shall btr provided on street facing side windows ;Ynich are in front ^f the side yard return fencing. Construction details shall be indicated on the working drawings (including specific lot numbers). 3. Corner side yard fencing and/or retaining walls shall be set back a minimum distance of five (5) feet from the back of sidewalks. All retaining walls exposed to public view shall be constructed of decorative block, and all wood fencing installed by the developer shall be treated with water sealant or stain. 4. For all corner lots, the side yard between the sidewalk and the side yard fencing Shull be landscaped. 5: All roofing material within the project shall 5e the material. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report stating that the recommended acoustical mitigation measures to achieve required interior noise standards have been implemented, shall be submitted to the Planning Division, and the building plans shall be so ted by an acoustical engineer. Prospective buyers of th- 13 lots fronting on Etiwanda Avenue (Lots 145-157), shall be notified prior to sale, that these lots may require noise AW mitigation. Documenttior of said notice shall be provided to the City Planning Div.sion. Resolution 'No. TT 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. Page 3 7. The existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrows within the project site shall removed and replaced by the Eucalyptus Maculata kaputted Gum). These trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon in size, planted a minimum of 8 feet on center, properly staked and irrigated. A Master Plan of trees shall be provided and a tree permit approved prior tk1 the issuance of a grading permit. Details of new windrow planting shall be included in the final landscape/irrigation plans. 8. Design details of all retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Division prior to approval of the final grading pain. Maximum wall height including retaining walls and screened fencing shall be nine (9) feet, with screened fencing to be a minimum of five (5) feet high.. Where this standard would be exceeded, graded slopes and/or terraced retaining wall shall be required with a minimum horizontal separation of fiv- (5) feet. 9. Landscape treatmencs at the end of side-on cttl-de-sacs shall be designed to provide open view into the interior of the cul-de-sac. Design treatment shall include sidewalk connections from the sidewalk to the perimeter street. 10. A six foot high masonry wall shall be provided along Highland Avenue consistent with the approved wall design for Highland Avenue, and a six foot high masonry wall shall be provided along the backside of all lots rearing onto the north and west sides of the Community Trail.. The Highland Avenue wall shall be staggered and off-set to increase the visual interest. Construction details of all Perimeter wall treatment shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Maintenance easements may be required where perimeter wall encroaches onto private lots. 11. The six (6) foot perimeter wall on Highland Avenue shall be set hack a minimum distance behind the Highland Avenue right-of-way beyond the CalTrans limits of jurisdiction to ensure adequate area to landscape the Highland Avenue streetscape with a windrow style of planting consistent with the designated design standards of the Victoria Planned Community. 12. Prospective buyers of the custom lots on Etiwanda Avenue shall be advised prior to sale that these lots would be subject to the design requirements of the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District of the'Etiwanda Specific Plan. '�1�5 Resolution No. TT 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. Page 4 J 13. TEa Community. Trail s sten shall be fully improved by the developer, including bicyrle path and equestrian trail, L--kasco.ping and irrigation shall be included. t-ndscaping s` ill include canopy shade trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Details shall be included in the final landscape/irrigation plans and shall be submitted for review and approval of the Trails Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The proposed trail shall be provided as a public Community Trail, with the east-west oortion a multi-use trail and the north-south portion an equestrian-only trail with appropriate improvements. 15. The proposed trail shall be extended along North Victoria Windrows Loop to connect to Victoria Park Lane. 16. A public easement shall be provided along the common 4. property line along Lots 79 and 20 to permit pedestrian access to the Community Trail. The easement shall be fully developed with sidewalk, landscaping, low level lighting and fencing. 17. CC'& R's for the tract shall not prohibit the keeping of y horses on the lots that front on Etivtwl Avenue. IS. Tha Highlandi tiwanda intersection is designated as a "Minor Community Entry" by the Victor Planned Community and shall be designed' to the approp. late standards as designated by the Victoria Planned Community. 19. Etiwanda Avenue shall be developed consistent with the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan per Figures 5-18, 5-24, and 5-26 of the Specific Plan. Street tries shall be planted by the developer at the time of street improvements. ENGINEERING 1. Developer shall install storm drain system "H" through "'H- ­S" of the Master Plan of Storm Drain fo7 Victoria Planned Community. 2. Storm drainage fees for the lots along Etiwanda Avenue shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 3. Developer shall provide a drainage Qasement between Lots 8 and 9 for overflow protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. solution No. TT 13027 - Wm. Lyon Co. Page 5 4. Highland Avenue shall be designed to retain the "SUMP" of the existing drainage inlet to the satisfaction of Cal Trans and the City Engineer. 5. Developer shall provide the minimum grading revisions to the lots adjacent to Highland Avenue to the satisfaction of Cal Trans, and the City Engineer. 6. Developer shall design the curve on Highland Avenue to a radius of 3,060 feet to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Existing rock curb and gutter along Etiwanda Avenue shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall pay. prior to issuance of a building permit a fee in lieu of undergrounding overh,:ad utilities fronting HighOdnd Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. Said fee as established by City Council Resolution shall be held for contribution to future undergrounding of the facilities on the opposite side of the street. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 Cemmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of December, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit: y, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -r 1. $3 1. t -ut �AdV A. ALpFAo W ..0. y L L Y G�V U U d y �M q d• N L C1 L g M C t 0 4 R ub ...01 qL Fla d z« A c a. •^d c A� �+ b E i.� dp �. iuF a C CUOU ' C ...LG d Lb � n ao� u•o+' Y`�p u `� v'p 6ni �dT q�'.'•N.� G d EE t3 'OAbtE=p Ly Y. v'Oy. d bg90L VUA =C ♦_ Y Y O d 44 d Y � O y"E u e q�^ V Y O O AUK =L 4 E EE u g n. Y;9^' ;O Gl.QW79 A N.0 9Nx Y. yN t�U 16 E. e 0 O�LJ OL.y. '^OLLtU NE u L O YFb �L A dd EEG LO.poq 9>cON L p„y�N jA'AO G. W Q U d -- N T p C C 8 N d 9Cd YTS 'Yc0 y� C q A:�UC bO qC O TE � �p•L E b d u q b A'• 9 Y Y Q x P�6.p 6` U T N G p^C y d O L' �� L Oi WC �O.dY,� qd> =T' N N.� ^x•' � 9. �O N p. Y c. A c Y d y N O. =.Y.o Yabi E e N •. Uv 3 u d4� �N LV nI.ya.1 rt E �...b--,z ;y N OU p L N ~ b•� w =q} O•'r UY LV SITYAic ,pN CVY 6N+•dMi QoANO 1=.L 6A Lod d b Q • N C4 b r «� o0 J M 9 00 eQE.x. l r En a oN s4 q Y J ttd O q a"Y O V.y mac•«L y0�=V1.>ddaLaOL E W �. � d tl p Of 1•.Y N C. 6ss.1 CI L ��ApL�O~q. V 6 i C G N N MY LcU�rFF .CM 'b xx ee11 V p E YN u g y 4 ~U d O Iz- J L w d L L L A d 3 d t= 4 S S.c E4. d«w �" Z' O K b L N L.ab w N O N T V� �_� « F C IL.•2.N q Ni Y� d -AID - Ed•Oi� cp •«N L W OL GP�COpI x •gCv�iiL C' y.u_.q b nC UCU uG Vb Yl e. OWN y LO y .0 ENO •'� q ll •,Cx•J-N • bNEC u u bb Ub0.• N F� r U9N Y ..M oU E00® w9xy q^ YO o� gY o E y N q 0 d M=s N a r Y.b rMECi N 00 i ..b..Cb nu b Oy^ .+ 6 qti L. xoe wro prrn.w� a+•' _i n L o •, •r'+ L i' u� p .mac u «>`Cw ar '.i 4. c uo Cp. c ONq ,�YL�J KS V A YwM. . cOd. Ep �O O wb Y.UL U •� pYdNbMOCC •,ip j ~.N�bby r.2 x '20 qu Nu L err A .1 Gy•- 1 b o'.a a••Lpo o.. cY N q n p O> U p O N r AD bb OC L bAC COY tl11-.NNN. y 6 b OE u'n xUbp N^ Spot. b[..y UW O •C1 t� N qL U. r1 �� ba•N qr CEG� C7b Cp�9 u.EUO �] q Y�Nu E 6A LLm 6LLC Cq •A^ mOA � �NC6 NON d�Lp WN rM. y2Lp Lb qY Et Nr,. N ONq � V L i p CYb NL 6• OC •a. ti'oV YQ` b'O.E.>. '.• U 2>> rL.y NO b.V 2,4 o^c+� ..4 mac.°'.c. buu uL.N of m or =a pc Nab o�o.� c=.a aa. ObCaCEE ...EV bL .. V.y � orF O u O US.V..OI 9 « qL �,- Rz t s N da r b C L.M ^ Ub AY. 6 pb A t6.OJ' O >. L Lb burpp Q E�66 n p L L s t+myb u .0�..x,• -o l�1'p i o e G NUw W+•.-S C GLq•+a Np,� •^d . � til � y •�I N 17 q• y1 LA L; qb•O-Y YY. 4Ll o'o o,b 100 i mAp .^n ra' c N d o bye t] qY L b t N c. .L. ti i X O T A L NT an p0 LyLz..Y. •�kJ^Y p =«.E 'u .CC� L L N u i O G M 6 C u IY O A S O x.L M 4 w O N U N. E ai L L C i Y O Q W .Y C .4 v "' b=A Oi�Y•�' 'Du uC'aq Chip r�6 rC 6b V V`O^ � E� �u NEN ^ bn U� 00b1 L.a+ C ••NYQ �O:w bu aC 9^Y >• tj �iyb rC,E NY QQ}}yy��.y i>b api KN U O L p. �..y a C ^ '^W S •N p 0 � •d L Ll 0 O'.f ao>,u. n.- 'oy. �a'o fayan Y1 uc me. i •'ano.. u`.N..c. N� A yb.N � WN. ba U ZN pOr9�L x..c.1>bi C. Ot`r W f C N p C O N W b b b C O b b yr U G=Y d F TI.y n N N L N C b U li O 9 o D w YCZ N i0 y t'O C bC Cb nl:q q N� YYa NU N C i•.0 bb U U.::E Cy:N a660 bb p2 bN dL U u.E N NJU ELA •-N. pN T. LT p �pE Yp r.O.N C u2 L L rp C r.t ^N L Lf Q�N -U oA�E Lit a>- CbN E. b N2 Ny = Cam. •� OgvLgi ,r LL�ti' Y bM YLO O p COG C. CCC bq b9b NJ'~nrnb pO OYO r•aOF p;.• . O gg O Y L E D• b U � L 1Y u^a C O� Olw r q r p.q a O b Q m GL 6 •�• YL- N G q 6^ Ji V!A 9 ^^ .pJ bO L O pC L^ b U ny w 0 6 u E> 6 V N pb qM OInC.r. L b O N O a aoA L eMi�qu Ct aC E.L La O OG.�` ' C V> _ O mi T L ` «mo o O dN O O A O d V V A d 0 y.� G• ON Nd aayi�Vs VO o day O � d pro Nde N.O� T.L �W Y. i.1 e q N N � m -y c n^ V L SNcl) ME O .12 N N O Q P p d KI O' ... d ♦.C.y C t. FF C � n0 q0 pC d L.q Lr V a m d, ti C ' L O 6 E * L O a.00 d C 6 Ol t Ld 2 L L o ae t�ti e.Ed �E EcaTi� �r nN r V` ^ p, AI q N� d d Y ✓� O.p� L N�a S � D•N C N.Q. a� r« Ia� �✓ d O. � O N O� a Er I y d ..i�.. D. orn O A L Ew E aLidu Y`' MG E� .O L d Qw�i 2N0 I+NL 2N 9N xU GA.�06 6Y 1y 0 V 6M t � r D � 9 .�z .�i - 'Oa o 3 'er p ,.o 2 v i c. �... 4, m •+ d U c S. cPi� N Ell a N d p O`d 0 g V S 2 y a K L M M E CaA` �y LOy ` rN YY n xN00� N~ Oy «6 da dd�V.0 ug .ten O L L qT u a W d1.N A Ea N ~_ Ei d L d c a. 6u �:c ... .. of a A dt Ct .o�yML dw CN dNY Ei LA N P ^ to Win` roc a od. F FF y o E n d y LG^ V EA Y =T =� ttL >C 9^.26 4N 6AVOm ?• 4a uui {�6N. 4U C'a r0rG.p.6 �LNON Od.6 A«4 1�1I I� G .gal NI MI RI ,T G! M • N C J u d r..� •.N� ^:CN Xb �b OLud bb� E CX6 WV.� QY I� E2abiE V +.9 40du _ `.a E v d L. C C • 4 X W L Q•+.E • OAsk `v V�4`1 � yM1.. q�.. yV.✓^ v.aV V O.bV y.Y Q� A GO dx 6Y. E�� VO. O9 CO ` J d�Ny tW C u C a ,d.�O.Y O,�L b C ' Y. 00 SxN %Y.... V Na ^ U�Ep u0 O Y Y G ' Y Z NN �QO b N LL b'C N F b L m L.O L✓ Y O N L l.7 O b W q IOr+ C u q y, uC•n Nr^-t Fn XS�a L.O W b�4 ✓u✓i N'•E d. b a EC L =Ey aNa q bCgEO L � ✓ r O ra �' 6o�T4 yy 0. d4. 9 .OUCYd 4 J �v�Cj AC COY^ b `q p^ t C� ✓_AE�e u SU�� COdL G. yb,,,'O Ea a O. =t c N X 9M GV V' C v ✓'V L W dy u4 E.YN O✓ C a Od a. ^p L d .p+ VO �bN •O q •R..C. rtpe q Y u o d � 3 T L �O> yA XN 4GN 4L nu ny✓d pq ¢ ^ yy^ LM 9m� t?.O.a:P Od6 L}�@.L N e LvCN O E W C. LV G' q +N'TOb p6 E rl1Wq LM �"A r6 O✓ S woo. id. M o �e 9 a ti ri v bdY E 1 tr U N 6Ce L No �u Eco T• .O. C I C L Y J Q O d Y u « Y s O b C✓b Y q d y •. G.,N ti CC C x L T L O M~ y Y N .0 Q OUX /.�J/ O O q.0✓ bx 4.C.> dp d .. x n O q y a^,C _ d.L 2-- q N c L. n. w iy d q O as p� OqC NO K. - �06 �C Wyb �b q CQ Ox ` L Y. L �• q 0 C pp 2 1�A.✓I� b O d E'O d✓O p.t E L V'4'.W N Wien E V L..x. b 6LCd OA O� a Vb x�6.0 a d6.N dL N � b� N E t:�Lu EY c LS a' }V O E p V:O Nt. O Wo Y C ` A M n,Od R �u C d L g r A N•... L x 6 p Y d 0 b v✓\"y �E p LAX a P,o �a u e •_-42 ' o za o. n4 Y daN4 E a C 9.CD 2 L u V bOTC 4.0 00 x✓ E O. OO. y LL ^ebi L q d 1 V.= d C n e0 mod. =�Y• O DNS O q2 €O 96 O Ir L. C ON L y C X p Y u ? X O O M b i r N,C q C d n i •+ _Y O r O Ub Gd W b d M L O��O L L Gu^R IL-Na uM yN � S�'y^ JLE�. •[ p.q.c�p:C 4am' ou;+x- � WI WEL bW�� JKL y LOO 9 p1:-N M nu .dC , ^� u Jim d aEi .c o n T � v a -a. • O Ew+ w 2 to w L N E o L I L U bL >rdP^ �q n E ZLOT d; 1.P. -.=0. Ud b ^oN Q. L d. A uPV O L E.gy uN Y..^O uww E u 4WC a d as w. N N 9 Lw L U c.E T � O� ` Y- �• y � d r� Ems` WL �O to p P'y - OI'p N dUUq aE Oq C y6 rLu Pib N yPp•.bZC < C. U w z dE TY 'pgLpd G.NuE L ^. � �. dw NN �b.c� d dL Cbuh N w �9 Q dy.�d ODT bbo 1P-V O N CN U E. o L? � aT� c9 �. G �€ dL o o�P. N uPb cA Pain �ut+ • o Iz cC Oc c ��• a ON P�dvY dT Qou . IS Z, al N.a 1 N v om- C C .+C o .0 9.8•2 C c ..g.5 b. b Lb y N C L p >G� v ^•�- tea o n n '0 q... L ' v c n.N N yF Qu c« y c= =Lo uP a ^ A -Zia s o�dN TP A . °E aura. Ldu•�- E.d wr N.cPI. AO Y TN E W.O L .. .r .+•N vx N rn aapq d^ v w po w o. L. d y b d 6 u q L C N n T H U L P E C �. o.N.. "emu m o d N b bqY. N W E ^� crab w ca � 'c It: T +s' A ••�� Nd n OL LUC.- P ^y �P P CNEu d. Nam. Nu •.. q�w S > V.Pb COUN E nP6 C ? Hd oq P� do c'v N P N� .d«v rPas p P NYB c- G 04. �a Yq uwPOC C O•p b S • to i3 PY 6 O.3't O1M O� dd p �q OI•^ CO. PAgh T .PUN O V LN d .O-N C w U C 'P L. LE2�- 6d9> ONTAQ N,Cd �.� b. ro� Oy pA P.o_V. WL. NVbN� 4ga.0. 06•�E.�L N d d A �rP�a wig$ a , , N�oY o ''oo os boa c°1ir cY�� o c z= 0 6 c ev A x $ . o �a L C f M OL V C i dY � Orr C Tr N S N G' Y xL cm m n V A A.E N u c« N.zs ijJ o � A •n A+ n E n. m A c" c S. CW p6N OOIq 0. An _ � Cn qN .�.. �> U AO o• C U « Ua L..C^` LN M U YL C aAd OL � .Lr. 9r 'roo o «mY.. dV d o q Y 0! ^W O A «O N C p EYOt C C y3 G. qNi� O CM L NrOC >� qvW^ > „. n qN EL EL EE«= mM 3 �o:a du NEL.d ..o,N., C i6a ao'• et o`.nu�' at .G.� �: o o n o>, 2Fp ago v.r+ �uEL �. Nuo °IAio ,u^o. «E ugou c z y'OLOC SAL Ntt^Lp r .Mtn W. EC UV� Ty 01 6S^INiI Nr n6 oNCI NY d« 3N U + „ p QGNY NOM.ii Gi.1.0.� 6ti 6.- W NL: U S6 ti9 6 IOr 4 .ouL r 5.0- o. c y Nel � s o NN u L =tl V E>Oc =N C Q2 V Y �L u L L quEE oy. « to. . sy>I• �.• N« b np « Lp G u _E Cp Uq p =A E wH `J-� d •n «CA r-LU CCE YO. - Yaa. �� x~r .�i yW NJ N.. YFF O C C Cc p0 � ^a nL E K2 �'• p yya N L T^ v m p mC a C C E3E E x Y C l Y O qC^ N u a Q S O C r C °Je sjo xA no mom oa v1.3 o. aA }E C9 NiY Q^^O NN US .' p xA N Y ^i E CEE 4 N U L b � L CS « I\ C C. O Eq ClE Vi:J � C C 6 60N QQL W2 O COI Aq NKO �L ££ Y Q U O A n�w n02'W T w" a5 VAWL qp a .mac : iO c o 4-3 p O O N Y }U h L U L E w « A V L U L �L G fYil« U dC 9.N NO d3 y 6•.• a N N W� n Oc ZG V ON 1 GU C Naas C�c. E um O , t o a u .'�+ M p u L aL•i pcm u �c iuT 6J as ��� tE N Z q c NTN N 00 9 • Y✓NN. pau Oy TM OY Wp UWU E LvC:C 6N� CND. 4 » Off. Opp 6 C d Y.G, 6.L. HC 6J UO LI • N HI V N V. n A N N 1•f • ti a d u�a w ? �unq. 12 Bi � G O 9 N N q q N O q-g O C C u EZ <SM N.y LL a 6s YN L O q0 'y O . .- N�a+d yW 9 O qEl M G M c« m� oo.. us L.0 U.S 9 v E o t.•+ �. V C y C 2 0 N O p N C d S T V L N O G C O Lv �FFp n c O d c W LL L `S `M W 9 oti C a L 2 U s A A 2u G O PEA 9L u na d c +L pU as N. y.. G G O� L V ter. OLD qO1 PA9 •••W Clyl �'N ON OA C LPL OOu A «G� 01N P. GM <' MO hY.0 6 pN 4 N JSa O Nay Sr FN t.M 6.2 .. U �i r1 N 1'1 `-�O•q'T lD 9 - m 9 a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cVC^NO MEMORANDUM a �• r O O F Z v '> 1977 -1 DATr E. December 11, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning ^,ommission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate.Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS - CITY OF RANCHO UCAMONGA - Planning Commission review and comment of 9eneral revisions and update of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines) This item was continued from the Planning Co,,nission Work_:1op on Monday, December 2, 1985 at which the first two chapters of the Plan, Part I (Regional and Community Background), and Part II (Industrial Area i Development Framework) were reviewed. Commission comments from the workshop are outlined on the following Action Agenda. Also attached is the complete Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report which includes a summary and the proposed text revisions to Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines). Please bring your December 2nd workshop packet to the meeting for discus- t Sion. BB:CJ:ns T ' ITEM I G<<CAa� tic CITY OF r � RANCHO CC;C,�,N ,GA " 0 PLANNING CONIMISSIO�t AGENDA 1977 MONDAY DECEMBER 2, 1985 6:00 P.M. (Dinner at 5:30 p.m.) Rancho. Cucamonga NeighborhoodCenter - Room 4 9791 Arrow Highway Rancho Cucamonga, California PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP INDDSTRTW, AREA SPEC—IFTI�'l PLAN REVISIONS Industrial Area Specific Plan Revisions a City of Rancho Cucamonga - Planning Commission review and comment of general revisions and update of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Part I (Reg'ional and Community Baelg,,round), Part II (Industrial Area Development cramewvrk), and Part III (Development Standards and Guidelines). I. Introductory Comments - Organization of ISP 6:00-6:10 11, Discussion of Parts S and II 6:10-6:40 III—Discussion of Part III and 6:40-8:oo Related Issues/Concerns ADJOURNMENT: The. Planning Commission will adjourn to the December 11, 1985 Regular Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commissioners Present: Dennis Stout, Suzanne Chitiea Staff Members Present: Brad Buller, Curt Johnston, Paul Rougeau Comments: Planning Commission discussion covered Part I . (Regional & Community Background) and Part II (Industrial Area Development Framework) only. Review of Part III (Development Standards & Guidelines) was continued to the December 11, 1985 regular meeting. The following issues/concerns were raised: for.• Planning Commission(Workshop Minutes December 2, 1985 Page ,2 is 1,. Page II-1. Coals and Objectives - Goals versus objectivgs, are not i t distinguished in the list. Two or three overall goals for the"Industrial ! %. area are needed with measurable objectives related to each: A strong ive• goal and objectives Par high quality, aesthetic development, Oarticularly ile on Special Boulevares, 'must be provided at; .the beginnir_t of this c•' section. Water conservation landscaping must also be mentioned. The tivr goals and objectives nould be repeated throughout Part III (Development Gu. Standards and Guidelines) so the intent and purpose ;dt specific !le- regulations is cleat;,. ztr: 2. Paga i1-4. Industrial Land Use Categories • The,five land uses categories ite are too complicated and do not achieve the desired purposb. There is too so much overlap, so only three (3) categories may be adequate'.' Consider ier eliminating General Industrial/Rail Served, and Minimum-- Impact/Heavy Industrial. s Greater emphasis should be placed on Subarea regulat3_ons.' Preservation -vi of railroad service is a major concern. .The issue could be handled ;na- better by designating properties which shall provide for:rail service ist (via overlay digtr!ct on transportation plan). The current General. Se" Industrial/Rail Served category does not require..this. �u 3- Page II-19. Circulation and Access C .:..cies This section should be Ll moved to Part III (Development Standards and- Guidelines) .to provide s- greater empk-pis. Also, the standards fortprivate streets are to be =L- a eliminated and a statement added prohibiting private streets in the: "= Industrial area. 3= -an. 4. Page II-31. Urban Design Concept - This section is currently weak and needs overall restructuring and improvements. Emphasis should-be placed --i=Y' on high quality architecture, site planning, landscaping,- !screening, :on etc. Design concepts should be outlined by land use category and. for Special Boulevards, such as Haven Avenue, Archibald, 4th. Street, and Milliken Avenue. Other concerns which need to be addressed here or in t .`• another part of the Industrial Plan include clarification,of sidewalk r s•1- requirements, such as where meandering sidewalks are necessary, G' restrictions for on-street truck parking and water conservation landscape f t.. designs. Also, this section should be moved ahead of Circulation anL1 i Access. 5. Page II-39. Public Services - Toxic and hazardous material storage and %-rite will be a significant issue as the Industrial area develbi es and is n not mentioned in the Plan. Although other public agencies are e responsible, the City should head a program to deal with thL is�-ue. rp. Procedures and regulaV ous could be adopted as part of 'the-Industrial )31 Plan or Municipal Code. Staff should research requirements of other agencies.