HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/05/29 - Agenda Packet'0701-02 0 MAY 29, 1991 P . G . AGENQA �
CITY OF
r r RANQ =IU ar- A&bNGA
0 6 �'Lf .l l`�i1ti' COMMISSION
J A AGENTDA
1977
7t
WEDNESDAY -%&Y 29, 1991 7:00 P.M.y '
RANCHO CUCAM014GA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER D91VE
RMCHO CUC.'AXONGA, CAt:SFORN1
I. gledg�j of Allegiance
11. Roll Call j
Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette
Commissioner Melcher
lii. Announcement$
2C. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which
concerned individuals may voice their opinion of
the related project. Please wait to be recognized
by the chairman ,and address, the Commission by
stating your nane -,end address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for
each project. Please sign in after speaking.
A. EMRONMENITAL " P_SSESSMEN_ AND rgBHZR_U PLAN
AMENDMENT 91 -02B - CITY QF'RANCHO QgC14 ONGA A
proposal to amend the General Flan Land Use
Element Map from MediVz Residential (8 -1.4
dwelling units per acre) to Low•'I- tedium
Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre,:, for
'the following subareas within the Etiwanda and
Foothill Boulevard Specific Place areas
1. Approximately -14.20 acres bordered on the
north-by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by
the eastern City limits, on the south by
existing,i.,ow Hedium Residential designated
land, and on the west by a utility corridor
- AM 229- 641 -10.
`
d
f
}the
r
2.
Approximately 18.46 acres bordered fir)
north by the Foothill Boulevard:! Specific
Plan 36oundary, which is approximately 530
feet. north of foothill Boulevard; on the
east'by,a utility corridor; on the south by
Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by
Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider
Commercial and Office as alternative land
use designations for this entire area -
APN: 1100- 161 -01 through G. and a portion
of 2100- 201 -03..
3.
Approximately 27 >,,:9 acres-bordered on the
northwest by the Ontario (I- 15) ,Freeway; on,
the east by E.tiwanda Avenue and misting
LcV Medium Residontial designated land, and
on the south by commercially designated
-,
land bordering Foothill. Boulevard. The
City will 'consider Low Residential (2 -4
dwelling. units' per acre) as an alternative
land use designation for this entire:-area,-
APN: 227- 211 -�02, 04, 05,;09, 10, 15, 20
and 29.
4.
'Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the
north by Miller Avenue; on the :east by East
`
Avenue and a utr ",;tty corridor; on the south
by the Foothil,,.�Boulevard Specific Plan
boundary, which is approximately 530 feet
north of Foothill Boulevard.* and on the
west by Etwanda: Avenue. The City will
consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling
_
units pzr acre) as an alternative land use
designation for this entire area - APH:
-
110C- 131 -01 and 02, 1100- 141 -01 and 02,
1100- 151 -01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, air!
1100 --19 -01>
S.
Approximately 30.72 acres is'ardered on the
northwest by the�0ntaric (1 -15) Freeway, -;on
the east: by East Avenue and existing Low
Medium Residential designated land, and on
the south by Puller Avenue. The City'saill
consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use
designation for this entire 'area -- AgN:
1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10,
1100-051` -03, and 1100 - 061 -02- through 64 and
portions of 11:010 -- 071 -01 and 02.
6.
;Approximately 11.09, acres bordered on the
north by Base Line Road, on the southeast
by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, and on the
west by existing Low. Medium Residential
designated land. -ThF, City will consider
.
Office and 'Neighborhood commercial as
alternative land use designations fo. this
entire area - Awl: 1100-051-01 and 02 and
X1100- 061 -01.
°
7. Approximately 10.109 acres 'bordered on the
Aft
north and west by existing Low. Medium
Res,41dential designated land, on the east by
exiatini office designated land, and on t:e
south by Base Line Road. The City will
consider Office as an- altgrnatiVA land use `
designation for this entire area - APN:
227- ;LZI -34- through 36, 52 through 54, and
t
S. ApproxlAately 2Q.34 acres bordered on the
north by the Southern Pacific railway, on
.'
the east Ly the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on
the south by existing Office - desiar -m�c�d
land, and on the '. west by existing Low
:tedium des vnated.tland and divided in a
nortb.- South direction by East Avenue. The
City will consider' Low Rc_ °idential ('2 -4
dwelling units per aere) as an alternative
land use designation for this entire area ,
APN: 227.131 -05 and 227- 141- 14,`and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
declaration, _
B. 20VIRO13MEN'£AI, ASSESSMENT p 'FALL BOTJL yE ARa
S EC7FIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91= R2 - CITY OF RA,NC;�®
vGA - A proposal, 1 a jamend the Foothill
Boulevard Specific ,,Plap Viand Use Map from
Aft
Medium Residential `(8 -14 swelling units per
acre) to Low. Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling
units per acre) for the following subareas
within the Foothill` ; Boulevard Specific Plan:
1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered cn the
north by Foothill Bouulevard, on the east by
the eastern Katy limits, on the south by
existing' Low Medium Residential designated
`
land, amd eh,the West _by a utility corridor
- APN: 229= .1 =Z0.
2. - Approximately 1€ 46 acres bordered on' tat
north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530
feet 'north of Ffi6th111 Boulevard, on the
ea6:t,by a utility corridor; on the south by
Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by
Etiwanda Avenue. The, City will consider
Community Commercial, Commerci 'al Office -,
and Specialty Commercial_ as alternative
Gana use designations for this entire area
- APN: 1100- 161 -01 through 04 and a
portion of 1100 °201 -01 1
Staff recommE,ads issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
C. A]iR0WIEjj rA , ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC
�i 1 LRfENDMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- A proposal to amend the .Etiwanda Specific
Plan Land Use Asap from Medium Residential (8 -14
dwelling ; units per acre) ' to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
the following subareas within the E:tiwanda
Specific Plan;
I. ;'pproximate?y 27.89 acres bordered on the
northwest by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on
the east by 4tiwanda Avenue and existing
i Scow Medium Residential 'designated 'land, and
f on the south by, commercially designated
Land bordering Foothill < Boulevard, The
City will consider Low Residential (2 -4
dwelling unfks` per acre) as an alternative
land use designation for thin entire area -
APY: 227 °211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10,' 15,, ?G,
and 29.
2. Approximately 8:x.57 acres bordered on the
north by Miller Avenue, on the east by;Rast
Avienue'. -end a utility corridor; on the south
by the Foothill Boulevard ,Specific Plan
boundary, whid'a is approximately 530 feet
north of - Foothill and on the
west by Etiwanda i; *fenue. The City will
consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use
designation for this entire area - APN:
1100 - 131 -01 and 02, 1100- 141-01 and 02,
1100 - :151 -01 and 02, 1100 - 181 -01 and 02, abd
110:4 - 191 -01.
3. 'Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the
northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on
the east by East Avenue and existing Low
Medium Residential designated land, and on
the south by Miller Avenue. The City will
consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use
designation for this entire area - APR:
1
1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10,
1100- 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and
portions of 1100- 071-01 and 02.
4. ' Approx?mately 11.09 acres bordered on the
north by Base Line Road, on the southeast
by the Ontario (I -15) 1 Freeway, and on the
west by " existing aw Medium Residential
g
designated land. The City will consider
Office Professional and Convenience
commercial as alternative land use
designations for this entire area - APN:
1100- X051 -01 and 02 and 1100. 051 -01
i
+,
I
F
S. Approximately '10.09 acres bordered on the
north and west by existing Low Medium
Residential designated landr`on the el-.t by
existing Office designated land, and on the
south by Base Line Road. The City will
consider Office Professional as an
alternative lanol use designation for this
entire: area -. APN: 2,27-131-34 through 36,,,
52 through 54, and 61,
6. Approximately 20.,34 acres bordered an thE,"
worth by the Southern Pacific railwa;�, _ cn
the east b the Ontario
y (1 -15) rre wa _F ',on
the south by existing Office designated
Jana, and on the west by existing Low
Hedium designated land and divided,in a
north -south direction by 'East Avenue: The
city consider Low ResidentiFil (2 -4
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative
land use designation for tnis entire area -
APN: 227 - 131-05 and 227- 141 -14 and 65.
Staff recommends issuance of a, Negative
Declaration.
V. Old Business
D. TRA7 TS IMR-r hMENTATION PLAN
VI. Director's Reports
E. Q =TY REFERRAL 88 -05 - WEIVERSYTY CREST -
P,�eliminar}r Plan of Development, Master
T6mtative ;7Tracts, Tentative Tract -Maps, and
Final Pl, /n of Development for 1,239 single
family units and commercial, school, park, and
open space on 1,111 acres in the Rancho
Cucamonga Sphere ,area; request for review of
the City0s requests to the County Plannir,-,
Commission and Board of Supervisors.
VIZ. Commission Business
VIII. Public Comments
This .s the time and place for tha' gPn:eral public
to address the Commission. Items to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
agenda.
Is. Ad jo= meat
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set' an 11:00 P.M. - adjournment
time. If items go, beyond that time, tbiBy shall be
heard only with the consent of the Commission.
{g
l
E
vicinity map
rM
E
Memo to Planning ComMission Merbers
Review of Constraints on parcels #227- 141 -14 and 06 and why we feel
• that this parcel shossld be separated from the 'rest of parcel 8,
and should be rezoned neighborhood or specialtf commercial
• 1.) Northern boundary is the Southern Pacific Railraod (,and planned
,future commuter rail line )
2.) Entire;SZ bounda;;f along Freeway I -15 and offramp
3.) Entire SE boundary has a 20 ft easement tfor - sewers by CG *;bl
4.) Entire SE boundary will require a 20 ft wall and landscaping
for Freeway noise and pollution abatement
5.) The W boundary, East Avl,., will be a 4 lans major', IiArtary
6.) Fontana, just S of this, is PIS-tying commerc t on similar
property, and all Etiaanda Tax dol`srs will end up there
7,) Etiwanda has lots more development now, and a new High School
and needs Neighborhood or specialty commercial there_.
9.) It is naturally buffered, 611 the vay around and
,
Basil -� could be separated from V s rest.:-of area. 9, and
rezoned c6zmercial.
10) A drainage district has to be formed and paid for by a future
developer. And so a development must end up with a 16rge
enough profit for him to pay for all this up front.
11) Any zoning other than commercial of some 'kind, will make our
parcel undevelopable and unsalabje.
Respectfully yours,
Ralph 6 Agatha''Kleinman, owners
.mil
a'1
{i
4
April 1.811 1441
Mrs Jack Lam, City 4anaaer
Mr. Buller, Planner ..�
--
H:•. Vince Bertoni, Planner A��2
City of Rancho Cucamoncra �, N
.
? "0. Box 80.7 ,.rt
RanchoCucamonca, CA 81:29
Dear Sira;
Pursuant to our telephone conversation T am writing vbu re:
parcel #227 - 141 -14 and
parcel 0227- 141 -66 located at 7174 East
Avenue, in Etiwanda.
These parcels are currently zoned for multi4amily and
are in the area which you are considering, For down- zovin,�.
Please look at the enclosed man with regard to the nar-
cols' confipuration`and the nronerty constraints w
are unique to this parcel..
1) The northern boundary is the 0*ilro.--kd tracks.
2) The entire oblicue eastern boundary i13 the Freewav 2nd
the freewav off -ramn which will ranuive building,,4
30 ft tall wall along its entire length for noise
auatamp."t.
3) The entire oblioue eastern freeway boundary has al-to
20 feet of sewer easement on it along the entire lcn.-rth„
li
U) The western hnundarrr iF F which will he
Fast (venue s
a 4 lane riaaior t• -S artc.rjr.
la t1le oripinal rrn : -sRl f;rr the f't?s:arep Steciflc: Flan,
the Set r ., t, r, -pre ron., ulterts r= latsle this aR tyria;Ai
cnmaet`cial or - "Y -t.Fav Gc.irercial zanl'np. Fe feel +.f you
wiph to get r•is, of sore multi-- famlly zoning , the finest ucP
would be to again zone l•t. rreewav comr:ercial, as it has .n
natural boundary in the Rail. Raod tracks and freewav off -
ramp. Tt is wall assay from the biph school and there is
already freeway con.nerclal zoning aernss the street.
i
We enclose a mar showing the above mentioned 71roperty and
the property constraints. Please contact us le you would
like to discuss this further with us. j
Yours tr uly,
Ra]oh & Agatha Kleinman
2f60 N. Euclid Ave.
t'pland, CA 31786
copies to hr. Lam, Buller, Pertoni
2
,I
m
su
%) t � l
1.7
iY %
7AVWT
hop
2
,I
m
su
%) t � l
1.7
Onw, rsntitsVf'u
CITY-
OF F,ANCHO CUCAMONGA
. r"LAriNING OIVI:i!gN COIvNIERCIAI. SERVICES
DAHIM 7974 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
N il in
AN PM
Members Planning Commission May 29,1991;
Members City Council
City Planning Staff 3 °s
Re: Southwest corner 1 -15 Freeway and Baseline
Owner: I.S. Properties
,rrom:
Jeffery C. Sceranka
As a representative of the owners of this "property I am
responding to some concerns regarding land use designations.. The
issue has been raised regarding the preservation of the "Core" in
Etiwanda. As some of you know I was a member of the Planning
Commission when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was approved and was
also a member of the Foothill Specific Plan. Task Force.
The "Core" is currently impacted by significant traffic patterns
for, goirg to and coming home traffi_, and the "Care" is
significantly impacted by residents of both Fontana and Ranct+o
Cucamonga for neighborhood grocery ar,d conveniehUe shoppin, 4
The I.S. Properties parcel provides the City of Rancho Cucamonga
the! opportunity to relieve traffic flows from Fontana and
Etiwanda North through the "Core" of Etiwanda. It also provides
the City an opportunity to capture sales tax revenue that will
surely go to the Village of Heritage when they build a
neighborhood shopping center on Baseline if one is not built in
Rancho Cucamonga.
The I.S. Properties Parcel also allows residents not to have to
drive south to Foothill Boulevard for certain shopping trips if a
neighborhood retail center was built on the parcel.
current description of some of the existing traffic flows
''r11 ows:
1. If you travel through Etiwanda you will note the significant
traffic flows on Baseline traveling East to the I -15 freeway.
This traffic flow begins from all the homes which have recently
been built between Haven and Etiwanda Avenues and North of
Foothill Boulevard.
2. The future development of the northern part of E'',i.wanda wil`
increase the North /South traffic flows south on Etiwanda and East
Avenues considerably.
3. The development of the Village of Heritage h,'�5 created an
increased traffic flow, from East to West to the Shopping Centers
in Rancho Cucamonga west of;- Etiwanda Avenue.
4. The majority of the new residents in Etiwanda North travel to
Rancho Cucamonga to do their grocery shopping by way of the I -15
to Highland -or Baseline.
7149W-MM • 714466.9M • FAX n4 944oSM
. >, G
►"' COMMERCIAL SERVICES,
DAMER 7,M `kaven Avenue, Ritncho Curawnge, CA 91130
S. The major travel corridors for each of the above groups are
,ivided between Highland Avenue and Baseline Avenue for East /West
travel, and Milliken, Etiwanda, East, -and the I-15 Freeway for
the North /South travel.
ei
The I.S. Properties parcel of ipproxima:tely 11 ,,acres is ideally
suited to provide a,retail commercial shopping center to service
the needs of Victoria, Etiwanda Northv the Village of Heritage, .
and future residents of northern Etiwanda.
The I.S. Properties parcel allows for a significant visual and
economic entrance point into Rancho Cucamoinga 'From the I -15
freeway.
The I.S. Properties parcel receiving a community Commercial
designation will relieve" traffic flows through the "Core" of
Etiwanda.
The owners are requesting that the City of Rancho Cucamonga
correct the lack of adequate neighborhood shopping center sites
in the Etiwanda market area especially north of Baseline by
designating their parcel Community Commercial.
The new designation would provide a lessening of the medium
density housing in the community and serve to assist the city in
its overall density reduction program.
The designation of the'si'ce to office is not practical in toda�"s
or future markets considering the plethora of sites that exi5t'
now and are designated in the Etiwanda Specific Plan for future
office development.
Thank You for your consideration of this item. I will be
available at the public hearing for comment if you wish.
Car d�}al pren5vepted /
Jeff y C. Sceranka
Division Manaqer
Century 21 Dahler
Resident Rancho Cucamonga
15 years
a
714 480 -SM • 724 456.9499 • FAX 714 914,014
r
E
MAY -29 -1991 141 FROM CPRYN COKIWt' 99 ^E i5? .Oy
The Cnryn gotnpany
AXt Ulikla Box 9216 &. IgUna. CA 92677 -0216
Otrll- -(714) 4995929 FAX (714) 499.5173
May 29, 1091
Chairman and Mem'tuers VIA FAX
Rancho Cucamongra. Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonr,�a
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonyla, California 91729
Re: May 29 Staff Re�,9 r^ t niverstty Crest
Dear Chairman and Phnninp Conimissionersr
Having learned yesterday this item was on your agenda for today, we have not prepared
a more specific reply to the Staff Report. Since the Staff Report gener lly repeats items
discussed last summer, l refer you to two of cur replies distributed then (a 16 page detailed
response by Land Plan D %Ign Group dated August 21, 1990, ead a three page summary re-
sponse by The Caryn Company dated 5eptembet, 6, 1,990).
The University Crest is an integral part of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSp). Since
last summer, both the City and the (county have issued draft Environmental impact Reports
(SIR) on their respective EI+ISPs. I bolleve both EIRs indicate both ENSPs are quite similar,
contrary to many of Staffs conelusions.
In addition, the County's (Coomortium's) 2NSP has been the subject of a Fiscal Impact Report
(FIR) by both the City and the County. I balieve these FM and their Accompanying Financial
and Phasing Plans show the Consortium's ENSP Is fiscally sound and provide financial comulit-
ment to parks and open space, roads, schools, fire and flood protection and community identity
than as required by the City. City Staff may not like how we are planning to spend the money
for these services, but we are commited to spend it, unlike other nearby City approved projects.
To date, the City his refused to do x PIR on Its ENSP. I believe such a FiiR wQuid Oow the
Citys ENSP to be unachievable.
Finaliy, the County has subjected the University Crest to a series of SIR and FIR oriented
tests to determine its compatabulty with the ENSP. City Staff has done no such testing to
back up its claim Shat the University Crest may not be compatabie with the E11SP.
Also since list summer additional traffic studies have been done which offer proof the Con-
sortium's solutions for the slay Creek Boulevard- Wilson Intersection and the alignments of
Etiwanda Avewm and Vintage Drive are better than City Staff's proposal. Staff has run
another study oti the D%v Creek -Wilson interchange and now concur with the Consorti�im.
Perhaps staff wound ag Iva with the Consortium's solutions for Etiwanda and Vintage if Staff
were to do additional-sttt4y
While 1 remembtiz your comments of last summer that it may not be the Commissions
per4ative to consider economic; impacts, I urge you to c cshsidwt these further studies when
MAY-2-9-1951 14--2-5 .,FROM, CAlPa EOMRAP1Y its
Chairman' and Members of Rancho Cucamonga Flanning'Cominission AMk
May 29 Staff Report, University Crest
May 29$ 1992 Page Two
discussir T atafPs report, I'm a ,are this item is on your agenda as a Directors R.eport,; .
and the actions of the Commisston May take are limited, but representatives of the '
applicant are available fOr discussion in a more appropriate forum.
Respectfully,
aph N. bfTorlo
President
JND / }$s
cc: Mr. Roger Sasnuelsen
Mr. Pate Dangermond I
Mr. Pat McOuckian I
Mr. Tim Johnson
ff�
- l
1
i
G
lea= /e
The Caryn Company
Past O,'Tice Box 921 &, Ig5una, CA 92677 - -0216
Office (714) 499- ;9,- FAX (714) 499 -5173
May 23, 1991
Mr. Ray Ferguson, Chairman
Planning Commission
County of San Bernardino
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92415 -0180
Re: 'Rancho Cucamonga Representation
Dear Chairman Ferguson:
Today at the Planning Commission public hearing an the University Crest Manned Develop-
ment and Maps, Mr. Larry Hendersor, Sr. PI3nner for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, spoke
at some length, representing that his statements reflected the official position of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga. Since t:.e current City Council has not discussed this project, I do
not believe it's approp.date for Mr. Henderson to be representing his opinion, and perhaps
those of other Staff members, as an official City position, particularly on a matter of such
importance and particularly after what is perceived as a fnajor change in the complex on of
the City Council since last November.
I had requested of Miki Br Ytt (Mr. Hcnderson's assistant) that br fore she or Larry spoke at
the public hearing that theuspecity their position was not necessarily one that the current
Council had or would app • Ms. Hratt assured me that they mould make that clarification.
I was again assured that;. ,stun by your Staff today that you had passed on my request
again to Mr. Henderson a "att. I did' not get the opportunity to state my objections
during the public hearing, s4. -� accept this letter protesting what 1 believe was a serious
misrepresentation by Mr. Hend-erson, coupled with a severe distortion of the facts in his
presentation.
I would appreciate County Counsel giving advice on the matter' and would hope that the
matter can be clarified by the time of our continued public hearing on June 6. The Rancho
Cucamonga City Council, I believe.. would have the time to review the project before then
in some manner and should they not review it, I do not believe any City Staff statements
should be accepted during the public hearing. As always, if the City demonstrate.; good
faith in trying to resolve this matter, I am. happy to cooperate in any way I can. "
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
Joseph N. Dilorio `
President
JND /jas
cc: San Bernardino County Planning Commission
.� City of Rancho Cucamunga_City Council
Ms. halery Pilmer
Mr. John P.,McGuckian a
r
,Mk
A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPO' IS
May 29, 1991 �J
Chairman &_Members of the Planning Commission
Buller,, City Planner
Miki Bract. Lasociate Planner
SUBJECT, COUNTY REFgHg&1L-_ 88-95 =_ M1CVEF:S*4TY CREaT - I
Preliminary Plan 'f Development, Master Tentative
Tracts, Tentative Tract Maps, and Final Plan of
Development for 1,239 single family units and
commercial, school, pars, and open space on 1,111
acres in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere area; request
for review of the City's requests to the County
Planning commission and Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND: The subject project was heard by the County
Planning Commission on May 23 and continued to June 6, 1991.
County staff re-vommends approval.
On May 16, 1991, City, staff requested a continuance of the
item for the reasons stated in _ the attached . letter to Pat
McGuckian.
On May 23, 1991, City staff requested that the County
.Planning Commission deny the subject project, without
prejudice, for the reasons stated in the attached lEttnr to
the County Planning Commission.
City staff has prepared preliminary comments on the subject
project which are attached in draft form for your review and
comment. The comments are arranged item -by -item and ' refer
to the County staff's report to thi County Manning
Commission. (sae atta,:hed), Please note that additional
exhibits wi13 be available at the Planning Commission
meeting.
II.. ,ANALYSIS:_ Following previou, dire Lion from the Planning
Commission and the City Council, City staff is recommending:
* That approval of the subject project be deferred until
the County adopts its Etiwranda North Specific Plan;
* Because, as stated iln the County General Plan, the
County's goal is to "encourage cities to annex urban
unincorporated areas within designated City Spheres-of-
influence and support annexations /incorporations of
ITEM E
G «�
1
PLANNING COM41SSION STAFF REPORT
CR 88 -05 - UNIVERSITY CREST
May 29, 1991
Pace 2
urban designated lands" -- and even if the subject
project does not annex to the City, it will impact City
infrastruc ura and services -- City Standards of
Development should be followed; and
+� That since . the subject project is within the Etivanda
North Specific Plan area, it should conform to the
City's draft Etiwanda Worth Specific Plan.
At the June 6, 1991 hearing by the County Planning
Commission, City staff recommends that the City focus on
several substantive itQ.:as, including:
* Opposition to the intensity of land use with a
zecommendat;ior ghat the project conform to the City's
Hillsids Dwrelopment Ordinaice and that parcels above
the .lower Edison Corridor neat the City Standard for
Vs.ry Low Density (less than two dwelling units per
acre), as :shown in the City's Draft Etiwanda North
Specific Plan,
* Opposition 'to the density bonus bmcause the subject
project does not exceed the minimum City standard for
design; most of the proposed amenities are designed
off- site; and the project may be consistent with, but
does not exceed, the design standards for the County's
draft E'Liwanda North Specific Plan;
Request for coordination with the City's draft Etiwanda
North Specific Plan with special attention to two means
of access, protection of Et Wanda Avenue from traffic
impact, and design of vintage Drive as a collector
street; and
* Request that the City's minimum Quimby Park Standards
be meta
?II. BEQ0_ ,NDhTYON: Staff requdsts that the Planning Commission
support the focus and comments on the subject project
prepared by City staff for the County Planning commission.
Respectfully submitted,
� s
Brad Huller
City Planner
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Draft Comments to County
Planning commission
May 16, 1991 ,!
Pat McGuckian
County of San Bernardino
385 N. Arrowhead Avenne, Third Floor
San Bernardino, California 92415 -0180
SUBJECT: UHIVERSITXLgaEST RUD 87 Q 049SdU 49 ET AI: B=D-7 LZR
FOR =--23, 1991 PLM NG C ISSXON
Dear Mr. McGuckian:
.e respectfully request a continuance of the subject items
scheduled for hearing at the County Planning Cammissitin meeting of
May 23, 1991. The reasons for this request are are follows:
a Provide adequate time for City staff to review
the draft "Addendum" to the draft final EIR
,since it was not available until MAY 16, 1991.
o Provide adequate time for City staff to review
the revised PDP which was not distributed to
the City until May 16, 1991.
o Provide id«quate time for City staff to review
conditions by County staff which will not ba
available until May 17, 1991 at then earliaetat.
o Recirculate the draft "Addendua" among
responsible agencies which previously
comment , in as much as the draft final SIR
was completed in August 1989, but never
r&Wk -aed by the County Planning commission nox
certified by the Board of Supervisors.
o Rsnctice than hearing, in as such as the last
notice was September 10, 1990, and responsible
agencies, adjoining property owners, and
a
Interested partials may be under the impression
that this project has been withdrawn from
!!
consideration.
I
Mayor Dennis L Stout � CounoWw nber Dionne C7lPiams
mayor Pro -Tern Wnaiarn J Alexander �_ _ CouncOrnemm Pamatc, S Wig-
jack jack Lar1i. AICP. City Manager _ Councdmasrr:3er Charles J Buau
• PQ 8cx SG7 • 7a ^c--c Cacomongo. CA 91729 a (714) 989- '1851
f r ��
LETTER TO: PAT KC GUCRIPS
R£: UNIVERSITY/CREST
May 16, 1991
page
in regard to notice, t11 ;1 ,project is proposing land use and
circulation conditions thLct will affect aejQirxing propert „. owners
who should receive individual notice, for example:
• A X4 -acrct par:r,site is proposed for Southern
California Edison (SCE) property.
• Trails are proposed for SCE property.
• Use of SCE service roads is proposed for
additional trails.
• The circulation system zuy impact future
development, of SC'S property north of the lower
east -waist SCE: easement.
i
• Drainage facilities are propcsed for a "rtion
of SCE property.
• "Temporary” street access and sewer easement
is proposed across property owned by SCE.
• a school site is proposed for zhe property
c:%wned by Raquel S. Moya, at. al.
• although the City has conditioned Remington
Development on the west and Matt Industries an
the east to build vintage Drive as an east-
west collector street, no provision has been
made for Vintage Drive t` ,ough the proposed
development.
• Day creels Boulevard will bisect the house of
Laura and Vincent Sudeta and their property
must be acquired by negotiations or
condemnation as a; condition of development of
this site.
C1 Other adjacant proerty' owners may have issues
or concerns about thiw development.
Furthor, in degard to notice, the "project application and
environmental findings" wore not available' at they wise the previous
noticrl was circulated, and only became available tin May 16, 1991.
a ,
LETTER TO: PAT NYC "GUCKIAN
REo UNIVER ITt /CREST
Maur 16, 299 1
Page, 3
Iii- .regaxd to the "a►ddendrau" to the EIR, the document which was
prepares: appears to be erroneously identified as an naddendum°'.
The dra`P.t Final EIR was complated in August 1989, but was not
reviewed by the County Planning Commission and was not certified as
complete by the Board of Supervisors. Not only were changes made
to the project circulation and development plan,, but also
substantial new information occurred because the project war
incorporated into the more comprehensive'Etiwanda North,,Specific
Plan. As provided by CEQA when only minor° changes in a project are
m &de, but new information of substantia {,,importance to the pr,.oject
becomes available, a "subsequent" EIR may,,be prepared. Because of
substantial ne:a information, the documeet prepared should be a
"subsequent" EIR which must be circulated for public review.
certainly after the lapse of almost two years and consistent with
Wie intent of tCEQA to keep the public informed, the new
environmental dooamentation should be circulated to responsible
agenci,as for review and comment and =ads available for public
review.
Thank you for consideration of our request for continuance of the
University /Crest item.
sincerely,
COIKM MITY DEVELOP14M DEPARTMENZ'
PLANNING DIVISION
L.Heenderson, AICP
Principal Planner
XJH:NB /ko
cc: ohs ,..Lon Rightower
Bandy Scott
Kathleen Browne
Gratcholn Star
Mayor and Membmrs of the City Council
Chairsaen and Members of the Planning Commission
Ralph Hanson, Deputl City Attorney
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
Brad Buller, City Planner
A ICI C t O C U C
may 23, 1591
�- q-
Air. Ray Ferguson, Chairman
and Members of the Planning Commission
County r.f San Bernardino
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
SUBJECT: UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, CARYN
COMPANY (J. Dilorio) /UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
REGENTS, ?UD /87- 0104 /W121 /49 /PUDP PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ETC.
Dear Mr. Ferg'.ssons
The purpose of ttzis letter is to comment on the sject
project and to request de;rial of the project without
prejudice. The basis for a denial without prejudice is
inconsistency with.. the County's General Plan and Code of
Development, as well " inconsistency with the City's
General Plan and Code of Development.
Further, the request for denial without prejudice of the
:subject project is rased on the incompleteness of the
application, including lack of .concurrence by adjoining
property owners, whose parcels are necessary for the i3asic
infrastructure for tyke subject application and whose parcels
are exported to contribute substantial amenities for the
subject project.
Also, this project cannot stand on its own without the
infrastructure plan, the fiscal plan, fiscal mechanisms, and
the resource management plan components of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan.. Therefore, the request for denial of
the subject project is. based on the premature submittal of
the subject applications which are part of the application
for the County's Etiwanda North Specific Flan.
Further, if the project is not denied by the Planning
Commission, it should be returned to staff for adequate
processing, including but not limitad to adequate notice of
hearing, adequate opportunity to review the proposed revised '
project, adequate environmental review period on
supplemental environmental documents, adequate discussion of
environmental impacts, as reell an, revised and adequate
mitigation measures.
Mayor Dennis L Stout Councilmember Diane Williams
Mayor Pro-rem William J Alexanaer ,1 APk Counciimihmber Pamelo J YVeg^
JoCx lam, AICP. City Manager Councdmember Charles J Buque• 1.
+v50G .rCCe— *e, :•.e a , Box ;1C7 . :anc ^c`C�c morga.CA 41729 0 «•L;-;SQ.,55i
f
County Planning Commission
May 23, 1991
Page 2
Regarding inadequate notice of hearing, inadequate
opportunity to review the pr64act before you, and inadequate
environmental reVi(:w period, please refer to the attached
letter to Pat McGuckian of May 16, 5991. It should be noted
that the full package of documents, including the complete
Staff Report and the Conditions of Development were
deliverers to the City on May 21, 1991, two days before this
hearing.
However, City staff has already begun the development of a
formal item -by -item response to the County's Planning
Commission Staff Report and anticipates finalizing our
comments within the next 7,ays.
Again, should the County Planning Commission not continue
this matter and determine that action is appropriate today,
City staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend
denial without prejudice for the subject application..—
Further, in recommending denial City staff requests that the
Planning Commission direct the applicant to complete
additional environmental assessment and project redesign
including, but not limited to, the following:
• To resubmit the application following approval of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan;
• To provide --P. seismic study e..if the school site in
conformance with seismic poliml!lt of the County General
Plan and with the adopted Ra,i no Cucamonga Red Hill
Fault seismic Study Area;
• To provide adequate mitigation measures for traffic
impacts on the City of Rancho Cucamonga circulation
system;
• To provide cdequate mitigation measures for the
cumulative loss of alluvial fan scruio habitat;
• To participate in biolog5cal mitigation measures
consistent with the Et�wanda North Resource
Conservation Plan which wV1 be adopted as an
environmental .mitigation measuk%� of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan;
• To design the project consistent with the Etiwanda
North Resource Conservation Plan policies;
• To enter into an agreement, such as a Memorandum of
Undesstanr1ina,, wing the California Departments of Fish;
and Gave and the U.S. Army Corps of Angineers to
participate in a comprehensive 1601/404 permit plan for _
the entire Eltiwanda North Specific Plan area;
r7
County Planning Commission
May 23,1991
Page 3
• To redesign the plans with no residential density bonus
units consistent with the County policy to grant only
one public incentive for preservation of open space,
• To redesign the project to be consistent with the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan when it is adopted. The
specific Plan will establish the backbone
iniriztrueture system, the backbone financial plan, - and
finan,.ial mechanisms for improvement and maintenance of
the background infrastruct -re system;
• To redesign the plan with curvilinear stx,ets and
internal )paseos in conformity with the County General
Plan ' poky which encourages preservation of natural
contoxl::�e,' to preserve slope, riparian features, and
vi ewsh (.eds;
• To wor)L with the City of Ranch:-i Cucamonga to design the
backbone circulation system to protect Etiwanda Avenue.
consistent with the County's General Plan Policy LU -9;-
* To cooperate with 1-,he City of Rancho Cucamonga to
redesign the backbone circulation system tQ provide
access for all developabl�r.parcels of land ,consistent
with the County's General Plan Policy YOU -9;
• To work with the City of Ranchn: Cucamonga to redesign
the landscape plan consistent with the City's Xeri; tape
Ordinance, the Etiwanda North Fire Protection Study,
the Etiwanda North "e ounce Management Flan, and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga's Etiwanda North Specific Plan
landscape palette consistent, with the County's General
Plan Policy LU -9;
• To meet all requirements of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's Development Code, including the Hillside
Development Ordipip :.ce consistent with the County's
General Plan Policy LU-+9;
• To acquire additional property to provide 4.7 acres of
un*ncumbered park Iaar thousand population on -site or
redesign the proposed tracts consistent with the
County's General Plan Policy LU -9;
* To acquire agreerents to lease and /or landscape SCE and
MWD fee easements aror trails and landscaping uses on to
provide all trail and landscape amenities on- site;
* To provide properrty owner consent to plan the off -site
portion of tha sR:hool site;
�D
11
EI
County Planning Commission
May 23, 1991
Page 4
To provide property owner consent to acquire land for
the >backbone circulation system, drainage fAgilities,
drainage easements, temporary access easeamentr-',- and /or
to bond for condemnation.
Thank you for consideration of our comments:
sine Y
. `.7.1
ZBrad ull
City Planner'
BBzMb /jfs
Attachments
cc: mayor anc` Kambera of the City dtouncil
Chairman �.zd Members of the Planning Commission
Ralph Hanson, deputy city Attorney
Rick Gomez, Comeunity Development Director
Sharon Hightower
Pat McGuckian
Gretchen Stangl- chariton
Randy Scott
Kathleen Browne
Eq.
(191_1111.t'21_9 .PLANNING IDEPAR.TMENT
Staff Report ,
HEARING DATE: 5 -23 -91
AOL
AGENDA ITEM N0: 4 at b, c, d,
Ut (811016190m
PPESERVED OPEN SPAC.
DEVWPMENT AREA
tams. riw171a,acm
APPISZAXT:
PRQJFCT DE5CRTMON
:3� ^sue Yi
Wvrr VAL= TWICE is
'OLIC141.
Cna Caryn DavaLtWeat Co.
S 61.DCw.
7 :P03AL:
06617C[1106/N13'�-49/PDO[
Pralisinan Davelop.ant Plan for 1.378
ras3d -tial w114. cmarclal, school.
;_X. and open 3Pa on 1.111 arse..
:GITZON:
Xsghla:W Avamse IROat. 30) and D.Y Cn6X
pasha. on 166.63 acras.
lavard nortAwat ocroari X44L Va11er
Tvdthilla Coeenaity plan.
10CAT1071;
land/Plan 01sigA Group
.?=CAR --
The Cerra Ca.panY c/o Ox D1 Zarin
:= /1«•00X:
/77:0ZX;
A) r0 /44- 01 61/11121 - of /9itd[
n) FD/41- 0161/X121- 19/Tll 16605
::DFOSAL:
2661701.
A) Final D"elvPment. Plan for 660
lb 3D
re.Sdantlal unit. an 216.66 acre}.
:CATZOPi
D) 7 Lat 6ubdivialon en 266.66 a ..
EtiVahs..1 --. and 25th $%..at..
:P•
Frank RlYl -an
ra:.ZCA$ --
1.
171. C.ryn Coe:lany c/o Sae Di Yo:10
:LE /I7PEX;:
A) AD /611 - 0163/X121- 49/;%,
:LE/17iD[li:
0) PD /49 -0165 TABU 0171/X121 -19/
TR 16606 TM TA 16612
)
44911cri
- op-SAJ:
A) Final Dovelopaeat Plan •ot 660
Reaidential units. n 244.66 oat.$.
7
a, 7 Tracts for 660 lots on 144.66 .—S
=42ZON:
E tiu.nde AV.AI and xb:h Street.
Rigs cad Avenue and Dar Criax Crossing
northeast CCraar.
Frank RlYl.van
AOL
AGENDA ITEM N0: 4 at b, c, d,
Ut (811016190m
PPESERVED OPEN SPAC.
DEVWPMENT AREA
tams. riw171a,acm
APPISZAXT:
Aagnn4 of Unlvan lty oS Calit.
A) pD 0171 33 •NaK
rx=/IXDExs
lI7S/INDLX:
G1'6 is
/a1:- /11111- /FDDP p}[pp pypp:•
01 PD /6i- 017!/N121 -33/ 1'R iR <9I
06617c[S
p�paN 6NL1iMt
1Y,F,a •\ ••
FROPOSAL:
Al Final Davelopeant Flan + 5"
1
;
sa.ldantiel waits, emattaal, ..haul,
I r \ 1
pasha. on 166.63 acras.
'
10CAT1071;
D) D Jot 8utidivision On 166.63 aor—
Righland Manna and Day Cr X Cmisinq
) •�.,i
REPS
northast of
Th. Cerra Co.
�.1
ASPLICANT:
I'.pa04 oL 4nivanStY nL Calif.
lb 3D
TSLS/INDL%t
1, PD /6f- 0171/X121- 33 /PODF
1 ,�
FILT./INDl3it
a) PD /6f -0173 3'HW 0163 -X321- 93/171161)]
TM 14496 i 11132 4 16533
7 )
CATS 1:
FROPOSALS
06617CF1
A) Final Davo3e)aant Plan - 37f ]u-
) ) 1
sidantlal wait.. 1x.6. grace acre
c0aa..iil, school 6. park an 194.63
)
a.res
196.N
) •j
7
R) a TYaC4 totaling 37F lots on
i �. 5•
WrATIONS.
Rigs cad Avenue and Dar Criax Crossing
? !r S.
REPS
northeast of
Its. Cerro Co.
f
S }•4 _I h
67 HEARING NOTICES SENT ON 5 -13 -91 REPORT PREPARED BY G. stangt -Cna
P.C.FIELDINSPECTIONDATEBY: 5-21 -41; Commissioners Domarows ?ti,Teeters & Easterdav .+
Sr rE DESCRIPTION
PARCELSIZE: 1,111 acres ACRES/DTMENSIONS (675.8: ,ec --15 -8178 slope)
EXISTING LAND USE: undevloped
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRICT WF /PD -2/1, WF /PD -3/1 IMPROMMNT LEVEL: IL -1
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Fire Rtzview Areas 1 & 2; Floodplain (FP -1) Zone A;
SURROUNDING LAND DESCRIPTION
LAND USE/ GENNERAL PLAN LAND USE DIST, ,CT/ IMPROVEMENT LEVEL/ OVERLAY DISTRICT **
NORTH: SCE Utility Corridors/WF /PD -1 /l, WF- IN /IL -1 * *for portion to be developed.
SOUTH Highland Avenue, residential /City of Rancho Cucamonga
EAST: residential vacant /PD -3/1, PD -2/1, WF IN /II, -1 /Cifiit of T?ancho �icamonga
,%s SCE Utility Coreidor /sand & gravel operations wash/WE -FW. WF- IN /IL- -5
'— TSa'�aTri_ annto
AGENCY
COMMENT
CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCER@ Cie of Rancho Cucamonga - recommends denial
project is inconsistent with city goals, policies, standards, and ordinances.
WATER SERVICE: Cucamonga County Water District - recommends approval oenc,? no extension of I
_acs itie
SEPTIC /SEWERSERVICE: Cucamonga County Water District
STAFF RECOMMEINDATION:_ APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 1 of 19
CARYN COMPANY ( ,7. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OP CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- C104 /Wl21- 49 /PUAP; PRELIMINARY DEVZLOPMEXT PLAN;
PD/89- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14505; PD /85 3 /W!21- 49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121 -55 /Tit 34492: PD /84- 0172/Wl21- 55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89•- 0165/W121 -49 /TR 14506- - 14612; PD/89 -89- 4167 /W12l- 49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/[4121 -55 /fiat 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD /89- 0174 /W121- 55 /PUDF.
BACKGROUND:
The University /crest%31anned Development., originally known as the
Caryn Planned Unit Development (PUD), was initially submitted to
the County of San Bernardino for review ir. May, 1988. During
processing of the application, the City of R;,,:ncho Cucamonga "3egan
efforts to annex the area historically known as North Etiwanda,
within which this project site is located. At titer applicant's
request, processing of the Pun was subsequently suspended to
allow processing of a ppecific plan in a cooperative effort with
the city of Rancho Pacamonga After unsuccessful attempts to`,
reconcile the differences between City and County standards, the
applicant chose to resubmit the proposal to the County for review
e•r June 1, 1990. The resubmittal included seventeen (17) tentative
%tracts and final development plans. The City is continuing to
pursue their Etiwanda North Specific Plan while the County of San
Bernardino is currently reviewing a proposal for a specific plan
with the same title.
Project Description:
The project consists of onto preliminary development plan, two
waster tracts with final development 81ans and fifteen (15)
supplemental tracts with firal development plans. The components
of the project include 1,139 single family residences, a 12.6
acre neighborhood commercial site, school site and two (2) parks;
all of which are allocated to the southern element of the project
site. Seven (7) of the tracts (660 dwelling units) are located
in the upper portion of the southern element and is commonly
referred to as the "Crert1l while the remaining eight (8) tracts
(579 dwelling units) are located in the "University" or lower
portion of the site. The minimum residential lot size is 7,200
square feet with the average lot size generally increasing from
south to north. The concept involves ten (10) residential
neighborhoods organized around two major "hubs ". ,A, "recreation
hub ", containing approximatA'.y 14 acres, is located at the
northerly portion of the site and a "community service hub" of
approximately 24.5 acres is located to the south. The "community
service hub" would contain an elementary school, an 11.-5 :acre
park, and the commercial site. The total proposed parkland is
25.5 acres. The average gross density, it� 3.02 dwellings per
,/A
2
UNI'VERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 2 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD /59- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /W121.49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121- 55/11"R 14492 ;, PD /8.9- 0172 /W121- 55 /PUDF; MASER
PD /89- 0165/47121 -49 /TR 1460E- 14612; PD/89- 89- 016VW121- 49 /PUDF;
PD /89- 02.75 thru 0182 /W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD/89- 0174!W121- 55 /PUDF.
acre, with the open space preserve and the cormer-.�tal site acreage
evcluded. The northern element, located off -site approximately
three (3) miles above the area proposed for development, contains
a 675.8 acre open space preserve.
i
Existing site conditions:
The northern element (the 675.8 acres) extends two miles into the
National Forest. Boundary and is characterized by mountainous and
foothill to ^rain at the base of Cucamonga Peak in the San. Gabriel
Mountains. This rugged mountain area is comprised of high
duality babi-at and a variety of woodlands, chaparral and coastal
sate scrub. Day Creek, a clear perennial stream, rinds through
Day f`xny,n and provides habitat for a wide variety of floral and
faunal life. The southern 435 acres is located in a gents
alluvial pain which generally exhibits slopes at approximately
four to eight percent (4$ 8 %). Vegetation on the southern
element is dominated by mature and intermediate stages of
Riversidian alluvial f &v scrub, with a patch of chaparral and two
riparian dashes occurriir,,1 in the ;-sortheasterr. portion. Scattered
throughout this southern element are non - native ornamental and
agricultural trees and shrubs.
The project site and surrounding area are ge=.ral"ly undeveloped.
The portion of the site proposed for development is boundpd on
the north and west by Southern California Edisaan ttility corridors.
Highland Avenue marks the southern boiandary. The eastern edge of
the site, south of Wilson Avenue, is adjacent to Hanley Street,
while further to the north of Wilson Avenue, the site ie bounded
by E'tiwands. Avenue. Circulation in the area is generally limited
to unimprovee roads and trails. The development area is known to
contain aggregate resources; h=.ver, the site is not included in
a Mineral Resource Zone.. The site is surrounded by a seismically
active region, dominated by the Whittier- Elsinore, San Andreas,
San Jacimtc, and other regional seismic features. The Cucamonga
Fault, due to its proximity (1/2 mile north of the site) ss the
most Gignifict,,, yet analysis of the trenching. studies did not
result in a need to revise the project.
The project site is owned by three landowners.. The University v-'
California owns approximately 176 acres adjacent to future t.By
Creek Boulevard. The Caryn Company owns approximately 259 acre,
most of which is located north of t?te University property. Tie
remaining 675.8 acres are owned by Etiwanda Highland, Ltd. In; /a
UNIVERSITY /CREST VVZMED u)EVELOPar:NT Page 3 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di X,or'c)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.. REGENTS
FUD /87- 0104 /Wl2I- 49 /P7=-r; PRELIMINARY DEVELOp2ENT PLAN;
PD/89- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /W121- 49 "PUDF; MP.STE!,
PD /89- 0173/::121 -55 /TR 14492; 7,D /89- 0172 /W121- 55 /PUDF; MASTER
pJ/89- 0165/W121 -49 /TR 14606 - 14612; PD/89 -89- 0162 /W12l- 49 /PUDF; j
P' '89 -0175 th�1t 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493- 14498 & 14452 & 14423, I!
Ps 39- 0174 /W121- 55 /PUDF.
ssparate agreement with the University of California, Etiwanr2a
;h.trd, Ltd. will exchange their 675.8 acre portion of the
p-LAr-at for the University's 176 acres. In order to accomplish
'aa exchange, the applicant is proposing i density transfer of 17
Lasa units assigned by the General plan to the 675.8 acres. In
rcognition of the preservation of this significant open space
feature, the County General Flan permits a 2 -unit bonus, resul•eirjq
in a total density transfer of 19 units. The conditions of
approval require that t`e Universit- grant the 675.8 acres in'fae
title to the County. The University will be granted permission to
use the open space preserve as a natural science study area;. The
FIfl originally included a mitigation measure that an open space
easement be provided to the County by the University for this
acreage. The final resolution as described above provides an
extra level of environmental protection for this mitigation
measure.
Environmental Impact Reports
As a result of the initial study prepared for the original ca,-,-
Company PUD, the County determined that a Focused Environmental.
Impact Report should be prepared. The insues identified in the
Initial study included potential impacts 'to transportation/
traffic and circulation, climate /air quality, biological resources,
land use /relevant planning, and cultural /historical resources.
The University /Crest Draft EIR (SCH$ 88062915) was prepared and
distributed for public review and comment on January IS, 1989.
Recommendations received from local, state and other
agencies /organizations were incorporat ®d into the proposed Final
EIR. The EIR slid not identify any project - related impacts that
could not be fully mitigated below a level of significance.
However, two significant cumulative impacts were identified, in
the arena n2 climate /air quality and biological resources. The
Environmental Review Committee, at its meetir- on February 17,
1989, detArmined that the Final EIR was adequate and recommended
certification of the document to the County Planning Commission.
At the time the applicant resubmitted the applicztion last June,
the need for further environmental review was addressed. Due to
both the time lapse between the two applications and to the
adoption of the revised General Plan and Development Code,
additional environmental review was regtiized to determine whether
the Final EIR was adequate for the resubmitted proposal. A
detei'nina i.on was made that an Addendum would be sufficient to
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED D? OPMENT Page 4 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di lc%ri,,, j'NIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD/87- 0104/W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PIxa;
PT 39- O163/W121 -49 /TR 14605;. PD/89- 0164/W121- 49, /PUDF MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121- 55 /TR. 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121- 55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 016Z/W121 -49 /T -14 606- 14512; Pb/59- 89- 0162 /Fl21- 49 %PUDF;
j PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD /89- y0174 /W121- 55 /PUDF.
assure that the Final FIR prepared for the earlier project was
adequate for the'projec,, now under consideration.
The Final EI13,
which evaluated a worse -case scenario, addresses the significance
of potential project- related impacts, while the Addendum provides
additional information to clarify the differences between the
original proposal and the project pr2sontly being reviewed, which
proposes fewer units and design modifications. The cumulative
impacts to air quality and biological resources identified in the
Final EIR are still identified in the Addendum as significant.
No additional significant impacts were identified, nor was it
found that impacts previously addressed would be substantially
nore severe in the resubmitted project than was previously
indicated by the FEIR. A Statemant of overriding Considerations
has been prepared to address the significant cumulative
environmental impacts resulting from the project. A total of
sixty -four (64) mitigation measures were called rzt in both the
FEIR and the Addendum, for impacts to be mitigateu. Th ise have
been incorporated into the conditions of approval. in addition,
a Miigation Monitoring and Compliance Plan has been prepared.
ANALYSTS:
This project was reviewed ry the Developnent Review Committee on
August 8, 1990, and recommended for approval with the uinderstanding
that minor revisions would be made to the tentative tract maps
and ye ,.hat certain. Lssues would be resolved and the resolutiops
reflected in the eonditiona of approval. These issues involved
internal road standards, off -site road requirements, rewording of
the fire conditions, revisions to the landscaping_ standards, as
well as the need to respond to the comments received from the
City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City's concerns focused on such
issues as inadequate devieTrtimes, inconsistencies with the various
maps and calculations, access issues, the prevision of density
bonus units for off-site improvements, minimu3 lot sizes, location
and size of the commercial site, poor quality of design and
inconsistency with the City's General Plan and policies.
In the. attempt to resolve the outstanding DRC issues, new and
more complex issues emerged involving the original trasfie,study,
finance plan reports, phasing of improvements, the acqui_ of
off -site properties, letters of agreement from Utility companies
and affected proparty owners, and timinVconsistency with 'the
County's Etiwanda North Specific Plan. ` -uring the intervening
months, numerous - multi- department meetings regarding the
I
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 5 of 19 l
CARyN COMPANY (3. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIM114ARY DEVELOPMENT PLAT;
PD/39- 0163/W121- 49/T;k14605; PD /89- 0164 /W1�,!- 4F /PUDF, MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89 -0172 /11121- 55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0165/W121-49 /iR 14606 - 14612: PD/89- 89- 0162 /W121- 49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182 /W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD/89- 0174/W121- 55 /PUDF.-
outstanding issues took place both with the applicant and amongst
County staff. The applicant was given the opportunity to return
to the Development Review Committee for a final review and
ciarification of the proposed changes aad conditions of approval.
The applicant chose, instead, to procoed as directly as possible
to the Planning Commi8sior. hearing. A meeting has been scheduled
for May 21, 1991, to ,identify and resolve, if possible, any
outstanding concerns the developer may have. The results of this
meeting and any proposed modifications to the conditions of
approval will be presented at the Planning Commission hearing.
Resolution of IESUeS:
1. Traffic Circulat on oad- Improvements
Vintage Avcmue. The City is requesting that Vintage Avenue
be extends . through the prcplect site to align with the
existing portion of Vintag',— -A.venue, west or the project
site. Thy County is re L, ng that Vintage Avenue be
extended to the east boundaxy of the SCE Corridor and
constructed to Collector Road Stanaards (66 foot right -of-
way). The applicant aTrees with the County's proposed
alignment, however they are proposing to construct Vintage
Avenue to Local Road Standards (60 foot right -of -way), and
w,`t the road one lot before the SCE corridor bounda-y. In
adal:ion, the applicant strongly disagrees with the City's
request to extend the roadway across the Day Creek Wash to
align with the already existing Vintage Avenue.
Day Creek Boulevard Right- of -Uay: The alignment proposed
for Day Creek Boulevard by the University /Crest PD is
consistent wit1h the County Duster Plan of Highways. A
portion of this alignment, from Highland Avenue to Vintage
Avenue, is not contained within the project boundaries but
constitutes an off -site improvement. To date, letters of
agreement. have not been submitted fron the property owners
affected by this proposed alignment. This alignment will
require the removal of one residence currently occupied by
the owners (Sudeta) who are aware of the proposal but have
not responded to the applicants' requests. The owners of
the three vacant properties to the north of the Sudeta .
family have also not responded. The applicant has been
required through the conditions of approval to submit
written agreements from these affected property owners prior
�-i
UNIVERSITY /CRE3T PLAN11ED DEVELOPbWJT Page 6 of 19
CP.RYN COMPANY (U. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY AF CALIF. REGENTS'
PUD /87-0104/W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD/89- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /TW12l-49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD /89- 0l73/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121- 55 /PUDF,, MASTER
PD/89-0165/WI21. -49 /TR 14606 - 14612; PD/89- 89- 0162/W121- 49 /PLTF,''
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121- -55/TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 1442:3;
P0/89- 0174/W121- 55 /PUDF.
to the scheduling of this project fo;. Board of Supervisors'
hearing. Acquisition 1�f all easements still be required prior
to recordation of the waster tracts.
Day Creek Eaulevard/Wilson. Avenue (24th) Alignment: i"he
applicant is proposing a right angle configuratior, for the
Day Creek Boulevard/Wilson Avenue intersection, rather than
a curved alignment preferred by the City. The County
Transportation /Flood bontrol Departm.? -nt concurs with the
applicant's proposal as it conforms to the county Master
Plan of Highways. The proposed configuration 3s suppoLted
by the traffic study analysis, and it is also preferred by
SCE thLa road crossings to at "90 degree angles through the
corridors. The conditions of approval support the applicant's
proposal.
Etiwanda Avenue: The City is concerned with protecting the
AWL local area residents south of Wilson Avenue from additional
traffic. They recommend that Etiwanda Avenue not be extended
north of the bower Crest Collector Road and that Wilson
Avenue be extended east of Etiwanda to the east City limits.
However, the County Transportation /Flood Control Department
conyludes that Day Creek Boulevard will carry the majority
of the traffic and therefore the project traffic will not
impact Etiwanda Avenue to the extent that Wilson Avenue need
be extended to the City limits.
The applicant has been required, through the conditions of
approval, to construct. Etiwanda Avenue from Wilson Avenue
north to the Tract /Planned Development northern boundary;
Wilson Avenue shall be constructed from Day Creek Boulevard
to Etiwanda Avenue.
Cul-de -sacs: The City is requesting that a fide foot right -
of -way be required on the cul -de -sacs in order to that the
property line be adjacent to the sidewalks. However,, the
County Transportation/ Flood Control. Department is proposing
that the Board of Supervisors approved standard #120,
requiring a 50 fort right -of -way, with the addition of a 5'
landscape, sidewalk and utility easement on both sides be
required. The City believes that use of a sidewalk easement
circumvents an underlying issue of density (the City standard
would require large lots, therefore less units). The
project, as conditioned, is required to adhere to the County
X17
i
s
UNIVERSITY / CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 7 of 19
CXRYN COiYP1�NY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /877 0!104 /W121- 49j'PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PIX-4,
PD/89- 01,63/W121-49 /TR i 4605; PD /89- 0564 /W121- 49 /PU.DF; MASTER
PD/89- 0L73/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD/89- 0;72/W121- "35 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/ 89 *- 0165/W121- 44/TR'14606- 14612; PD/89- 89_0161/Wl21- 49 /VUD$;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423f
PD /89- 0174 /W121- 55 /PUDF.
standard 4120 requirements.
2. Concurrence with Utility Companies
The project, as, presently designed, Places equestrian
trails, bike trails, the 14 -acre park, 4.5 acres of the
f summit Street park site, a�3 portions of Day Creek Boulevard
I road alignments within or across the SCE utility corridors,
To date, the responee received from SCE indicates that they
have revzewed the proposal and have agreed that, subject to
further review of detailed final street and r-� 'ding plans,
the recruast tG purchase road and drainage ease�_:.:nts could be
approved. With regard,to the proposed trail systems within
their corridors, SCE has agreed to the use, on a "license
agreement basis ", with the appropriate County agency. There
has been no confirmation,.to date of a sales agreement
between the applicants and SCE for auy of the surplus land
that is currently proposed for improved parkl 'ind. The
applicants have been, - :required, through the conditions of
approval, to obtain i-o.ense agreements with SCE:, where
necessazy, prior to recordation of the masker tracts.
3. Park ;and JMpr2XeTpsnts,
The applicant is proposing a total of 25.5 acres Of: encumbered
and u% encumbered improved parkland, which will exceed the
County's current General Plan requirement of 3 acres 'per
1000 people, or 12.98 acres for LhEi site. ".the applicant is
proposing an improved 14�acre coUtuzity pgrk'nite within the
area currently identified as sCE surplus land and an
improved 11.5 acre park, of which 4.Z _,iorss (proposed to
remain as encumbered) are located witl,3.� one of the SCE
utility corridors. Both of these park sitets are contained
within Master Tract 14492. In the event that acquisition of
the 14 -acre property, to be dedicated as on -site parkland,
is not possible, the applicant has been required by the
conditions of approval to redesign the project to include
provisions for on -site parkland. The applicant is, not in
couplets aSr>eement with the requirement to provide all
parkland on-site.
UNIVERSITY/CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 8 of 19
Ark CARYN COMPA�rt (J. Di lorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PJD/87-0104 /W121-49/PUDP; PRELIMINARY DrW2LOPMENT PLAN;
PD/89-0163/WI21-49/TR 14605; PD/89-0164!/W121-49/PUDF; MASTER
PD/89-0173/WI21-55/TR 14492; PD/89-0177/W121-55/PUDF; MASTER
PD/89-0165/W121-49/TR 14606-14612; PD/8'3 -89-0162/W121-49/PUDF;
PD/89-0175 thru 0182/W121-55/TR 14493-L?4498 k 14452 & 14423;
PD/89-0174/W121-55 /PUDF.
4.
S.
U
frastructure-Financincr, Phasiner, ancl-Fair Share AlIggations
This development is not presently within an established
Community Facilities District (CFD) . A finance plan is
currently being prepared, to determine the infrastructure
costs i.nd potential fees associated with & Community
Facilities District. Facilities to be publicly financed
must be regional or backbone in nm'vzre. The finance plan
will clarify which inproveuents constitute a public Lenefit
to be financed by tax-exempt bonds or other public financing
mechanism, and which 'Are in-tract responsibilities of the
master developer. To avoid fragmentation/phasing of the
installation of regional or backbone infrastructure, tl�e
applicants are required, through the conditions of approval,
to bond for or construct all needed infrastructure
improvements (sewer, wecuv, roads, flood control facilities,
etc...) prior to the recordation of the master tracts or the
issuance of building permits for the subsequent tracts. if
a reimbursement provision is included in the public financing
mechanism, the Developer will be reimbursed for any costs
determined to exceed his fair share contribution.
The developer strongly disagrees with the requirement far
the master developer to bond or construct and assert, that
all the necessary infrastructure for this project will be
backbone or regional in nature$ once the County's Specific
Plan is adopted, thereby qualifyiT4 q the improvements for CFD
or other public furd;.ng. The developer further asserts that
any requirements for bonding and/or installation of
improvements should be the responsibility of the merchant
builders who purchase the subsequent tracts.
Timina!Copsistt,ncv with County's Draft Etiwanda North
Specific Plan
This project is contained vithin the boundaries of the
County's proposed Rtiwanda North Specific Plan. During the
processing of this planned development, it became necessary
to determine whether it would be appropriate for this
project to con'�:irsue through the County's development review
process in advance cf the approval of the Specific Plan.
SInce the draft Specific Plan was prepared by the same
individuals who prepared the development plans for
University/Crest, the zrchitectUral requirements and themes,
E)q
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 9 of 19
CARYU COMPANY (a. Lei Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY.OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD/ 89- 0163 /WI21-49 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /W121- 49 /PUD?; MASTER,
PD/89- 0173/W121 -95 /Tit 144921 PD /89- 0172 /W121- 55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/ 89- 0165 /W121- 49/TP..14606- 14612; PD/89 -89- 0162 /W121- 49 /PUDF; J
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182 /W12l7 -tJ /TR 14493 14498 & 14452 & 14423; 1
PD /89- 0174/W121- 55 /PUDF. 1{
landscaping stand.a°r:, design criteria, and development �
standards are basically identical in both plans. The
conditions of approval have been prepared to require they
project to pay a fairy -share allocation for all backbone
infrastructure and to participate in feature CFD#s and other
assessments. Also, the 'project conditions of approval
regaire this project to be consistent with the aesthetic and
design recruiraments of the Etiwanda North •Specific Plan,
wW_ch may require re- design of project elemei,ts found to be
inconsistent with the Specific, Plan once it is adopted.
Because this project is in the lower portion of the Specific
Plan area, with access from highland Avenue,.and is adjacent
to the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, the continuatian of
public facilities will not be quite as difficult as it would
be if the property were located in the northern portion of
the Specific Plan area. Duce to.the fact that this planned
development has been reviewed in concurrence with the
Specific Plan and basically reflF is the development
standards of that Plan, anc: since the conditions require the
developer to piovid6 adequatR public services and facilities
in a timely manner consistent with the ;Specific. Plan, it
appears to serve no useful purpose to delay this project
until completion of the Specifae Plan.
6. RegDonse to City Comments and Concerns
County staff has made a concerted effort to respond to the
in -depth comments from the City of 'Rancho Cucamonga,
Numerous issues have been resolved, some of which concern
mapping technicrues, design criteria, and project data to be
included in the Preliminary .Development plan text,
clarification of area calculations on the gaps and in the
-oxt, landscag!.ng requirements, enlargement of the commercial
site, and agrecmert on equestrian: /hiking /biking trail
zv%ndards and locations. However, notwithstanding the
spa.it of cooperation, between City and County staff,, the
City is still at odds with the project as it is proposed.
The areas of disagreementi include, but are not limited to,
calculations of density, bonus density for off -site
improvements, lot sizes, lack of concurrence with utility
companies and private property owners, failure to meet City
planning an-J, engineering standards, inconsistency with the
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 10 of 19'
CARYN COMPANY (a. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD/ 87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDF; PRELIMINARY DMLOPMENT PLAN
PD/89- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /W121- 49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121- 55 /PVDF; MASTER
PD,/89- 0165/W121 -49 /TR 14606 - 146712; PD/g3- 89- 0162/W121- 49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 14423
PD /89- 0174 /W121- 55 /PUDF.
City General Plan and policies, and adequacy,of the FEIR ana
the Addendum,
A number of the disagreements arise from basic differences
between City and County policy. For example, through the
County's planned development process, the maximum gross
density for any given site, as defined by the County General
Plan, may be clustered or transferred into specific areas.
The County General Plan permits bonus densities under
certain circumstances. Staff has determined that the i
proposed project neets the criteria set forth in Section
88.0515 of the County Development Code for the provision of
bonus densities, because thR 675.8 acres proposed as an open
space preserve, is a publicly valuable resource and provides
additional open space beyond that required by this section
of the County Cole. R'onus densities were not calculated for
areas not under the control of the applicant (i.e., the
fie surplus Edison land and public utility corridors).
The County's planned development policies also allow for the
provision of mixed land uses (i.e., a combination of
residential and commercial) within a single cohesive plan..
Furthermore, the City's General Plan designataa a' portion of
the site as open space which, according to thfAr development i
standards, would require the applicant to file a General
Plan Amendment with the City for the p°nposed commercial
site prior to approval by the County. "awever, the City
would prefer this area to be kept as open space, to provide
a buffer for the Fourth Street Rock Crusher operation
located west of the site. This area is currenl,;ly bfing
proposed to remain as open space under the City's versi of
the Etiwanda North specific Plan, making the suL ;ct
application inconsistent with the City's adopted General
Plan and also with the City's proposed Specific Plana
Although the City's density designations for portions of
this area are comparable to the County's current designations
(without a bonus density provision), the City's minimum lot
size requirements are vastly different than what the applicant
is proposing. City standards for lots within this sits
range from a minimum of 8,000:square feet to an average of
22,500 square feet. Rancho Cucamonga's Hillside Development
ordinance would further minimize the density while increasing
the lot sizes to allow for contour grading, building
orientation, etc...
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 11 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF,,CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121 -49 /PUDF; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD/89- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14605; PD/ 89- 0164 /W121 -49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121 -55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD /89- 0165 /Wl21 -49 /TR 14606 - 14612; PD/89- 89- 0162 /W121 -49 /PUDF.
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD/89- 01754/W121 -55 /PUDF.
':r an effort to cooperate with the City, the applicant
agreed to revise the Tentative T-ct Mays and Preliminary
Development Plan next to require a 3dnimtun 7,200 square foot
lot size. Originally, the 7,200 square foot regeirement was
an "average" and many of the lest sizes proposed were below
6,000 squar�:,feet Despite this revision, the City continues
to tape issue with the fact that the lot sizes do not
increase substantially enough in the Crest area, the area is
not intsnded for (and does not have adequate square footage
to accommodate) equestrian boarding, and finally the lot
sizes do not reflect the F*illside Development design.
standarda. The City has envisioned executive -level equestrian
estatws in the Crest area with an equestrian staging area in
place of the 14 -acre park. In addition, the linear design
layout of the project is inconsistent with City pe;ieies
requiring greater use of cux'velinear streets, paseos and open
space areas within each tract. They would also prefer, at a
minimum, that the County's underlying two (2) unit per acre .
requirement be applied to the Crest area, thereby reducing the
unit count.
The total allowed density for this project wil be established
upon approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for this
planned development. The approved density total for the
project site will be reflected in the County specific plan,
once adopted, thereby establishing consistency between the
approved total density for this project and the density
specified by the specific plan.
Strong opposition has been expressed by the City concerning
the aC- -quacy of the EIR and Addendum addressing all of the
issues concerning the resubmitted project. The City advocates
that the impacts of the subject proposal should be evaluated
in conjw,ction with their Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Also, since the draft Final EIR was not certified, the City
asserts that an addendum is not sufficient and that a
supplemental EIR should be prepared; ` Their reasoning
focuses on the fact that the Univelzy.y /Crest project
description has changed, ,a significant period of time has
elapsed since the preparation of the document, that
significant sventa have occurred since the original draft was
circulated, and tk:a*, additional cumulative impacts have been
introduced by the approval of development applications in
the vicinity of the project. The County, determined that
13
UI
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 12 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD/89- 01b3/W121 -49 /TR 1460,13); PD /89- 0164 /W121 -49 /PUDF; MASTER
10D/89 - 0173/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121 -55 /PUDF; MASTER
'f89- 0165/47121 -49 /TR 14600 - 14612; PD/89- 89- 0152/W121 -49 /PUDF;
PO/89- -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD /89- 0174 /W121 -55 /PUDF.
there were no new siginificant impacts identified, and
therefore an EIR Adde*lum was. suff1cient to address the
revision proposed by the tirrertt project.
In an attempt to address the issues raised by the city, the
County has required the applicant to: 1) provide landscape
easements ar,, lettered lots, resulting in a redgction in
density fro 1,293 to 1,239; 2) provide: letters of agreement
from the tility companies and affected private property
owners prior to scheduling the project for yoard hearing;
3) bond for or install necessary infrastructure; and 4)
pay a fair -share allocation for off -site improvements. In
addition, the applicant has been required to redesign the
project in the event the proposed parkland acreage cannot be
acquired.
7. Responses from Affected Property owne=
The Sudeta fanily owns a parcel adjacent to the proposed
alignment of Day Creek Boulevard, on the west side. Mr.
Sudeta expressed concern regarding the impact to his property
resulting from the widening of Day Creek Boulevard. He
discussed his concerns about condemnation, relocation irA /or
reimbursement, and timing of improvements with County sniff.
Mr. Sudeta was advised that in projects such as this.,�lanned .
development proposal, it is normal for the County to request
letters of agreement between the applicant and any property
owners affected by the acquisition of necessary right -of-
way. Through the conditions of approval, the applicant is
required to provide written confirmation to the county prior
to scheduling of any Board of Supervisors hearing. It was
also recommended to Mr. Sudeta that he contact the applicants
himself and negotiate arrangements to the satisfaction of
meeting his family's concerns.
Fourth Street Rock Crusher is currently leasing a portion of
the Flood Gontial property adjacent to the Day Creek Wash
area. Mr. Norm Tohnson, of that company, has expressed
t:oncern regarding the extension of Wilson Avenue through his
9,oject, Wilson Avenue would divide his property, thus
ha.ndering the trucking of materials between the south and
north —Y-_%rtions. A proposal to construct an at- ,grade
intersection at the existi7,g access road was not rAcceptable
to Mr. Johnson, he believes it would be hazardous due: to the
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLIED DEVELOPMENT Page 13 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (a. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD /89- 0163/WI21 -49 /TR 14605; P?)/89-0164/W121 -49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121- 55 /TP. 14492; PiJ /89- 0172 /W121 -55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD /89- 0165 /1412.1- 49 /V.t 14606 - 14612; PD/89- 89- 0162/W121 -49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thi_i 0182/W12l -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
PD /89- 0174 /W121 -55 /PUDF'. -
at existing truck grade, signalization of the interzwotion
was not an acceptable alternative either.. Mr. aahnson
prefers an undercrossing or overcrossing. The otiginal
County approval of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher pr.3ject,
rec_ °kires cooperation in accommodating the future extension
of Wilson Avenue. Mr. Johnson is agreeable to this, if his
conceri-i can be satisfactorily resolved.
SUMMARY
This planned development, as proposed and conditioned, is
consistent with the Planned Development requirements as defined
in Section 88.501 of the San Bernardino County Development Code.
it is also consistent with the intent and the development randards
of the Preliminary Development plan teat. The r ":- ,�mmended
conditions of approval address the potential project- related
impacts assessed in the Environmer,Fal Impact Report, reducing the
majority to a level of non - significance. A Statement of overriding
'address
Considerations has been prepared to the two significant
cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the project. As
conditioned, the master developer is required to coordinate, bond
for or install public r)ervices such as roads, water, sewer,
school, and fire facilities prior to the recordation of the
fifteen subsequent tracts. By the approval of the finance plan,
a public financing mechanism shah`, be established to fund the
required backbone infrastructure, and the development is required
to participate in said mechanism.
7FTNDINGS: PRELIMINARY 1 -49
1. The Environmental Impact Report prepaed for this Preliminary
Development Plan (SCH 488082915) in August, 1989, and the
Addendum prepared in May, 1991, adequately discuss the
impacts of the proposed development and indicate that
significant cumulative environmental impacts will result in
two (2) categories. in approving this project, the Board of
supervisors is adopting a Statfmont of Overriding
Considerations.
2. The proposed Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with
the County General Plan because the prgposed, land uses are
consistent with the PD (Planned Development) nand Vse
District of the General Planf'mce the design incorporates the
clustering concept and preservation of open space required
UNIVERSITY /CREST i�LANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 14 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (a. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD/87- 0104/W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLATT;
PD/89- 0163/W121 -49 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /W121 -49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121-55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121 -55 /PUDF; 14ASTER
PD/89- 0165/W121 -49 /TR 14606 - 14612; PD/89 -89- 0162 /W121 -49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493-14498 & 14452 -& 14423;
PD/89- 0174/W121 -55 /PUDF.
by that district. In addition, adequate provisions have
bean made for the maintenance and management of the common
open spaces and any common facilities.
3. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size
and shape because all required open space, setbacks,
landscaping; and other design standards as proposed in the
Preliminary Development Plan and as required by the County
Development Code have been provided.
4. The site for the proposed development will have adequate .
access from Day Creek Boulavard, a proposed Major Divided
Arterial via Highland Avenue (future Route 30) because the
conditions of approval require the developer to bond for or
install the necessary improvements prior to recordation:. of
the master tracts., The proposed Prel:zninary Development
Plan has been reviewed by County staff and conditioned to
ensure an adequate circulation system for future traffic
needs.
5. Adequate public services are cegnired to be provided by the
Conditions of Approval:' and the Preliminary Development Plan
which specify the proposed distribution, location, extent,
and intensity of major components of public and private
transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid wasts disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covsred by the Plan and needed to
support the land uses described in the Plan. Provided these
conditions are met, there will not be a reduction of public .
services to properties in the vicinity which would be
detrimental to public health, satety and welfare.
6. The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect
on the use of surrounding property and will be compatible
with the surrounding area because the conditions of approval
and the Preliminary Development Plan text will require
appropriate development standards to ensure compatibility
witn surrounding land uses and that the necessary services
and improvements will be provided,
7. The improvements required by the conditions of approval and
the manner of development adequately address all natural and
man -made hazards associated with this project because all
Is concerns regarding any serious drainages, rtee, circulation,
G�16.J
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ipage 15 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (U- Di 1'orio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87 0?;04 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMERX PLAN;
PD /89 0)63/W121 -49 /TR 14f05; PD /89- 0164 /W121- 49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD /89 0173/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121- :`5 /PUDF; MASTER
PD /89- M65 /rrTl21 -49 /TR 14606- 14612; PD/89- 89- 016:2 /W121- 49 /PUDF;
PD, /39 -0175 thru 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 14423;
?D/ 9- 0174/W121- 55 /PUDF.
.tope, and seismic hazards have been considered by the
ve ?.opment Review "Coaamittee in the compilat?,on of the
.:~editions of Approval.
8. The proposed development X,:,ovides ftr a more efficient; use
of the land and for an excellence of design greater than
that which would be achieved with conventional development
standards because the proposal im zlw-, -ats the planned
development process, allowing greater flxibility in design,
mare afficipnt use of the land, mixed uses, to include
residential, commercial, institutional, `and epan space,
within the framework of a single cohesive plan. In addition,
the Plan specifies the standards and ariceria by which
development will proceed and standards for the conservaiUon,
development and utilization of the area's natural resources.
1. These tentative tracts are part of tiie University /Crest
Planed Development (PD /W121 -49), analyzed in a Final
En ^rironmental Impact Report (FEIR /SCA #88082915) Addendum
which adequately discusses the impacts of the proposed
developments and indicates that significant cumulative
environmental impacts will result in two (2) categories.
All mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and Addendum
have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for
these projects or have been imposed on these projects. In
approving these projects, the Board of Superv'sors is
adopting a Statement of overriding Considerations.
21 The proposed maps, designs and improvements of these
subdivisions are consistent with the General Plan, because
the land uses, densities and locations of development are
consistent with the Planned Development (PD) Land Use
District since the design incorporates the clustering
concept and preservation of open space required by that
district. In addition, adequate provisions have been made
for the maintenance and management of the common open spaces
and any common facilities.
r�
li
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Page 15 of 19
OARI -W COMPANY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PUD /87- G104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PTAN;
PD/89- 0163/W121- 49/TR.l4605; PD /89- 0164 /W121 -49 /PUDF; MASTER
rD/89- 0173/W121 -55 /TR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121 -55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0165/W121 -49 /TR 14606- 14612; PD/83- 89- 0`52/W121 -49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182 /W 7.21 -Y5 /TR 14493 -14498 &r 14452 & 14423;
PD /89- 0174 /W121 -55 /PUDF.
3. The sites are physically suitable for the proposed types and
density of development, because all concerns regarding
drainage, fire protection, slope, seismic, and other natural
and man -made hazards associated with the site are adequately.,
addressed by the subdivision designs and the conditions of
appr:,)val .
4. T'= proposed subdivision designs and improvements W.e
likely to cause substantial and.. considerable dama i. to the
natural environment including fish,' wildlife, and their
habitat because, although tie FEIR and the Addend= required
for 'this project determined that project- related impacts tc'
biological resources could be fully mitigated, and all
appropriate mitigation ''measures have been apnli..d, the FEIR
identifies biological resources as a significant cumulative
impact. It determined that the---,loss of-,-fan scrub habitat
would be regionally significant after mite., ,4,;on. Z_ statement
of Overriding considerations, addressing i:.hjA issue, has been
prepared and must be approved in_app?-oving this proeet.
5. The proposed subdivi €-on designs and improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health and safety proble4s,
because adequate public services such �ns roads, sewers,
water supply, and sire protection wil" lbe provided, and
because potential drainage, geologic,, -'and erosion hazards
associated with the sites are adequately addressed by the
subdivision designs and the conditions of approval.
6. The proposed subdivision designs will not conflict with
public east ants witW n 'or through the site, because the
conditions of approval 'require that public rights of easement
will not be interfered with, and that statements of
concurrence be provided from utility companies whose easements
may be affected by proposed development.
7. The proposed subdivisions are deemed to be land projects, as
defined by County Development Code Section 812.12030,
8. The d- isigns of the subdivisions provide, to the extent
feasible, passive or natural heating aad cooling Opportunities
to each of the proposed lots as identified in the' Aty Solar
Design Guidelin•s, which are on file with the 'xerk of the
Hoard.
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANNED DEVELOPYENT Page 17 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. REGENTS
PDD /87- 0104 /W321- 45 /PUD, PrZELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD/89- 0163;rW121 -01"TR 14605; PD /89- 0.64 /W12s•- 49 /PUDF; MASTER
Pi/89- 0!73fW121-53 /TR 14453; PD /89- 0172 /W121-55 /PUDF MASTER
PD /89- 0165 /WI21- -49/TR 14606- 14612; T. JJ89 -89- 0162 /W12i-4S /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182 /W121 -N5 /TR lit 493-14498 14452 & 14423,_
PD/89- 01.74/W121- 55 /PUDF.
FINDINGS: FINAT2 DEVEJQ=NT PLANS FOR THE AkiOV'E REFERENCED 'TRACTS
1. These final d1*me ,:ailment plans are part of. the. University /Crest
Planned Develor'd0ilt (PD /W121 -49) analyzed in an EIR (SUET
#88082915):. Addendum which ade�llately dieuusses the imp ,,cts of
the proposed devFtopme,.ts and indicates that significant
cumulative environmental impacts will result in taro (2)
categories;. In approving these praiects, the Board of
Snpervisors is adulating a statement of Overriding
considerations.
2. The proposed final development plans are eoi.iAstent with the
ueneral Plan beG�,uss the + proposed land uses are permitted by
the Plaa,ned Development (PD) Land Uss District ;since the
design incorporates the.alustaring concept and prEese"ation
of open space requ..red by that district. In addition,
adequate provisions have been -ade for the ma,i� teinance and
manag -ment of the cnmmon open. spaces and any ca..=on
facilities.
3. Tho_ proposed final development plans are:'consistarTL with the
reuquirements of the University /Gres'. planned Development
(PD /Wl.'.1 -49) because the proposed vr6jects, as conditioned,
are consistent with the standards and intent of that planned
development.
yl
4. The sites for the proposed developments,' are adequate in size 1
and shape, because all recrnired oven space, setbacks,
landscaping and other ,design standards identified in the
Preliminar;? Development Plan are provided or have been
conditioned to be provided in a timely maaa.Er.
5. Th -a sites :7vr the proposed uses have adequate access because
public acc, ?ss will be provided by Day Creek Boulevard, a
proposed Mayor Divided Arterial iria Highland Avsiaue (future
Route 30) because the conditiona of approval r_iquire the
developer to bonC for or install the necessary iirprovements
prior to recordation of the master tracts. The projects
have been reviewed by county staff and conditioned to ensure
that the proposed circulation system will-safely accommodate
the increased traffic, generated by these projects.
i�
L
i4
UNIVERXITY;/ =ST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Fage 18 of 19
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di Iorio)/ UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. RELANTS
PUD /87- 010 %, /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PD /89- 0163 /W121 -49 /TR A4505; PD /89- 0164 /5121- 49 /x''UDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0173/W121- 55/1.CR 14492; PD /89- 0172 /W121- 55 /PUDF; MASTER
PD/89- 0165/W121- 49/`, @R 1 4606 - 14612; PD/89 -89- 0162 /W121- •49 /PUDF;
PD /89 -0175 thru 0182/W121- 55/TR_14493 -1449e & 14452 & 14423;
PD /99- 0174 /Wl21- a5 /PUDF.
6. Adequate public services are required to be provided in a
timely manner by the conditions of 'approval. Provided these
conditions are met, there will not be a reduction of public
services to properties in :he vicinity which could be
detrimental to public health, •safety and welfare.
7. The proposed uses will not have a substantial adverse effect
on the use of surrounl c!,rg property, and will be compatible
with the surrounding area because tka oonditionj3 of approval
will require appropriate development standat';z, to ensure
coupatibility with the surrounding land asses and the necessary
services and improvements will I** proviLad.
8. The improvements required by the conditions of approval, and
the manner of development adequately address all natural and
man -made hazards associated with there projects because all
concerns regarding any serious drainage, firaa, circulation,
slope, and seismic hazards have been considered by the
Development Review Commi4tee in the compilation of conditions
i
of apprcval.
9. The proposed devalopmentc provides for a more efficient use
of the land and excellence of design greater than 1`)-at which
would be required under conventional development` standards
because the proposal implements the planned development
process, allowing greater flexibility in design, more
efficient use of the lance, mixed uses, to Include residential,
commercial, institutional, and open space within the framework
of a single cohesive plan.
RECOMMEN AD TION: That the Planh,ing Commission ,recommend- that the
Board of supervisors e
A) APPROVE Preliminary Development Plan W121 -49 for 1,239
residential units, 12.6 acres of neighborhood commercial, an
elementary school, two (2) parks and open space on !,,l11
acres;
B) iPPROVE Master Tentative Tracts 14492, 14605 and Tentative
Tracts 14452, 14493, - 14494; 14495, 14496, 14497, 14498,
14523, 14606, 14607, 14608`, 14609, 14610, 14611,.. 14612
.
(sequential tracts) and related Final Development Plans,
subject to the conditions of approval,
r,
UNIVERSITY /CREST PLANxED DEVELOPMENT Page 19 of 19
;
CARYN COMPANY (J. Di lorio) /,UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. RWGENTS
PUD /87- 0104 /W121- 49 /PUDP; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT "Puw;
PD /89- 0163 /W121 -44 /TR 14605; PD /89- 0164 /W121- 49 /PUDF; MASTER
PD /89- 0173 /W121 -55 /TR 14492 ; PD /89- 01 ?2 /hT121- 55 /PUDF; RASTER
PD/89- 0165/W121- 49 /'T,'R 14606- 14612* PD/89-89- 0152 /9121- 49 /PUDF
PD /8a -0175 thn! 0182/W121 -55 /TR 14493 -14498 & 14452 & 1442''
PD/89- 0174/W12i- 55 /PUDF.
,t
C) ADOPT the findings contained in the ataff report;
D) CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report and Addendum;
" E) APPROVE the .Mitigation Monitoring Plan;
F) ADO11T the Statement of overriding Consideratio:�s; &nd
G) FILE a Notice of Determination.
ATTACHMENTS: official :Land, Use District Maps; Preliminary
Development Plan Land Use Mag;,: -Master and Supplemental Tentativca
Tract Maps; Final Development )Aan Maps; Condition3 of Approval;
Letters from City of Rancho Cucamonga dated 8 -6 -90, 1- 17 -91;
Addendum to EIR; Statement of Overriding Considerations; Mitigation
Monitoring Plan; Preliminary Development Plan Report; Letter from
Land. Plan Design Group dated May 16, 1991: Appendix to the
Preliminary Development Plan Report; Environmental Impact
Report /initial Study.
a
3
COMMENTS BY CITY S'T'AFF ON TEE COLT WY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT DATED MAx 23, 1991
City Staff's Comments are presented item by item under
County Staff Report readings and following "comment: ".
BACKGROUND'
.gNpent: A key element in the background is that the
9iubject projeoa is in the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere --
of- Influence. it is expected that not only will the area
eventually annex into the City, it will impact the City"s
infrastructure and se,?,vices, because,it is p^-th of the City
and the University parcels adjoin portionsl,.of the City on
the east.
Proo, ect Description:
gommenta. Major components of the project are off -site.
Existing Site Conditions:
Comment: It should be noted that:
• The subject project is not contiguous to Highland
Avenge,- but begins approximately 600 feet -north of
Highland Avenue, separated by a number of parcels under
a number of ownerships;
• Tracts in the City have been approved, or are in
process of being approved to the north, east, and west
of the University site. (see attacheu'exhibit 1, 1A,
1B, 1C, 1D);
• The City Is adopted Red. Hill/ Fault Study Zone crosses
the subject project in a north -east to south -west
diagonal approximately in the vicinity of the proposed
school site (See attached exhibit 2)
• Two USGS blue line streams cross the project site;
• 10he project has been reviewed by the City "s Planning
Cvm±se,kon and the City Council, and the City does not
objet,: to the proposed transfer of development rights
from Lhe 675 acre enclave within the National Forest to
the eevelopable property owned by the University of
California. The City opposes granting a density bonus
in addition to granting a transfer of development
rights. Also, analysis by City staff indicates that the
675 acre site is not developable and is not in danger
of urbanization (see attached Exhibit 3): regarding the
I I
COMMENTS RE: MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1591
Page 2
Aim
ultimate ownership of the 675 acre site, City staff is
recommending that fee title for all enclaves within the
National Forest ultimately be transferred to the
National Forest;
Environmental impact Report:
Comment: In the opinion of City staff, the following
project level impacts have not been mitigated to a level of
Less than significant:
• Traffic impacts to the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
• Park 'EIDpacts to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (see
additional discussion under Parkland Improvements);
• As indicate,",l by the development plans, closure of the
two existing blue line streams has not been mitigates:
to a level of "less than significant ";
• Impacts related to the City's Adopted Red Hill Fault
Zone Seismic Study Area which were not adequately
addressed in the project's seismic. studies.
Cammant. The following cumulative impacts have not been
adequately mitigated:
* Loss of Alluvial Fan Scrub habitat which can be
partially mitigated by acquisition and improvement of
Ili AFS habitat withiA Day, Etiwanda, and San Sevaine
washes, and potentially, as identified by the U.S. Fisb
and Wildlife services and the California Department of
Fish and came, vegetation on the alluvial fan north of
I
the upper power line corridors and east of Day Creek;
I
* Cumulative impacts of traffic and circulation on the
City of Rancho Cucamonga's circulation system;
* Cumulative impacts of other infrastructure such as
police services;
'I
* Other cumulative impacts related to .implementation of
C the County's Etiwanda North specific Flan and
Environmental Impact report which is in process and /or
the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan and
Environmental: Impact report, also in process.
-qgm_mpAt: In the opinion of City staff, the decision to
complete an addeaicum to the draft final EIR for the subject
project was incorrect and a "subsequent EIR" should have
been prepared and circulated for review. This is so, because
the intent of CEQA is to "inform the public" of potential
c� G1
r—
COMMENTS RE: MAY 23, 1991,COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1991
Page 3 r
impacts; because changes in' the application are more than
"minor" due to the amount of improveii�ents identified on
adjoining properties; because ,.In EIR had been completed, but
the project was not approved',brior to resubaittal of the
application in May 1990; and bacause cumulative impacts and
opportunities for mitigation `,were increased when the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan waO filed in February 1989 in
the City and in May 1991 iii tht . County, and now : must `ba
fully addressed (Public Resource,. Code Section 15153 and
15164).
ANALYSIS2:
Coa!ment: 'Many substantive �'.ssues remain unresolved at this
time, including 'L t not limited to those identified by
County staff:
• Location and design of backbone circulation system for
Etiwanda North on which adequate access for this'
project is dependent;
• Fiscat Impact Report nr Etiwanda North Specific Plan
on which this project is dependent;
• Infrastructure Phasing Plan for Etiwanda Nilrth Specific
Plan on which this project is dependent;
• Consent of adjoining property owners for off -site
acquisition and improvements for this ,project; and
• Timing of project 'implementation in conjunction with
Etiwanda North Spe.ci €ic Plan on which this project is
dependent.
Paid: In addition, ° City staff identifies the following
substantive isoues which remain unresolved:
• Biological mitigation measures for this project l,.-the
conte)&. of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,desource
Management Plan, including a comprehensive strategy for
obtaining State repartment of Fish and iame 1601
permito and Army Corps of Engineers 404 per;�its; and
• Adequate park acreage.'
Resolution of__Lc%uese
;1
_ 1
COMMENTS RE: MAY 23, 3.991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1991
Page 4
1. Traffic eirculat`.on /Road .Improyemestf
Vintage Drive:
Comma: Tracks 13835 and 13812, in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga have by -n conditioned to construct Vintage Drive
as a through collector street with 6to toot right -of -way.
Vintage Drive goes through the subject:- 1,roject• and links
Vintage Drive between the aforementioned residential
development. (See Exhibit 4,)
Dav Q - -ak Boulevard Ri t °o 4la
Comment: Have the affected property owners been notlfied c;f
this hearing?
Day Creek Boulevard /Wilson Avenue Alignment:
Comment: Technically the Day Creek curve remains in the
City's General. Flan until there is an appliation for
ammendment to the General Plan, or until the Cityk's
Et aanda North Specific Plan and related General Plan
amendments are adopted. The Day Creek Ctiivie. appears to be no
longer an issue, becakise City staff ht-s analysed the
Et.iwanda North traffic study prepared by Aiiatin Faust and
recommends the four' -way intersection,
�tiwanda Avenue.
ompaat: City staff proposes that in order to protect the
historical quality of Etiwanda Avenue as provided in the
City's General Plan anal Etiwanda Specific Flan, that
Etiwanda Avg =.nnL must not extend to serve properties north of
the proposed east -west collector street adjoining the ScE
lower utility corridor.
Ccmm-gnk: In the subject project plans, the alignment of the
aforementioned east -west collector does not appear to give
,adequate access for developme €it of a portion of.the Southern
California Edison property. I In order to give adequate
access for development, City staff recommends a different
alignment of the east -west collector and Day Creek
Boulevard.
Cul -de -sum:
Camunt: Sine the project is in the Rancho Cucamonga
Sphere-of-Influence and eventual annexation to the City is
expected, the City requests that City Standards for
development be conditioned by the County for the subject
project.
COMMENTS RE MAY 2; ''1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1991
Page 5
2. Concurrence with Utility Companies:
Comment: Many off -site improvement for the subject property
have been placed on Southern California Edison's fee
easements.
3. Parkland_Imnro_v_ements:
Comment: The City currently provides a ratio of 4.7 , -,res
of parkland per 1,000 population, therefore under the Qu:l y
Act, the City is entitled to request 4.7 acres per thousand
of unencumbered park land. Fince the subject project is in
the Cityls Sphere -of- Influence and eventually expected to
annex into the City, 4.7 acres per thousand population, of
unencumbered parkland, should be provided by the applicant.
Past experience with annexations, as well as the e;ity's
General Plan poi cy, indicates that in order to adequately
provide neighborhood parks, in a planned develop ;lent
context, they must be contributed by the applicant. If 11239
units are approved, the applicant should contribute 15.7 net
acrees of L�nencumberedl park. The subject application includes
7 acres of park on the project site. Of the 7 ;acres, a
portion of the site is encumbered by a utility easement and
a portion is encumbered by a slope. The net yield is
approximately 5 acres of unencumbered parka The City
strongly supports County staff in requiring that the park
requirement meet the Quimby Act standard and be cntributed
by the developer on the project site, with the understanding
that this condition may mean redesign of the project.
4. Infrastructure Financing. Phasing. and Fair share
Comment: The Infrastructure Plan, Phasing Plan, and Fair
Share Allocations are dependent on the umbrella,Etiwanda
North Infrastructure Plan, PhastIng Plan, and Fair Snare
Allocations. Further, costs and reimbursement agreements are
dependent on resolution of major design issues, for example
final alignments for arterial and collector streets.
At present, no infrastructure whatsoever exists on the
subject project site. Further, the. integrity of the Planned
Development is fragmented by division into 15 tentative
tracts, 8 fror the University property and 7 for the Crest
property.. Pfeeemeal development on a Tract-by-Tract basis
prior to co,,tstruction of the backbone c rrulatitz system
would crlLtl, the potential for inadequate emergency ,access
in an area of high fire and seismic hazard potential.
f
COMMENTS RE; MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May ,9, 1991
Pane 6
Therefore, City staff supports 'Lhe contention by County
staff that infrastructure should not be the responsibilii`r
of -merchant builders. However, City staff doei, not agree
that this is a stand alone project which can proceed the
infrasti^ncture plan and financial strategy of the entire
Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Health and safety issues
require that a pajor portion of the k(ackbore., circulation
system be designed and construe: -'ed to provide access to all
15 tracts, and the backbone system must first be determined
by the Specific Plan alighnme;:t and possibly the Specific,
Plan's financial mechanisms.
5.. Timina Consistency with County's Draft Etiwanda North
Specific Plan.
Comment. City staff strongly disagrees with the statement
by County staff that "it appears- tG serve no useful purpose
to delay this project until completiw,^ of the Specific
Plan." For one example, please refer t(bur comment under
Item 4.
iI
6. Response to City Comments and Concerns.
comment; We would like to compliment County staff for
AINIk
their efforts to respond to City comments. Many differences
have been resolved, including but not limited to, -
enlargement of the Commercial site, agreement on a four way
intersection for Day Creek Boul; -ird and Wilson A -enue, the
extension of Hanley Avenue, and a stand alone school mite
and stand alone park site in the vicinity of Summit Avenue.
Many differences still remain. Also, new issues` are
surfacing with the review of the Etiwanda Worth Specific
Plan and Environmental Review for the Specific Plan. N!A the
least of which concerns the project's design. The s=ubject
project does now conform to City policy direction from the
City Council to increase lot sizes along the north /aouth
axis of the Etiwaida North Specific Plan area.. The original
University/Crest concept plan contained curvilinear streets
consistent with City policy, but the current design is a
tight grid design. City staff has prepared an analysis of
the design. City staff has also prepared a recommended
design concept for the University portion of thr subject
project, ettsphas =.zing curvilinear streets, and interior
paseos. (See Exhibit 5, 5A.) (Notes Since the conceptual
study was prepared, a foeir -way intersection has replaced the
Day Creek Curve in the City's draft Etiwanda North Specific
Plan.)
LI
r]
COMMENTS RE: MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
Aay 29, 1991
Page 7
Further, since the subject project is within the City's
sphere -nf- Influence, and future annexations to the City
anticip,ted, city Stan -3ards of Development should -be
followed, including but :not limited to the Hillside
Development `irdinance, and Design Review standards,
comment. As County staff has noted, the Existing City
General ?Ian identifies the entire University site as open
space. The reason for the Open Space designation is'not a
proposed addition to a Chaffey Regiore Bark. -The Open
Space designation respects the 1976 accquistion of the
Univc =?ty property as one of 26 sites cowp;.wising the
Univ�,N - -sity of Callfornia Natural Reserve System, which
provides "scholars with the opportunities for scientific
research, eeucation, and training that are essential to our
understanding and wise management of the earth and its
natural systems.'c City staff agrees that with urbanization
of the Etivanda North area and the channel.ization of Day
Cv ek, it is doubtful that the sensitive Alluvial Fan Scrub
Habi6t which covers the project site could be preserved.
Also, it is not necessary to keep the site as Open space,
because a buffer exists between the Rock Crusher site and
the development, including an elevated ,berm,., a wildlife
corridor, twc SCE utill..y easements, and tje -. ncrete lined
Day Creek Channel and tdervice roads. Therefore, City staff
is recommend1mg approval of a City General Plan Amendment to
change the land use of the University site and a portion of
the Crest site from Open Space to residential use. However,
until the City initiz%:ed change is adopted and adequate
mitigation measures provided, approval of the subject
project would be premature.
Comment: Regarding min3,mum lot size, County staff responded
to park: of the city request. The City's request was for
increasing lot sizes along the north /south axis of the
project, with a minimum 7,,100 square -foot and average 8,000
square foot lot size for the University site, and a minimi;m
20,000 square foot and average 22,500 square--foot 'lot size
for the portion of the rrezt site which is identified an the
County General Plan map as Res -2. In June, 1990, the City
c ouncil adlopted a Resolution- of -it' -;t to prepare an
Etiwa-ida Ke %cti. Specific Plan, and in No "- ember, 1990, adopted
a Resoluton••of- Intent J -o ament the City's General Plan to
provide coneWtency with the Specific Plart. The City's
position now his to request that all lots on the Crest site
be a minimum 20,000 squad -foot and average 22,500 square-
foot lot size.
3'7
COMMENTS RE: MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 199"
Paga-
comment: Regarding overal* density, the City opposes
granting two incentives for•_ preservation of the 4575 acre
National Forest site, specifically opposinr' )the density
bonus, but supporting the proposed Transfer of Development
Rights.
Comment: Regarding the EIR and Addendum, in additij.a to a
lapse of time, substantial new information is available
which must be evaluated, specifically the application for a
Specific Plan including the subject project. The Etiwanda
North Specific Plan. , introduces cumulative impacts which
cannot be adequately addressed until the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan's EIR is approved.
Further, the EIR dons not adecuately address the impact of
the loss of Alluvial Fan Scrub `Habitat which covers almost
the entire project site. It is not sufficient to say that
there is a regional impact which cannot be mitigated, when`
in fact, through a Resource Management Plan for the entire
Etiwanda North Specific Plan the impact can, and must be,
partially mitigated.
omme • Regarding the effort by County staff to resolve
some of the City's issues, county staff has made a
commendable effort and City staff supports each of the four
conditions listed, as steps in the right airecti_on. However,
as stated throughout these :�,.ments by City staff, until an
Etiwanda North Specific Plans is ?k 1proved, further
development approvals within the Specific Plan area is
premature. This position is not tafrPn lightly. It reflects
regent city experience in pie;^emeal anner:atJ= of five
Planned Developments oh a total of 530 riciea, Involving -
approval of 1,117 dwelling units for an overall gross
density of 2.45 dwelling units per acre. This postion also
reflects the City's preparation of the City's Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, which serves as a pre -zone for annexation,
7. Responses from Affected Property Qwners.
9_oypeat: Most of the aifivnities offered by this 'project, as
weil as kay elaTC nts of_ basic infrastructure have been
»xanned offsite. Consent of affectid property owners has
..It been received. IT should be .noted that the subject
sy,.,,,.Acation was first sul\%itted to tale County in July, 1988,
arw' ample time for prop `ty owner contact and consent ha.
1— i available.
I` should especially be noted that no agr6sment with SCE has
4.achieved for the several planned uses of SCE pr.•operty.,
i
COMMENTS RE:'' MAY 23, 1991 . COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1991
Page 9
SUMMARY
Commence City staff does not .believe that the proposed
project is consistent with the County Development Code. one
inconsistency is that two methods of incentives are proposed
for preservation of the 675 acre open Space site within the
National Forest. City staff supports only the transfer of
development rights incentive. However, it should be noted
that according to the County Development Code, a condition
prerequisite to transfer of development rights is that the
parcel must be developable. The proposed transfer of
development rights is clouded by the fact that it is
extremely doubtful if the r75 acre site can be deveZuped fo
residential use. There is \ flood control easement c•►er the
southern third Elf the proper,`y. There is no paved or u.tpaved
road access to the site. The site is in the high fire hanard
zone (safety review level 2) :�f the County. The Ato is
primarily on slopes in exceap, t.t 30 percent, which would
potentially be subject to slope -f ilure. Slopes less than 10
percent are subject to flooding and under the flood control
easement. Two means of access would be required, and
pro - *:ding two means of access to the site which is
surrounded by the National Forest on three sides would be
virtually prohibitive.
Cammant. City staff requests that the project request for a
.0 percent density bonus be denied by the Planning
Commission.
Comment: Regarding the Environmental Assessment, City staff
believes that the EIR and "Addendum" do not adequately
address all the project related impacts, in that the seismic
study did not study the City's adopted Red Hill Fault Zone
which runs near or throuy;i the Summit Avenue school and park
site. (See exhibit 2.)
Also, City staff believes that the'EIR and "Addendum" do not
adequately address cumulative.impFicts of the project and
cannot adequately address the cumulative impacts of the
prajwst until the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is adopted.
Farther, mitigation measures identified are not adequate,
including but not limited to, biological and traffic
mitigation measures. No mitigation 13- recommended for the
cumulative loss of Alluvial Fan Scrub aabitat which can be
r,artilaily mitigated through a comprehensive Resource
Management Plan and such a plat., will be a part of the
adopted Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Also, mitigation for
off -site traffic impacts to the City of Rancho Cucamonga is
?nadequately mitigated.
)5_3 9
COMMENTS n: MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1091
Page 10
Findings- _Preli:n_},narv_Development Plan;
Comment. In general, comment- are general and not specific, '
because City staff has not had an opportunity to review the
revised plans and conditions of approval.
comment. However, based on preliminary review, city staff
concludes that all the fi;;dings cannot ?e met. ,
1. The EIR and addendum do not adequately address all the
impacts. see comments above uder ',Summary,"
2. The proposed Preliminary De °elopment Plan is not
consistent with the County's General Plan, because the
Plan hinders and does not further annexation of the
proposed site which is within the City of Rancho
Cucanonga °s Sphere -of;- Influence.
3. The site is not adequate for the proposed Planned
Development as attested ,y the #act that so many
amenities and inxras'trd,ture are planned off -site.
4. Because the developable - portion 'of proposed site is in
a fire hazard zone (safety review level f''1, two means
x .)f access must be requ % red; 'therefore, tho Day C-1 eak
Boulevard Access by itse4l.f is not--, . fficisnt and a
second means of access mush`. be completed, incindirq but
not limited to, the extensi' of not -nezly
east /writ col.",ector to East T.venue.
5. Adequate services are not prc. ;,dad, because the
backbone circulation system does ntt provide adequate
opportunity for development of parcels which are not a
part of this application,
6. The proposed use may, have an adverse effect on the use
of surrounding property through the amenities and
infrastructure planned oif -ste, as well as because
there Is not adequate provision for dekelopmcnt of
certain parcels.
Further, the intensity of use is higher than planned
for adjoining property; therefore, the proposed use may
have a detrimental effect on surrounding land rases.
7. The Conditions of ApprcmaLl do not adequately address
all nstural and man -made hazards, incudirg but not
limited to, adequate means of access.
8. The project design is substandard In the content of
adjoining projects in the City of Ranc;ao Cucamonga.
Edo
CO&.,DMS RE: MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY y2AFF REi ORT
Yay 29, 1991
I-age 11
Fi::dings: Tentative Tr«„ct%:
Comment; Comments on th se findings must be defer -cad until
there is sufficient time to review the revised plans and the
County's Conditions of Approval.
Final nevelonment,?-La-n
comment: Sonnsnt on these findings roust be deferred until
therm is sufficient time to rev?:ew tha revived plans and
County >a conditions of approval.
RECOMMMDATION:
Coament: City scarf requests that; the Planning. Commission
recommend denial without prejudice for tWit subject
applization. Further, in recomrdndirg denial, City staff
requests that the Platsning Comma,�,s on direct the applicant
to complete additional environmental assessment and ,prcjeet d
redesign • na udivg, but not lfmiteet to the following,
* To resubmit the application fAllowing approval of the
EtiwanEa North Specific Plan
* To provide a seismic study of the school site in
conZormance with 6,eis:31c policies of the County's
General Pliin and with the adopted Rancho uoamnnga.'s
Red Hill Fault Seismic Study Area;
* fit provide adequate mitic;ation maasi!re. for traffis
impacts on the ni *_j of Rancher Cucamongaos cirre<:lation
aestem;
*
To prov._ Ie . ,dequate. mitigatir,. measures for .:he
cumulati� �j loss of Zlluvi.al Fan 4muh ha'.)iyat;
* To participate in biological mitigatior, measures
consistent with the Et Wanda North Resource
Conservation - Plan which will be, ado ?ted as an
environr_ntal mitigation me =tsure of the Etiwanda North
L
S,peciflc Plan;
ye To design the project co, ent, - ":h the Etiwanda
I
Borth Resour�L -e c':onservation _ 2
'o enter iA_ a an agreement str;.. 5randum i of
III
Understanding ng with the California 't of fish
and Came and the U.S. Ar.Ay Corps oZ zAg neex *,, to
particip6te in a comprehensive 16011404 permit plali for
f
the entire Etivanda North Specific Plan area;
f _
COMMENTS RP: MAY 23, 1991 COUNTY STAFF REPORT
May
29, 1991
Pane
12
*
To redesign the plans with no density bonus units
consistent ,,rith .the -!!-aunty Development Code policy to
grant only .. public incentive ftz . ;zeservat'_.on of
open space;
*
To redesign tizc plans counting no, density for school
an3 park land uses;
*
To redesign the projact to be consistent with the
adopted Etiwanda No;-th Specific Plan which will
astablish the backb6ae infrastructure system, the
backbone financial plan, and financial mechanisms for
improvement and maintenance of the background
infrastructure system;
*
To redesign the plan TAith curvilinear streets and
internal daseos in conforr..ty with the County=s General
x`lan policy whiict encourages presel2vntion of natural
contours to preserve slope, riparian features, and
viewsh -ads;
*
To work with ` he City of Rancho Cucamonga to design the
background uirculation ;.;%ystem to prc?tect Etiwanda
Avenue, consistlait wlt*i !`he County's Genera. Plan
Policy VU -D;
*
To cooperate with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to
redesign the background circulation system to provide
access for all developable parcels of land, consistent
with the County's General Z-1an Policy LU -9;
•
To work: with the City o' .. ancho ,Cup- .,�auga to redesign
the landscape plan cons.`a�;Ent with the City F s Xerisawa r
ordinance., thG vtivranda North Fire Protection Stua2
the Etiwanda North Resource Managenent Plan, and the
City of Rancho CU04monga Etiwanda North Specific Pl ?n
landscape palette, consistent with the County's General
Plan Policy ,U -9;
•
To mist all requirements of tho City of 'Rancho
Cucamonga's Development Code, including the Hillside
Nevelopment Ordinance, consistent with tt.a county's
�
General Plan Policy LU-9 0
•
To acquire jn�dditionai property L, order to provide �.�
�
acres of unencumbered park per thousand population on-
site or redesign the proposed tracts, consistent witt
the County's General Plan Pol i:,--1 LU-�9;
•
To acquire agreements to lease and /or landscape SCE and
M%D fea easements i*t trails and landscaping uses, or
r`
to provide all trail and landscapc amenities on- site.;
CO'".ENTR YtE: VXY 23, 1991 COUAiTv ; 3TAFF
REPORT
Mdy 25 i 1993.
Page 13 _
* To provide property amer consent
to plan the 'off -site
portion of tb4z .school S},ter-and
* 7,1Q provide ps:gperty owner consf,nt
to acquire land for
�ihe backbone circulation system,
drainag €r facilities,
drainage easements, temporary access easements,- arid] <.or
to bond for condemnation.
In cc.r.clusion, the City o €.,Rancho :Cucamonga
reserves the
right to provide .additional co=ents
should the need and _
opportunity
arise.
;p
Sin Barnsr no Naunnab For•tt.
FW
Ft11t
OtD1 PD
P51 /10 1%10 PD1 /10
PD
-- R31 1/2.5 PD1 /10
PD1/2.5 Ftp -
G3 -1 l
PD1 /1
r•
l /10 - 831 51../1 i PDjRS /10
_ -- —_ N
c Itcoe •
t • 3 /rl `• •o• °e°0 °o °1 FYy
• u
e o• e o• e o
Y
4. !_ PD1 /10_ Fitt .
C,
• • _802/1
• • _
FtM e•s• /� Tr 17 2/1 i
= t _
m ••! •t•• _ -_ ~ "RdtigiQ ONGC CrtY LMRS• ❑ c
i s. • - _ =
_ °• °tt e• • PV3 /1' _ Ban an an Street Q .gip -• _ 1 Sumnt •Averwe — __ — __
-
+IGEND:
.. ® NorE tlarm•rkat rahrsao• toNrnnnp the W d PD 1140 r 101.1140 ACRES
��t- --
U" dvogmIXWL Mwoo+tsaxwasueanany PD 1 /10 -1 011/10 ACRES
•ev ormWormns w=@1 Ida. - PD 112.5 -1 !W112.5 ACRES
M Prop" Pr•vto * c_nne;od to Rancho CutamaVa 'PD 111 - i'UU/1 ACRE
m0bviae ;�+�• fr1f Fioodaaay PD 811 - 2 DU /1 ACRE
_� »•+rao t . IN InatRutional PD 311 m 3 OU /1 ACRE
PD Planned Development PD 4/3 - 4 DU/1 ACRE
- a Rti Single Residential R3 aW - 20,000 SO. FY. MIN.
i (IN) Interred tnatitutional Designaticl LOT S171E
Project 5110 jl
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
GENERAL Pi".AN LAND USE
WEST IMLLEYFOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA
1
Alft
7,,'Pw.-r Alk I.-T6 &T5
;;'%w . .r4b
po
Ed-z
N9.
-4F
'ii=7 lot,
W) R� j11' 1 t, ✓ I " . . ; 1. . I j. .
.1.4 r.
1EXIMBIT IA
v4o
S—C
s�
ms`s
o � •;j rJitlld14
1
•�tia. 1 � •. ,r � � ` ,. � {r� �1��(� ��� #< ��t€ iE�6p`r �tgi�` 1: ;'�
� � j � O �� . i •i+ y , � ' J ; �� �._ F!i! lS7I �1� 'llle liii .i � f�f.
let 0
Of
l ,�,' tit ir�. � n. r! 1 • •� I` �� y
yy,
cc
�� Z ��, I- 1 ••� � � � " � is � tit , ��� � im.m.....�
.� 7 •a
LLI
LU r
�� Lam` �* � ♦ `t: ® \ 3 � '�k�r ;
moo. -w • �� �sz t ! i ��.
IT 10
LU
,.
ui
LL co
3
E!
Y ZONE
MIT 2
0
a
v
a
u
�
3
E!
Y ZONE
MIT 2
• • a ., Ste•. • ' °
Ilk-
}j('TNT?YMAP
' ' •
�
"� "�'
P '�u�1�- +E1 OPEN 5:4cc
• � •
Dr.MXPMENT AM
s
1o�iitvwsra
ana.•roo�, acuVw• j!
f
... o
� r
•'
�� iii++ ! i �
y
° •
�,
ill
`�
i
+►
;
+fi
•
f
• ` ;
I
DAY CREW
• i •
`•
_ _
i i h�
+
. _
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
EXHIBIT 3
to
a
I
� I
i
r
irh l
�raAMA
THE DAY CREEK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
11i
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13812
eY
cieaao THB CITY OF RANM CUCAMON6C r « r
um
r;3rlea •+eaanroleosurr•,euaa . etmeu a aF ..� '"^ �:�::— .:�...�'. �./'U'� — '- �'fL�r�c:
Ytlrtnc�a .axar+ uwee re..n•. w � wlnxae o+e ms R
uaeerrsae.u•,ucie,r.�aee.e�e.an ..........�..; -,,°
�, wrntwW � .� ^�.t•� aM.o•PM1 ��.r
�✓.M.n.,�: w•P •,w «rr Pi ^•���'iS+�+�^LY.'••i.r� .�Y+e •G°.. Mr1�nS'��
S.w.r•... a �.• r
4
•^ww�r w v °'aa, +1 I ��ws w +.�1a ��. �.r«It `_
«14•. .'.' i'^w .p... ..at r.� v.r. T.,Rt x
•' ° �,
TT COl►4eRl 1
m w. u - .ice_ #,� ^" `y. � • �..
��n�e W -. I.wa 1� a� tom, wY a �°'.', • • _
w wig wva. a �.. - �� _ ��a° .P.•.a '+. "��
.ar lam._ r.. � �'r t w .•
_ yT
a,T ewe �►. Cts � 1 } +' I • .. r
a 1lr
C
ggsr r�4�sl46
m:w.a r,4browcswnx.a�r�^ wPTM�"�"rs tl�IP��.•so.a'�.�
AWL
IH
lu
mar
O
1�
---�r-
VINTAGE DRIVE
ALIGNMENT
i CS� ♦�
I�
i --. EM1:9IT 4
-- a s .