Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-167 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 87-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10941 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 10941, submitted by Turner Development Corporation, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 3 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 210-071-39 and 40, located on the west side of Lucas Ranch Road, north of 4th Street; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1987, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 10941 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Special Conditions 1. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical ) on the project side of Lucas Ranch Road shall be undergrounded from the existing pole at the north project boundary to the existing pole located at the south project property line, prior to public improvements acceptance or occupancy of the first building on any parcel , whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. RESOLUTION • • PAGE 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: % _/ _ G , _ Lai" . McNie C airman i ATTEST: A _41.4 /er B'a' llsr' ie.'Rimrecre ary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of September, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA i • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: 14 Q/tat/t.. / APPLICANT: � 2 i4:411et. �s�47-€. . FILING DATE: p 'J_�n 19Pf 7 LOG NUMBER: Q PROJECT: v/J 1 tier an/ PROJECT LOCATION: . • I. ENVIRO\MENTAL IMPACTS • 4itt✓ (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets) . YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? f h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: • • Page ? YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? / b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? / f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? / — h. The reduction in the amount of water other- ✓ wise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? / 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: - a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? / Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? / c. Alteration of local or regional climatic ✓ conditions, affecting air movement, moisture / or temperature? / 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? V- b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? • • ?aoe 3 YES `"_GYBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? we d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare / or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? re b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? dee 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have . significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property ✓ values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e. , buyers, bee tax payers or project users? — — 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? • • • Page 4 YES MAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? fry c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? f e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? ✓ g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, / paleontological, and/or historical resources? _ 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? I c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? f h. An increase in light or glare? • • Page 5 YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive / site? ✓ c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? f c. Communications systems? ✓ d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? lof f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? Je h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? V/ j . Schools? V/ Pi k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? (- m. Other governmental services? 13. Enerey and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? y b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? Je d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible / renewable sources of energy are available? V • • Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? / 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. �[ a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, / and probable future projects) . d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ V II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e. , of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures) . i Page 7 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant 1 I effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. l1 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date 9/��, il Signature dio 6.0:d rt..- Title