Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/07/26 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JULY 26, 2000 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel__ Vice Chairman Macias__ Com. Mannerino__ Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy II. ANNOUNCEMENTS II1. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20 - D. R. HORTON - A request to amend the design and building plans of 79 single-family residences that were previously approved by the City as part of Tentative Tract Map 15727, which is located west of Archibald Avenue, between Fourth and Sixth Streets. The 79 lots are distributed throughout the Tentative Tract Map area. APN: 210-451-39 through 42; 210- 461-50 through 60 and 210-062-49. IV. 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 name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking B. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. - A request to recommend approval for a development agreement for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue - Tentative Tract Map 14493 through 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, and 15902. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified on October 26, 1999. An addendum to the EIR is being prepared because the project description did not include a development agreement or the construction of full improvements to the extension of Banyan Street from Day Creek Channel to Rochester Avenue, or full improvements to the segment of Day Creek Boulevard between Banyan Avenue and SR 30. The addendum is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Continued from July 12, 2000) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-49 - EVERGREEN/DEVCO - The development of a drugstore with a drive-though window for prescription orders consisting of a 13,813 square foot building on a 1.52 acres parcel in the Office Professional (OP) District, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-37. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 99-37. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - A request to develop a temporary Youth Center totaling 4,900 square feet on an existing church campus of 4.95 acres of land in the Medium Residential District located at the Community Baptist Church, 9090 19th Street at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. APN: 201-221-08. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15447 - LEGACY PARTNERS - The proposed subdivision of 19.39 acres into four parcels, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. APN: 210- 081-07 and 210-081-15. Related files: Development Review 00- 22, Tree Removal Permit 00-13, Pre-Application Review 00-01, and Preliminary Review 00-01. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-11 - PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS - The development of a wireless communication facility consisting of a 60-foot stealth co-location 'monopalm" and two cabinets housing transceiver equipment on 500 square feet of leased area on a 5.64 acre parcel of land in the Sunrize Shopping Center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 8647 Base Line Road- APN: 207-022-14. Page 2 G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-14- PACIFIC BELL WIRELES?, - The installation of a 60-foot high "monopalm" wireless telecommunications facility in the Terra Vista Village Shopping Center in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 7629 Haven Avenue ~ APN: 1076- 481-31. H. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Development Code Chapter 17.30, to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution" as permitted uses on parcels of 35 acres or larger, subject to the approval of a Master Plan, within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. V. NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNER,C; The proposed development of four 2-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN: 210-081-07 and 210- 081-15. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map 15447, Tree Removal Permit 00-13, Pre-Application Review 00-01, and Preliminary Review 00-01. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-18 - UNION BANK - The development of a 6,000 square foot bank on 1.2 acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII.COMMISSION BUSINESS K. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRES,C; - Oral report VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Page 3 I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 20, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 Vicinity Map Planning Commission July 26, 2000 r DF~ C Hillside ! Banyan 1~'210 F~ B lo J Arrow ! -a c c >, 4th ~ (~ (1) ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ISP Subarea 6 A CITY HALL N the c it,( of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Sal Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner Duane Morita, Contract Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20 - D.R. HORTON - A request to amend the design and building plans of 79 single-family residences that were previously approved by the City as part of Tentative Tract Map 15727, which is located west of Archibald Avenue, between Fourth and Sixth Streets. The 79 lots are distributed throughout the Tentative Tract Map area. APN: 210-451-39 through 42; 210-461-50 through 60 and 210-062-49. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The 79 lots are within the existing Hawthornes residential development and are presently graded and ready for construction. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: In 1998, the City approved Tentative Tract Map 15727 and design and building plans for those single-family residences proposed with the tentative tract map. Tentative Tract Map 15727 was comprised of 82 acres and was approved as a 339-1ot subdivision. Griffin Homes was the original builder and is currently constructing about 260 homes approved with the tentative tract map and other design approvals. D.R. Horton, applicant for this Development Review application, has acquired 79 lots from Griffin Homes for the purpose of constructing single-family residences, but at sizes larger than originally approved in 1998. D.R. Horton is proposing to amend those design and building plans that were previously approved for Griffin Homes. Exhibit "A" locates the specific lots being acquired by D.R. Horton. D.R. Horton is only constructing residences on finished pads. The previous builder, Griffin Homes has or will provide all perimeter walls, common landscaping, sidewalks, and other on-site and off-site improvements. B. Previously-Approved Griffin Homes Plans: Previous design and building plans that were approved with Development Review 99-07 for Griffin Homes included three house plans, each with four elevation styles. The Plan 1 product included single-story structures, with ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-20 - D.R. HORTON July 26, 2000 Page 2 three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, and two-car garages, ranging in size from 1,431 to 2,294 square feet. The Plan 2 product included two-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, and two-car garages, ranging in size from 1,604 to 2,851 square feet. The Plan 3 product also included two-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, and three-car garages, ranging in size from 1,710 to 2,989 square feet. All house plans included window surrounds and foam, shutters, and corbel treatments. Some elevations also included synthetic stone veneer. The approved Griffin Homes' building plans and elevations are attached (Exhibit "B"). C. Proposed D.R. Horton's Plans: D.R. Horton's design and building plans propose three house plans, each with three elevation styles. In addition, alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also being considered. As a comparison, the D.R. Horton plans propose larger homes. All D.R. Horton homes will be two-story structures; no single-story homes are being proposed. The Plan I product will range in size from 2,575 to 2,660 square feet and have four bedrooms, loft area, three bathrooms, and a three-car tandem garage. Optional features include den, bonus room, and a larger family room. The Plan 2 product will range in size from 2,962 to 3,194 square feet and have five to six bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a two-car garage. Optional features include larger family room, den, loft, extra bedroom, and third garage. The Plan 3 product will range in size from 3,192 to 3,614 square feet and have five bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a three-car garage. Optional features include a bonus room, loft, den, and sixth bedroom. D.R. Horton's building plans and elevations are attached (Exhibit "C"). Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco exterior walls, with either brown blend concrete flat tile or "S" tile will be provided. Accent features include brown or green blend wood trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. Stone veneer will be provided on certain elevations. Staff finds the amended building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roofs include varied hip and gable designs, which make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does not appear to dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations, not only the front elevations. Furthermore, the Conceptual Site Plan (Exhibit "D") complies with the various setback requirements of the City's Development Code. D. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNeil, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project on June 20, 2000, and recommended approval with conditions, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. In summary, the Committee required the applicant to revise the project's Conceptual Site Plan to provide an additional two-feet of corner side yard setback for proposed Lot 1. The Committee also required that shutters be provided for second-story windows of residences abutting Fourth Street, Golden Oak Park, and industrial buildings along Archibald Avenue. The applicant has agreed to these conditions. The Design Review Committee meeting Action Agenda and minutes are attached (Exhibit "E"). E. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval with the conditions listed in the attached Resolution of Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-20 - D.R. HORTON July 26, 2000 Page 3 F. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval with the conditions listed in the attached Resolution of Approval. G. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report. was prepared for Tentative Tract Map 15727 as part of the proposed Cucamonga Cornerpointe project and was certified by the City Council on November 20, 1996. The EIR evaluated impacts associated with development of single-family residences within the Tentative Tract Map 15727 area, including those lots that are affected by the proposed project. The EIR concluded that a single-family residential development will not result in any significant environmental impact, with mitigation measures. Further environmental clearance or evaluation is not required for the proposed project. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. The proposed project is consistent with objectives of the General Plan and Development Code; and B. The proposed project will comply with all applicable provisions and standards of the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), including height limitations and setbacks; and C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and D. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; and E. The proposed project will not be detrimental to~the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 00-20 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SS\DM~ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Previously Approved Griffin Homes Building Plans Exhibit "C" - D.R. Horton's Building Plans Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Design Review Comments for June 20, 2000 Resolution of Approval for Development Review 00-20 Lois "_ ,,~ FRONT ELEVATION i .--~ _ .~j~ ':4,~ L~'~."~, ...... ' 0 PLAH t ROOF PL~, X ;~;vx~ ~ FNONT AND ROOF PLAN FRONT ELEVATION e ROOF PLAN e ELEV~6N FRONT ELEVATION C ............. E!-El ..-~! - -ffl~ _ '7. ROOF PLAN C ~ : -'J. :: ,~,.:,...,,-,. ..... .-,.~,? ~ ~~ ~] ~ .... ..., , FRONT ELEVATION O ~'~ ' ~' ROOF PLAN D FRONT ELEVATION 1.11 -IU ~ ....... F~ONT ELE~ATIO~ :' ' PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN A ~ .... ~ ELEVAiJ~N'~ FRONT EL[V~TION ....... . ROOF PLAN B FRONT ELEVAT~N ~.7' FRONT ELEVATION D ,, .~.~ ~o, ~ ................... ROOF PLAN D F.O~ E~VATION 2.11 PLAN 3 ELEVATION l FRONT ELEVATION U ROOF PLAN AX FRONT ELEVATION AX PLAN 3 ELEV&TION R I FW~N~' ELEVATION AND ADORNDA -FRONT, L ,O, AO ~'.ii~' · :":¥;.. 1 ~ ...... ROOF PLAN B FRONT ELEVATION R PLAN 3 ~EVATION B FRONT ELEVATION _.~ - _l ~.l, ~ ..... , ................. ROOF PLAN BX FRONT ELEVATION BX PLAN 3 FRONT ELEVATION AND AODENDA -FRONT LOAO 3.8X ~ i ...... HOOF PLAN C FRONT ELEYATION C ~ ~ PL~H ~ PLAN 3 3.1~ FRONT '[~EVATION A ltt~ VENT CAL~iT~NI ....................~ ~,~,, PLAN 1 ROOF PLAN A l~] '~.EVATGON NOTES ,.7.~~ .__~.~ ,s,.~ .... ...~.. FRONT ~V ATION ~)' B ~ _~, - .... ~ ' , , , ........... _.~ : ,, ~ ..... ~;~ :::::::T FLOOR pLAN ADDENDUM ...... , ........~.~- 1.7 ] I~ ~j~ "" ..... :~...~:~.~r:~.~ ..... FRONT ELEVATION ~ D ...... · ' "~ ........... " pLAN t FLOOR pLAN ADDE~UM AN~..~Q~ 1.11 FRONT LOAD G~RAGE -~, RONT ELEVATION *" '"'~ ~ ~ECOND FLOOR ADDE~UM [3 TY~AL nO~ NOTES I[ ~ ~' '~/~ =~.....----=~'" ..... _ ......... ~ :','""', , ~..~ '. · ROOF PLAN B / F~ONT ELEVA~ON  FRONT LOAO GARAGE / F~ST FLOOR ADDENDUM / .............. ~ _-~:' . .... ELEVATION NOTES -~:....... ..__. ~ ~ i~L~ ............ -'-~ FRONT LOAD GARAGE ' * ~ ' ~' ~ ..... FLOOR~DDE~M [3 TYP~AL hOOF NOTES I~, C~:";~'' ~1~: --- -x.':r ....... ~ ................ : .... ,' ~ .......... PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN C ....... T~_- [_~ ..... f' ~ '~ ........... .... AND ADDE~A8 ~ ~ FRONT LOAD GARAGE ~ FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM · ~' -. ~ 2.10 ' FRONT LOAD GARAGE ~ FRONT...,..,. ELEVATION D - ,,- .,:.~.~ ~ ~l ~i:COND FLOOR ADDENDU J J' IL i}., - - - ROOF__..,. PLAN D -- -- ......... ~ ,. 'T-::=--~:,. ,. . ¢ ~Ev~*i~i'~EVATION A ~ FRONT LOAD GARAGE FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM 2.12 ~---~ .... ~ .... PLAN B P~ONT ELEVATION ~OOR ADDEND~ B ~IRST ~LOOR AOOE~UM B ~..,,ROOF PLAN C FRONT ELEVATION C ~----1. ................... [~ TYkCAL WOOF x,x~¢~x..~..r-.:~ PLAN SEC ~ FLOOR ADDENDUM C FIRST FLOOR ADDE~UM C 3.11 ,'",. · ] E1 FRONT ELEVATION ROOF ~AN O ..... ~EC ~ FLOOR ADDE~UM D FIRST ~OOR ADDE~UM ..... 3.13 The H wthornes .~ RANCHOCUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA '-- D.R. HORTON I' ~,,, ..... I / . I ..... ~E :~ ~,~ / I I "?'""~ 1 I i ~ i?'~ ' '"" ' :.~. ~ ~ ~o~ ! ',~, ..: :"' ~ ~. ~ " / ~-.:,-.~: '~' LOWER LEVEL { ' Residence I .,.~ 2,575 to 2,660 Square Feel Den O )lion 4 Bedrooms / 3 Balhs / 3 Car Tandem Optional Den, Tech. Room, and Super Family H~t~Om~S The " RIGHT .,.. ,~,,,,~,.,,,,,,, FRONT Elevation IA REAR ......... Th th .... ¢ HalV 0Flt~$ .,. RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNgA W,U,AM FRONT RIGHT *oo,: LEFT Elevation .... The Hawthor~es hmmlrhm Hlllln..ml RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Elevation lA REAR The Hawtholgles RIGHT ,.,,,, ,, ,,, ,,.., ~,, ,, ,,,, FRONT Elet,ation 1C REAR The Hawthon~es RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA W,tu^~ H~Z~^t.,ALC~ 1.3 ' :~ . KITCHENr i~, .. ' ';" ..,' 1 LIVING , i ,,?.V~r ';t'::":',':";''~ ' .... UPPER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL 3RD CAR GARAGE ()lq'iON Residence 2 2,962 ~o 3,194 Square Feet 5 to 6 Bedrooms/3 Baths 2 Car Garage w/Opt, 3rd Car Garage Optional Super Family, Den, Loft and Bedroom 6 Th th . . . . e Haw o~tes 2.0 IIIIIIIIIIhllllllllhltlllllll RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOR~A ~, ,'.Q~ o....o~o~ '::;.f:':.:,:;.:::;'.~:Z.':~:.'~ ~ ::'c: ......... RIGHT . ~,, ,,~, ~,. ,., FRONT ..'~':~ I . ~ ~ "~ ' ~" LE~ EI~;~tion ~ REAR RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALII:ORN~A W~UAr~ FRONT .......... REAR The Hawthomes LEFt Elevation 2A REAR I '~" . . . . The mwthomes lltllllllllllmllllhlUIIllll RANCHO CLJCAMONGA, CALFORNiA WILLIAM HEZMALHALC~ RIGHT FRONT d,.~'.~ -'~ L£FI' EIevation 2C The Hawthornes RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAI IFORN1A W,H ~^M 'E...^.,,^, C., 2.3 J~ I ~ *AMILY I =._.. ;'1~ , , , '"']!zr' ,.,,,, '""[m-~ DE. Orr,ON, I L,v,.~. ~ LEVEL j. ' " ' o~ION j . I . IIEI)R()OM fi OVFION Residence 3 3,192 to 3,614 Square Feet  LO~ O~ION 5 Bedrooms / 3 Balhs 3 Car Garage Optional Bonus Boom, Loft, Bedroom 6 and Den The Hawtho es .... ~30~ O.R. HORTON .......................... RIGHT FRONT LEFT Elevation 3A The Hawthornes..[j ~ .. '~ ~.~ "'" ~ .~,~ ~.~ ..i,,,,,, - RIGHT Elevation 3A g~AR 1 .... '. . . .The Hawthornes ~I f ',, I I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3 lc <"',*,~& ,a,' ' I~1~__1 II:tll I~ ~, II I II ILII IlJl ILII ~'~' :~ ,;" -~'"~ ........... '~ ~ -'~- .... ,,. ...,. ,. ...... .... ~'~'~ ~"~'~ ~~- ~ ~.,.~..~ :' ~ ~,.~.: ~16flT FRONT '~.:~ ................... ~ .............. ~'-""~'-"~"--I~ ~,....~;:~:d~';',:'.~, c~.- - ........ · ....... . ~ ~a~'- tt~ Elevation ~3B REAR ...... The Hawthomes .'.~j .... 32 RIGHT FRONT rErr Elevation 3C REAR The Hawthontes .351 Cit ~)ivisio~.,. CONCEPTUAL 81TE F'Z.,4N THE HA III/THORNS ................ - ' HORTON :~¢~: t~i~ ~ .... ' - - ' ' ~k~lllllllll ~'_ ........... ~ L ........... 3O SPR/NOBROOK CO UR T I SPRINGBROOK DR/VE 4 TH STREET 19 ? 01:~? YFI~L D C 0 UR T DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Sal Salazar/Duane Modta June 20, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20- D.R. HORTON - A request to amend the design and building plans of 79 single-family residences that were previously approved by the City as part of Tentative Tract Map 15727, which is located west of Archibald Avenue, between 4th and 6th Streets. The 79 lots are distributed throughout the Tentative Tract Map area. APN: 210-451-39 through 42; 210-461-50 through 60; and 210-062-49. Background: In 1998, the City approved the design and building plans for the homes within Tentative Tract Map 15727. Tentative Tract Map 15727 comprises 82 acres and was approved as a 339-1ot subdivision. Gdffin Homes was the odginal builder and is currently constructing those homes approved with the Tentative Tract Map and other design approvals. D.R. Horton, applicant for this Development Review application, has acquired 79 lots from Gdffin Homes for purposes of constructing single-family residences, but at sizes larger than originally approved in 1998. See Exhibit "A", which locates the specific lots being acquired by D.R. Horton. D.R. Horton is only constructing residences on finished pads. The previous builder, Griffin Homes, has or will provide all perimeter walls, common landscaping, sidewalks, and other on-site and off-site improvements. Previous design and building plans approved for Gdffin Homes included three house plans, each with four elevation styles. The Plan I product included single-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, two-car garages, and ranged in size from 1,431 to 2,294 square feet. The Plan 2 product included two-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, two-car garages, and ranged in size from 1,604 to 2,851 square feet. The Plan 3 product also included two-story structures, with three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, three-car garages, and ranged in size from 1,710 to 2,989 square feet. All house plans included window surrounds and foam, shutters, and corbel treatments. Some elevations also included synthetic stone veneer. Refer to Exhibit "B" for reductions of approved Gdffin Homes' design and building plans. Desi.qn Parameters: Those D.R. Horton design and building plans being considered with this Development Review application propose three house plans with three elevation styles. In addition, alternative window designs affecting shape, actual number of windows, and surrounds are also being considered. As a comparison, the D.R. Horton plans propose larger homes; none of the Griffin Homes' plans exceeded 3,000 square feet in size (except for the Piedmont Section). All D.R. Horton homes will be two-story structures; no single-story homes are being proposed. The Plan I product will have four bedrooms, loft area, three bathrooms, three-car tandem garage, and range in size from 2,575 to 2,660 square feet. Optional features include a den, bonus room, and a larger family room. The Plan 2 product will have five to six bedrooms, three bathrooms,two-car garage, and range in size from 2,962 to 3,194 square feet. Optional features include a larger family room, den, loft, extra bedroom, and third garage. The Plan 3 product will have five bedrooms, three bathrooms, threecar garage, and range in size from 3,192 to 3,614 square feet. Optional features include a bonus room, loft, den, and sixth bedroom. Refer to Exhibit "C" for a reduction of D.R. Horton's design and building plans. Depending upon the particular plan, light brown stucco exterior walls, with either brown blend concrete fiat tile or "S" tile will be provided. Accent features include brown or green blend wood trim, wood shutters, and stucco recesses. Stone veneer will be provided on certain elevations. DRC COMMENTS · · DR 00-20 - D.R. HORTON June 20, 2000 Page 2 Staff finds the amended building plans to be well designed. The elevations are characterized by strong vertical and horizontal changes. Roof styles include varied hip and gable designs, which make for interesting elevations. Though three-car garages are being proposed, the garage does not appear to dominate the front elevations of the various plans. Window surrounds and treatments are provided for all elevations. Furthermore, the amended Conceptual Site Plan and building elevations comply with the vadous setback requirements of theCity's Development Code, except for proposed Lot 1, which is discussed in the following section. Refer to Exhibit "D" for a reduction of the Conceptual Site Plan. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1, Provide Additional Comer Side Yard Setback for Lot 1: The City's Development Code requires a 10-foot corner side yard setback for comer lots within the Low-Medium Residential District. The Conceptual Site Plan indicates an insufficient eight-foot comer side yard setback for Lot 1. An additional two feet of comer side yard setback is required. Refer to Exhibit "E", which presents Lot 1. The intedor side yard setback is currently designed at 10 feet. The Development Code requires only a five4oot interior side yard setback. Therefore, there is sufficient area to "move" the proposed residence to ensure compliance with Development Code setback requirements. Staff has notified the applicant's engineer regarding this issue. The Conceptual Site Plan will be revised prior to Planning Commission consideration. 2. Provide Shutters for Major Second-Story Window~ for Residences Located on Comer Lots and Residences Backinq on 4th Street: In 1998, the City conditioned Gdffin Homes to provide shutters on all major second-story windows that side-on or back-on to streets. This condition applies to those D.R. Horton lots that either are located on comer lots or back onto 4th Street. Staff has notified the applicant's architect that additional shutters will be required for these particular lots. The affected elevations will be revised accordingly, prior to Planning Commission consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Duane Morita The Committee recommends approval subject to staffs comments and the following: 1. Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to provide additional corner side yard setback for Lot 1. An additional 2 feet of corner side yard setback is required. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-20 - D.R. HORTON June 20, 2000 Page 3 2. Revise building plans and elevations to provide shutters for major second-stor,j windows for residences facing Fourth Street. facing industrial buildings along Amhibald Avenue, and facing Golden Oak Park. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20, AMENDING THE DESIGN AND BUILDING PLANS OF 79 RESIDENTIAL LOTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-07, LOCATED WEST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, BETWEEN Fourth AND Sixth STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-451-39 THROUGH 42, 210-461-50 THOUGH 60, AND 210-062-49. A. Recitals. 1. D.R. Horton filed an application for approval of Development Review 00~20, which amends the design and building plans of 79 single-family residences that were previously approved by the City as part of Development Review 99-07, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 26, 2000, including written staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with objectives of the General Plan and Development Code; and b. The proposed project will comply with all applicable provisions and standards of the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), including height limitations and setbacks; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; and e. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-20 - D.R. HORTON July 26, 2000 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the November 1996 Cucamonga Comerpointe Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment other than those impacts previously identified in the EIR. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Environmental Impact Report, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the meeting, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forlh in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin,q Division: 1) The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval for Design Review 99-07. 2) Residential design and development shall comply with the Optional Development Standards for the Low-Medium Residential District, including height limitations and setbacks, and provision of barbecues for all residential lots. 3) Shutters for second-story windows of residences abutting Fourth Street (proposed Lots 10 through 25), industrial buildings along Archibald Avenue (proposed Lots 1 through 10), and Golden Oak Park'(proposed Lots I through 9) shall be provided. En.qineerin,q Division 1) Revise existing street improvement plans to show all new driveway locations. 2) All of the recorded tracts shall be annexed to the CC&Rs. 3) No additional building permits will be issued for the Hawthornes (Tracts 15727-1 through 15727-8 and 15727) until all outstanding issues have been resolved. a) Legal documents shall be processed for deeding Golden Oak Park (APN: 210-062-48) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. b) Revisions to Drawing 1628 shall be completed, including curb return corrections at the northwest comer of Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue, a maintenance ddve approach on Fourth Street, and intedor relocations of curbside drain outlets. c) Drawing 1649 shall be ready for the City Engineer to sign. d) Revise the storm drain plans for Line B as needed. PLANNING COIVIMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-20 - D.R. HORTON July 26, 2000 Page 3 e) Process a parcel merger for the private park on Lots 51 and 52 of Tract 15727-2. f) Record a permanent easement on the south side of the street (within the City of Ontado) for the traffic signal at Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road. g) Precise grading plans shall be consistent with street improvement plans. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-20 SUBJECT: AMEND BUILDING PLANS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT ~$727 APPLICANT: D.R, HORTON LOCATION: WEST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, BETWEEN 4TH AND 6TH STREETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay~as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development~Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. SC -2-00 Project No. DR 00-20 Cornoletion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances. 6.If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 7. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the puLrpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 12. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of I all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 13. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each i support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two ',/=-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 14. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. I 15. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link I to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 16. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. I I 17. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. I I SC -2-00 ProJect NO. DR 00-20 Completion Oate 18. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. 2. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-cjallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1- gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 6. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. sc -2 0 ~' 3 Project No. DR 00.20 Comoletion Date G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. I 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation I and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday I through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J, New Structures 1. Roofing matedal shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. I sc-2-o0 4 Project No. DR 00-20 Completion Date Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2.Fire flow requirement shall be: 1,500 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6.Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 32. 7. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. SC -2-00 Project No. DR 00-20 Completion Date 8. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the I Fire Safety r)ivision for specific details and ordering information. 9. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho I Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: a. $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. b. $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doom. I 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doom. If windows are I within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices, I N. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be I lifted from frame or track in any manner. sc-2-o0 6 THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA S fRe r DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - U.C.P., iNC. - A request to recommend approval for a development agreement for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue - Tentative Tract Map 14493 through 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, and 15902. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified on October 26, 1999. An addendum to the EIR is being prepared because the project description did not include a development agreement or the construction of full improvements to the extension of Banyan Street from Day Creek Channel to Rochester Avenue, or full improvements to the segment of Day Creek Boulevard between Banyan Avenue and SR 30. The addendum is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Continued from July 12, 200) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Backqround: This project was continued from the July 12 to the July 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The City requested continuance of this item inasmuch as certain issues regarding the EIR and SEIR as certified by the County of San Bernardino and as augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as legally sufficient for the University Planned Development Project needed to be addressed. On October 26, 1999, the applicant received approval by the County Board of Supervisors for a 685-1ot residential subdivision and two commercial centers consisting of 10 Tentative Tract Maps. In November 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed a lawsuit on the adequacy of the environmental document. As a result of the legal action, the City and applicant met on several occasions to address the issues raised in the lawsuit. The City and applicant reached a settlement agreement, which required the parties to perform specific actions. Some of the actions required the applicant to enter into a development agreement with the City for the annexation and development of the project. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of this development agreement. The development agreement is for a term of 10 years. ITEM B PLANNING COMIVIISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. July 12, 2000 Page 2 In keeping with the settlement agreement, the applicant has requested annexation of the project area into the City.- The City, on behalf of the applicant, filed an application for annexation with the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). B. Surroundinq land use and zoninR: North - Edison Utility Corridor, County West Valley Foothills Community Plan designation is Institutional. City pre-zone is Low Density (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Public Land and Utility Corridor. South - Route 30 (currently under construction). Across the freeway (within City limits is Low Density (2-4 dwelling units per acre). East - Low Density (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low Density (less than 2 units per ac:re). West - Edison Utility Corridor, County West Valley Foothills Community Plan designation is Institutional. (3. General Plan desiqnation North - County West Valley Foothills Community Plan designation is Institutional. City General Plan designation is Open Space and Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Low Density (2-4 dwelling units per acre). South- City General Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). East - Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). West - County West Valley Foothills Community Plan designation is Institutional. City General Plan designation is Flood Control/Utility Corridor ANALYSIS: A. Site Characteristics: The site is an undeveloped alluvial fan, with a gentle slope from north to south. Vegetation type is grassland and Riversidian alluvial fan scrub. B. General: The purpose of the development agreement is to proceed with the plans for the development of the residential project and to assist the applicant in the creation of financing mechanisms for infrastructure, which will be constructed in cooperation (as defined in the development agreement) with the City. The following summarizes the main points of the proposed Development Agreement: · Density. The City's General Plan designation is Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The development has an average density of 3.31 dwelling units per acre. · Desiqn Standards. The architectural guidelines adopted for the development will give an identifiable character to the project. The architectural guidelines are consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The guidelines are incorporated herein by reference into the Development Agreement as the Rancho Etiwanda (Etiwanda North Specific Plan Architectural Guidelines). All residential units and commemial development (architecture and site layout) will be subject to the City's design review process as outlined in the Development Agreement. · Fees. The applicant will pay all the usual City fees. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. July 26, 2000 Page 3 · Parks. The applicant will construct a new lO-acre neighborhood park within the development. · Schools. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the Etiwanda School District to allow for the construction of a new elementary school within the development. · Reimbursement. The applicant may (as described in the development agreement) request partial reimbursement for certain traffic and circulation improvements, which will benefit other property owners in the vicinity. · Special Districts. The development agreement will require the participation in special districts as needed to provide infrastructure for development, including Landscape Maintenance Districts. · Financinq. The City will cooperate with the applicant in the formation of special districts and other financing mechanisms. · Term. The term of the agreement is for ten years. C. Comments from the public: On July 3, 2000, the Planning Division received a letter from Mr. Jeffrey L. Pierson, Intex Properties Inland Empire, L.P. (Intex) expressing a major concern regarding a proposed land use change (from commemial to residential) within the University Planned Development Project, (see Exhibit "A"). Intex owns three parcels of land within University Planned Development Project. Two parcels of land are located at the northwest and southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street; the third pamel of land is located west of Day Creek Boulevard on the north side of Summit Avenue. Mr. Pierson indicates that they have not reviewed or approved any documents (Development Agreement) negotiated between the City and U.C.P., Inc. However, on Mamh 22, 2000, (see Exhibit "B") Mr. Pierson was present at a meeting between the City and U.C.P., Inc. More than 4 months have passed since that meeting and Mr. Pierson or any other representative from Intex have contacted the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding the status of the negotiations with U.C.P., Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project and certified by the County of San Bernardino on October 26, 1999. On November 29, 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga commenced a judicial challenge to the Board of Supervisors certification of the SEIR by filing an action entitled "The City of Rancho Cucamonga v. the County of San Bernardino and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino. In June 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, and the project proponent reached a conditional settlement agreement. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is identified as a responsible agency regarding the development of the Project pursuant to CEQA and the Notice of Preparation of the SEIR was served on the City as such responsible agency. However, the City is the lead agency as regards to the processing of the development agreement. The City as a responsible agency under CEQA for the Project end as lead agency for the development agreement has prepared an addendum to the SEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 and 15164 to address the refinements of the Project as set forth in the development agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DA 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. July 26, 2000 Page 4 FACTS FOR FINDING: The Planning Commission may make the following findings for Development Agreement 00-02: A. The intended development is compatible with the surrounding development in the area. B. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and Certified by the County Board of Supervisors, and augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as legally sufficient for the University Planned Development Project. C. The project is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval by the City Council of 1) Development Agreement 00-02, and 2) City Council Resolution affirming the EIR and SEIR certified by the County of San Bernardino and as augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SS:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Intex Properties Exhibit "B" - Attendance List from Mamh 22, 2000 meeting Exhibit "C" - Site Map Exhibit "D" - Initial Study and Addendum Exhibit "E" - Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SCH #88082915 and #98121091) Environmental Documents (provided under separate cover) Resolution Recommending Adoption of Ordinance and City Council Resolution INTEX PROPERTIES INLAND EMPIRE, L. P. June 27, 2000 MR. BRAD BULLER R k2 c~ ~ ~ V l: D CITY PLANNER PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JlJl_ 0 $ ~ P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Cit,, ~ --'?~ Cucamon~c )k, ision Re: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING RANCHO ET1WANDA/UNIVERSITY PROJECT Addendum to Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement 00-02- UCP, Inc. Dear Brad: We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing to be held on July 12, 2000, regarding the above referenced project. Although we are somewhat familiar with the general nature of project entitlements currently proposed by U. C. P., Inc. for their Rancho Etiwanda planned development, we have not had the opportunity to analyze the impacts to our property resulting from your latest negotiations. Due to travel outside of the United States, we are unable to address the Planning Commission on the scheduled date for public heating, and hereby reserve the tight to address our concerns at subsequent Commission and/or Council public heatings. Of major concern to Intex is modifying the current land entitlements gained through the County of San Bernardino. Specifically, the five-acre parcel located at the northwest quadrant of the future Banyon Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard intersection. We wish that this parcel's land use remain as General Commercial. Since we have not reviewed or approved any documents developed through the current negotiations between the City and U. C. P., Inc., we reserve our tights to contest, in public hearing, modifications to land use which may create negative financial or operational impacts to our property holdings. We appreciate your consideration on this matter. initial study/addendum revised university project environmental impact report city of rancho cucamonga san bernardino county, california LSA Project No. CRG031 submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10t~ Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92562 909.781.9310 LSA June 26, 2000 ~ 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6/26/00(( dev_agreem cnt_is-tocl:\PLANNING\Sal\dcv_agreemcnt_is.~oc.wpd~ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-1 1.2 pREvIous ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 1~1 1.3 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM 1-2 1.4 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 1-4 1.5 CONTACT PERSONS 1-4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS 2-1 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-4 3.0 INITlAL STUDY 3-1 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 3-1 3.2 EXPLANATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 3- 14 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES/PERSON AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 4-1 LIST OF FIGURES I - Vicinity Map 2-2 2 - Revised University Project 2-3 6/26/00<<dcv_agreement_is-t ocl ~PLANNING~Sal\dev_agrecmem_is4oc.wpd~ iii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IM]?ACT REPORT ENITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This Initial Study/Addendum is an addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) State Clearinghouse No. 88082915 certified by the County of San Bernardino in June of 1991 for the University/Crest PD and the Supplemental EIR State Clearinghouse No. 98121091 certified by the County of San Bernardino on October 26, 1999 for the Revised University Project. These documents, together with all other technical studies and environmental documents incorporated by reference herein, serve as the environmental review of the proposed project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent to approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the Supplemental EIR the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and U.C.P. Incorporated (property owner) have agreed to enter into a Development Agreement (Appendix A). This addendum addresses potential environmental impacts which may occur as a result of the Development Agreement (and corresponding modifications to the Revised University Project). Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency, and is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed project (modifications to the Revised University Project as set forth in the Development Agreement). As pan of the decision making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from the modification of mitigation measures included in the Final EIR and Supplemental EIR prepared for the project site. This EIR Addendum addresses potential impacts which may result from development of the Revised University Project site, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION In June of 1991, the San Bemardino County Board of Supervisors certified the Environmental Impact Report for the University/Crest Project Planned Development, PUD No. W121-49 (University/Crest PD). The University/Crest PD entitlements combined two separately owned properties with 1,238 residential units, commercial, school, park, and open space uses. On October 26, 1999, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved the Revised Preliminary Development Plan W121-49 (Revised University Project), and a Minor General Plan Amendment and zone change. The Revised University Project modified previous entitlements to the University/Crest PD. These modifications included: separating the University portion of the University/Crest PD from the Crest portion; adding 64 acres of former Southern California Edison (SCE) property to the project; increasing the number of dwelling units from 575 to 685; revising project design; increasing the size of school and park sites; and modifying the location and size of commercial uses. The Revised University Project eliminated a 675-acre space area from the project, and provided land and funds to provide and maintain for off-site open space. The County certified as accurate, adequate, and complete the Supplemental EIR which provided environmental evaluation of the impacts associated 6/26/00~dev_agreem ent_isl:\PLANNING~Sal\dev_agreemenLis.wpd~) 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. with the Revised University Project on October 26, 1999. At this time, the County adopted Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1.3 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUD Y/ADDENDUM Pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Sl[udy/Addendum has been prepared in order to determine whether development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will result in a change in circumstances, new impacts, or new information of substantial importance requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This addendum reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Supplemental EIR was certified. It l~rther examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed project The focus of the examination is on whether the Supplemental EIR adequately addresses the impacts associated with development of the Revised University Project as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. Pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines, the City's environmental review of thc proposed project is limited to examining the environmental effects associated with the changes between thc previously certified Supplemental EIR and the impacts which may result from implementation of applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. This focus is due to the fact that the Supplemental EIR has already addressed thc environmental impacts of the development of the Revised University Projoct, and the San Bemardino County Board of Supervisors certified that the Supplemental EIR was adequate and met the provisions of CEQA. Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Section t 5164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions arc necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the State CEQA .Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change m a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: 1. The change in the projoct is substantial. Substantial changes in the project arc those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or ifa substantial increase in thc severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. 2. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR in order to describe and analyze new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 6F26/00<( dev_agreement_isl :\PLANNING\Sal\dcv_agrccmem_is.wpd>~ 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at thc time the previous E]R was certified, shows: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on thc environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. If none of the above conditions are met, the City is not permitted to require preparation of a subsequent EIR. Rather, the City may require preparation ora Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Addendum, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary. This Initial Study/Addendum has evaluated each of thc issues addressed in the Supplemental EIR, as well as each of the issues contained in the checklist presented in Section 3.0 of this document. Based on this analysis and the information contained herein, there is no evidence that the proposed project requires major changes to the Supplemental EIR. Comparison of the previous project with the proposed project, as described in Section 2.3 of this document, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. This Initial Study/Addendum relies on use of an Environmental Checklist Form (Form), as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form is used: X To evaluate whether or not there are any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the Development Agreement; and X To review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, or if an Addendum is appropriate. Section 3.0 of this document contains the Checklist Form and explains the basis for each response to the questions on the Form. 1.4 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. 6/26/00<< dev_agreement_isl:\PLANNINO\Sal\dev_agreemcnLis.wpd)) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. The documents outlined in this section are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study/Addendum, where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Crest Project (SCttNo, 98121091), LSA Associates, lnc., April 15, 1999 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Project (SCH No. 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., July 21, 1999 Final Biological Surveys for the University Planned Development and Adjacent Parcels, San Bernardino County, California, Harmsworth Associates, July 28, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W121-49 SCH No. 88082915, Environmental Perspectives, August 1989 1.5 CONTACT PERSONS The Lead Agency for thc Initial Study/Addendum for Revised University Project is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Any questions about the preparation of this Initial Study/Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should bc referred to: Salvador Salazar, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: (909) 477-2750 6/26/00(< dev_agr eem ent_isl:\PLANNING\Sal\dev_agrcement_is.wpd>> 4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING The proposed project entails modifications to thc previously entitled Revised University Project as outlined in the Development Agreement. Implementation of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. The Revised University Project site is situated in unincorporated San Bernardino County, adjacent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Figure 1). The site is bounded on the north by the Crest portion of the previously approved University/Crest PD, on the west by a SCE utility corridor, on the south by Highland Avenue, and on the east, south of Wilson Avenue, by Hanley Avenue (Figure 2). The project site is located west of the Devore Freeway (I-15) and north of both the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), and the future State Route 30 (SR-30) in western San Bernardino County. 2.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARYACTIONS Approval of the Development Agreement by City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Approval of the Development Agreement by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the development of the University Project Site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. Provisions of the Development Agreement which may result in impacts not identified in the Supplemental EIR include the following: Section 2(B): The extension of City street improvement, lighting, storm drain landscape, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to uses within the project site; Section 2(C)(l)(a)(ii): The extension of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design criteria to commercial uses located within Area "G;" Section 2(C)(2): The design of the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape shall be modified to be consistent with the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape south of the project site and/or substantially consistent with the City's Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan; Section 2(C)(3): Provision by the Property Owner of funding and/or construction necessary to improve Banyan Avenue from the existing SCE easement, through to Rochester Avenue; Section 2(C)(5): Reviewand approval by the City of slopes within all landscape maintenance districts and adherence to City standards for slopes in excess of 12.5 feet in height; I - Project Location 6f26/00<<dcv_agreement_isl:\PLANNING\Sal\dcv_agrcemcnLis.wpd~ 1 ts^ ^SSOC~^TES, ,.c. 2 - Rev:ised University Project 6,'26/00<< dev_agrcement_isl:\PLANNING~Sal\dev_agreement_is.wpd~ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Section 2(C)(8): The installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City trail system; Section 2(C)(9)(c): Modifications to type, extent, location, and/or timing of circulation improvements included in the Revised University Project; and Section 2(D)(I): The timing and funding of circulation improvements to Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and the timing and extent of development of the park site. 2.4 EXISTING CONDITIONSThe project site remains vacant and undeveloped. Existing physical conditions have not changed since approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the Supplemental EIR in October of 1999. 6/26/00<(dcv_agr¢¢ment_isl:\PLANNING\Sal\dev_agreement_is.wpd~) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC 3.0 INITIAL STUDY 3.1 ENV1RONMENT. dI., CHECKLIST FORM The following pages contain the Environmental Checklist Form (Form) for the proposed project. The Form is marked with findings as to the environnental effects of the project. A checked box in columns 1, 2, or 3 shall require additional environmental analysis in the form of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. A checked box in columns 4, 5, or 6 shall require preparation of a mitigated negative declaration, a negative declaration, or an addendum. As explained in Section 1.0, this analysis has been undeCtaken, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, to provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the factual basis for determining, based on the information available, the form of environmental documentation the project warrants. The basis for each of the findings listed in the attached Form is explained in Section 3.2, Environmental Analysis and Explanation of Checklist Responses. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 6/26/00<(dev_agreement_isl:\PLANNING~Sal\dev_agr~emcnt_is.wpd)~ 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, tNC ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 6f2 6/oo<(dev_agrcem ent_isl:\PLANNING\Sal\dcv_agreement_is.wpd)) 2 1. Project Title: Development Agreement for the Revised University Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Salvador Salazar (909) 477-2750 4. Project Location: The Revised University Project site is situated in unincorporated San Bemardino County, adjacent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site is bounded on the north by the Crest portion of the previously approved University/Crest PD, on the west by a SCE utility conidor, on the south by Highland Avenue, and on the east, south of Wilson Avenue, by Hanley Avenue. The project site is located west of the Devore Freeway (I-15) and north of both the San Bemardino Freeway (I-10), and the future SR-30 in western San Bemardino County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: U.C.P., Incorporated 5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D Anaheim, CA 92807 Ben Anderson, Senior Vice President (714) 693-6700 6. General Plan Designation: Planned Development (PD) (San Bernardino County designation) 7. Zoning: WF/PD-3/1; WF/I2q (San Bemardino County designations) 8. Description of the Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.): The proposed project is the development of the University Project Site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. Provisions of the Development Agreement which may result in impacts not identified in the Supplemental EIR include the following: · Section 2(B): The extension of City street improvement, lighting, storm drain landscape, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to uses within the project site; · Section 2(C)(1)(a)(ii): The extension of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design criteria to commercial uses located within Area "G;" · Section 2(C)(2): The design of the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape shall be modified to be consistent with the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape south of the project site and/or substantially consistent with the City's Day Creek Boulevard Master; · Section 2(C)(3): Provision by the Property Owner of funding and/or construction necessary to improve Banyan Avenue from the existing SCE easement, through to Rochester Avenue; 6/26~00,xdev_ag~eement_isI:XPLANNING~ahdev_ag~eement_is.wpd>> 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Section 2(C)(8): The installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City trail system; · Section 2(C)(9)(c): Modifications to type, extent, location, and/or timing of circulation improvements included in the Revised University Project; and · Section 2(D)(I): The timing and funding of circulation improvements to Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and the timing and extent of development of the park site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surrounding.): The property west of the southern extension of Hanley Avenue and north of Highland Avenue in the City of Rancho Cueamonga has a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet (minimum lot average of 10,000 square feet). Lots to the east of this area south of Banyan Avenue and north of Highland Avenue have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (minimum lot average of 25,000 square feet). Lots north of Banyan Avenue, east of Hanley Avenue and south of Wilson Avenue have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (minimum lot average of 25,000 square feet). Properties to the north of Wilson Avenue adjacent to the northern SCE easement of the revised University Project have a minimum of 7,200-squar~ foot lots (minimum lot average of 10,000 square feet). Lots to the south of Highland Avenue, also in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are planned for 3,000- to 7,200-square-foot sizes, and lots to the west of Day Creek Channel are planned for a minimum of 7,200 square feet. 10. Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). The following list is not exhaustive, and contains the approvals and permits that may be necessary based on the best available data at the time the Initial Study was prepared. Approval of the Development Agreement by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Approval of the Development Agreement by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council Determination: (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: The City finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ The City finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The City finds the proposed project May have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to addressed. 6/26/oo(~dev_agreem ent_isl:\PLANNING\Sal\dcv_ag~eement_is.wpd)~ The City finds that changes to the project or the cimumstances under which the project would be undertaken require major revisions to the previous EIR in order to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in accordance with Public Resoumes Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. The City finds that changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken require only minor revision to the previous EIR in order to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in accordance with Public Resources Code Segtion 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUPPLEMENTAL E1R shall be prepared. The City finds that the significant effects that would result from the proposed project have been .addressed in an earlier EIR, and that none of the determinations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established. Thus, an ADDENDUM to the University/Crest Supplemental EIR shall be prepared. Signature Date Title Agency Evaluation of Environmental Impacts This Initial Study/Addendum uses an Environmental Checklist Form (Form) to compare the anticipated environmental effects of the project with those disclosed in the previous EIR and to review whether any of the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR are met. The Form is used to review the potential environmental effects of the proposed project for each of the following areas: Aesthetics X Agricultural Resources X Air Quality X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils X . Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality X Land Use/Planning X Mineral Resources X Noise X Population/Housing X Public Services X Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Cumulative Impacts (This Checklist Form topic is discussed in Section 3.0- Initial Study, Subsection 3.2 - Environmental Analysis, under heading 16 [Mandatory Findings of Significance]). 6F26/00~( dev_agrecm ellt_iSl:\PLANNING~Sal\dev_agrecmcnt._is.wpd~> LSA ASSOCIATES, INC This Initial Study/Addendum is based on an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form includes a checklist to indicate whether the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines that would require a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met, and whether there are new significant impacts resulting from the project. The Form is found in Section 3.0 of this Initial Study/Addendum. It contains a series of questions about the project for each of the areas. Following the Checklist Form in Section 3.2 is an explanation for each answer on the Form. There are six possible responses to each of the questions included on the Form: 1. Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major Revision of Previous E1R. This response is used when the project has changed to such an extent that major revisions of the previous EIR are required due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial Change in Circumstances under which Project is Undertaken Requiring Major Revision of Previous EIR. This response is used when the circumstances under which the project is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions of the previous EIR are required because such changes would result in the project having new significant environmental effects or would substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New Information of Substantial Importance Showing New or Greater Significant Effects Than Identified in Previous EIR. This response is used when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified in, shows that the project would have a new significant environmental effect or more severe significant effect than identified in the previous EIR. 4. New Information of Substantial Importance Showing Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impacts Identified in Previous EIR. This response is used when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows: A. The significant environmental effects of the project could be substantially reduced through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatives that although previously found to be infeasible are in fact now feasible, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; or B. The significant environmental effects of the project could be substantially reduced through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR, but the project proponent declines to adopt them. 5. Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or Circumstances and No New Information That Would Require the Preparation ora Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. This response is used when 1) the potential impact of the project is determined to be below known or measurable thresholds of significance and would not require mitigation, or 2) there are no changes in the project or circumstances and no new information that would require the preparation of a 6/26/O04(dev_agreement_isl:\PLANNING~Sal\dev_agreemenLis.wod)) LSA ASSOCIATES, I~C subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 6. No Impact. This response is used when the proposed project does not have any measurable environmental impact. The Form and accompanying evaluation of the responses provide the information and analysis upon which the City of Rancho Cucamonga may make its determination that no subsequent EIR may be required for [he project. 6/26/00(< dev_agr eement_isl:\PLANNING~Sal\dev_agrcement_is.wpd>> LSA ASSOCIATES, tNC ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST I 2 3 4 5 1SSUES: Significant 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 't~ 't~ 'l~ '~ 't~ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, '~ 'l~ ~ -~ 't~ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and h storc bud ngs within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ '~ ~ -~ ~ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 't~ -~ -t~ 't~ ~ which would adversely affect day or nighRime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ~ '~ 't~ '~ '~ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricuhural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural usc 't~ 't~ '~ ~ 't~ or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing 't~ 't~ -~ '~ '~ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ~ ~ '~ ~ 2~ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ~ '~ '~ -~ -~ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ~ ~ '~ '~ 't~ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ~ ~ '~ '~ 't~ substantial number of people? 6/26/00<(dev_agreement_isl:LOLANNINGLSal\dcv_agreemenLis.wod)~ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC 4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habil;at modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state hab tat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15O64.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on thc most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LSA ASSOCIATES, INC c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18ol-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemmant Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ama, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site? d) Substantially alter the existi.ng drainage pattern of the site or an.'a, including through the alteration of the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted ranntT? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a ] O0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Bounda~ or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures wh c ~ wou d mpede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flood ng as a resu t of the failure ora levee or dam? j) Inandat on by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Phys c. ally divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? LSA ASSOCIATES. [NC b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1 I. NOISE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ama, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other-performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 14. RECREATION -- LSd. ASSOCIATES. INC. a) Would the project increase thc use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such tlaat substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traflic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supper:lng alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. UTI]L,ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause s gn ficant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE LSA ASSOCLATES, INC. a). POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE: Does the project 't~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~, have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b). CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Does the project '~ ~ ~t~ -~ ~ j~[ have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively cons retable? ("Cumu anve y considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) ADVERSE IMPACTS ON x~ '~ -~ -~ -~ ~ HUMANS: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human be- ings, either d rectly or indirectly? 18. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E1R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) X Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Crest Project (SCH No, 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., April 15, 1999 X X Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Project (SCH No. 98121091}, LSA Associates, Inc., July 21, 1999 X X Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W121-49 SCH No. 88082915, Environmental Perspectives, August 1989 X 3.2 EXPLANATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS CHECKLIST l. Aesthetics. Would the ProjecL.. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Mitigation measures adopted with the Final EIR designated SR-30 as a scenic corridor. Adherence to applicable Revised University Project and City of Rancho Cucamonga development and/or design standards will reduce potential adverse impacts within the SR-30 viewshed. There are no other scenic highways or vistas that would be affected by development on site. Therefore, no impacts related to scenic vistas or highways will occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Final EIR does not identify any on-site scenic resources, therefore, development of the Revised University Project, as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, no damage to scenic resources will take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. c) }Fould the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and ,its surroundings? No Impa'ct. The proposed project pertains to implementation of the Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the project applicant. Development within the project site will be subject to applicable provisions of the Revised University Project Entitlements and City of Rancho Cucamonga standards (as outlined in the Development Agreement). Implementation of the Development Agreement will ensure the consistency and continuity of design, landscaping, and development standards within the City and would, therefore, have a beneficial effect. No degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the project site would occur. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. As stated in the Development Agreement, City of Rancho Cucamonga lighting standards will apply throughout the project site. Development of the Revised University Project, as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no new source of light or glare beyond that identified in previous environmental documents will be created. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics. Addendum Determinations Major E1R Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised IJniversity Project. No Substtmtial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This lnitial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 2. Agricultural Resources. Would the Project.. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Revised University Project envisions development of residential and eommemial uses and community facilities within the project site. The project site has not been used for agricultural purposes and is not viewed as an agricultural resource. No agricultural use of land within the project site is planned. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the mix of planned uses on the project site; therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter current on-site or planned land uses. No impact related to this issue will occur. c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion o f farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not currently used for agricultural production. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural resources. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major E1R Revisions There i.'; no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplen~tental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revision!; of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 3. .4ir Quality. Would the ProjecL.. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions will occur. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. Impacts associated with this issue not identified in the Final and Supplemental EIRs will not occur. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of he Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions beyond that estimated in previous environmental documents will occur. In addition, modifying the schedule for traffic/circulation improvements may decrease the amount of local traffic congestion, which could result in a decrease in the number and/or level of CO hotspots. Such a decrease would result in a beneficial impact. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? LSA ASSOCIATES, INC No Impact. Development of the project site will result in short-term increases in dust and construction equipment exhaust emissions and long-term regional increases in mobile and stationary source emissions. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions beyond that estimated in previous environmental documents will occur. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. d) }Yould the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within in the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions beyond that estimated in previous environmental documents will occur. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. The proposed project will not result in impacts which were not identified and addressed in the previous environmental documents. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. e) I~Yould the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Revised University Project envisions development of residential and commercial uses and community facilities within the project site. The proposed project would not generate new odors, in and of itself; however, short-term odor impacts (i.e., diesel fumes, asphalt paving) associated with project construction may occur during construction. These fumes would dissipate quickly, and do not pose a potentially significant odor impact. Commercial and residential uses will be required to adhere to standards which ensure the sanitary and timely disposal of solid waste. Odors associated with these uses would quickly dissipate and would not adversely affect adjacent properties or persons. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in the creation of objectionable odors beyond that identified in previous environmental documents. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for air quality issues. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major E1R Revisions L,~ ASSOC~^~S. ~NC There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addeadum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 4. Biological Resources. Would the ProjecL.. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Revised University Project modified the previously approved University/Crest PD by splitting the project into separate University and Crest PDs. This action resulted in modifications to the University Project site which included adding acreage formerly held by SCE; increasing the number of permitted dwelling units; increasing amount of commercial, school, and park acreage; and revising street alignments and lot configurations. The Revised University Project included Area "H," a linear (former) SCE easement, that extends northeast from the project site. With the exception of Area "H," biological assessments were conducted for the Revised University Project site. No plant and/or animal species classified as"endangered" or "threatened" by state or federal programs were identified on site. The Supplemental EIR contained mitigation measure 4.3.1.C which states,"Until such time as biological habitat studies determine otherwise, the northerly 30 acres of the former SCE easement are presumed to be habitat for species protected by the California and federal endangered species acts, and no development may be permitted." Biological surveys were conducted by Harmsworth Associates in the Spring of 1999. These surveys concluded that the entire Revised University Project site did not support suitable habitat for the Quino Cbeckerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), a federally listed endangered species. In addition, biological surveys of Area"H" did not identify the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (federally designated as"threatened") or the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) (federally listed as "endangered"). No federally or state listed plant species were detected during these biological surveys. The findings of these surveys may be referenced in Appendix B of this document. Because biological surveys conducted prior and subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR did not identify any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species on site, impact development of the project LSA ASSOC ~ATES, INC site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in impacts related to this issue. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communiOJ identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Biological surveys conducted prior to and subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR did not identify impacts associated with his issue. A"blue-line" stream was identified on site. It was determined that this intermittent watercourse did not fit the normal stream/wetlands pattern. The vegetation associated with this stream is Riversidean alluvial sage scrub instead of the typical willow/cottonwood riparian association found for most blue-lined streams. Because of the lack of riparian vegetation, loss of this feature was not deemed significant. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No impact associated with this issue will occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not Hmited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please refer to Response 4(b). d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The Supplemental EIR stated that pattern of commercial and residential development south, east, and west of the Revised University Project site, has lessened the value of the site as a wildlife corridor. The loss of the project site as a potential wildlife corridor was determined to be a less than significant impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental EIR will not occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Please refer to Responses 4(d) and 4(t). Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural CommuniOJ Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Subsequent to approval of the University/Crest PD in 1991, the County of San Bemardino established the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) (1994). This program seeks to establish open space areas and to provide connections between open space within a 7,243-acre area located north of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Revised University Project site is located within the NEOSHPP program area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental EIR will not occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources. Addendum Determinations Major 1~TR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant enviromnental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing ~lbility to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 5. Cultural Resources. Would the Project... a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. This condition is similar to that which existed at the time the University/Crest Final EIR and Revised University Project Supplemental EIR were certified in 1991 and 1999 (respectively). While the University/Crest PD Final EIR stated the subject property and surrounding area are highly sensitive for historic resources, moderately sensitive for historic structures, and have a low sensitivity for prehistoric remains relative to the presence of cultural materials, no such resoumes where identified on site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within LSA ASSOCIATES, tNC the project site. Development within the project site will be required to adhere to applicable local, state and federal requirements pertaining to the identification, preservation and/or disposition of historical resoumes. Because no historic resoumes were previously identified on site, development of the project site as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historic resource. No impact related to this issue will occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. Thiscondition is similar to that which existed at the time of the University/Crest Final EIR and Revised University Project Supplemental EIR were certified in 1991 and 1999 (respectively). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Development within the project site will be required to adhere to applicable local, state and federal requirements pertaining the identification, preservation and/or disposition of archaeological resources. Because no archaeological resources were previously identified on-site, development of the project site as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historic resource. No impact related to this issue will occur. 0 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. This condition is similar to that which existed at the time the University/Crest Final EIR and Revised University Project Supplemental EIR were certified in 1991 and 1999 (respectively). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisionsof the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. The 1991 Final EIR included Mitigation Measure No. 73 which mandated the retention of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prior to the issuance of grading permits. This mitigation was carried forward in the Supplemental EIR. Because the proposed project will not result in a change in the type or scale of uses, and development of the Revised University Project will adhere to applicable provisions of Mitigation Measure No. 73, no impact associated with this issue will occur. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The 1991 Final EIR and Supplemental EIR did not identify on-sita human remains. Development of the Revised University Project, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in changes to the type or scale of permitted uses. Because on-site human remains have not been identified prior or subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR, and because development within the project site will be required to adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations, standards and guidelines pertaining to the identification, preservation and/or disposition of human remains, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to cultural resources. Addendum Determinations Major EiR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environn'tental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental E1Rs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 6. Geology and Soils. Would the Project.. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Development of the project site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses. As stated in the Supplemental EIR, the Revised University Project site does not lie in a fault zone area. No further impacts associated with this issue are anticipated. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking? No Impact. Development of the project site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter thc type or scale of permitted uses. As stated in the previously approved Supplemental EIR, development of the Revised University Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. Therefore, implementation of the Development Agreement will not result in ground shaking impacts greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, unconsolidated, water laden soils are subject to shaking, causing the soils to lose cohesion. The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a project site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity, sufficient groundwater (within 40 feet of the ground surface) to cause high pore pressures, and on the grain size, plasticity, relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the project site. Groundwater depths at the project site are approximately 250 feet below ground level. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site, or significantly affect local groundwater levels. Therefore, no impact greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. iv) Landslides? No Impact. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 1,500 feet at the south end of the site to approximately 1,850 feet along the northern project boundary. The project site is relatively flat, sloping generally to the south at an overall gradient of approximately 5 percent. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(5) requires City review and approval of selected slopes within the project site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Adherence to City standards pertaining to slope design will not result in impacts greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The soils identified on the project site have a slight potential for wind or water erosion. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Construction activities in thc project area would not increase this potential beyond that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. No further impacts are anticipated. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. Please Refer to Responses 6(a)(iii), 6(a)(iv) and 6(d). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. As stated in the LSA ASSOCIATES, previously approved Supplemental EIR, development of the Revised University Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. No impacts greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table lgl-B of the UniJbrm Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or proper~y? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. The geotechnical report prepared for the Supplemental EIR addressed impacts associated with expansive soils and identified requirements that related to grading operations. These requirements will be incorporated into the grading operations as required to obtain the necessary grading permits. No impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks 'or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The site is not currently served by sanitary sewers. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Wastewater flows will be conveyed to facilities operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the planned method of waste water disposal. Because the Revised University Project will not utilize septic or alternative methods of wastewater disposal, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related geology and/or soils. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. LSA ASSOC[ATES, INC. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substattially reduce one or more &the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the Project.. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no impact related to this issue greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please refer to Response 7(a). c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact/No New Information or Changed Circumstances Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Revised University Project includes a 6.44-acre elementary school site. Construction and occupation of proposed on-site land uses will result in the generation of air emissions from motor vehicles, construction equipment, and commercial uses. The Supplemental EIR identified and mitigated air quality impacts resulting from the construction and occupation of on-site uses. Development of the project site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, no increase in the level of air pollutants or in the frequency and/or amount of hazardous material transport, sale, or storage is anticipated. Because these factors remain unchanged, no impacts beyond those identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? LSA ASSOCIA~TES, INC. No Impact. The Final and Supplemental EIRs did not identify any ba?~rdous materials site within the bou~daries of the Revised University Project site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Developers of the project site will adhere to applicable local, State, and federal standards related to the identification, remediation and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impa~:t related to this issue will occur. e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safe~y hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Revised University Project site is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of Ontario International Airport, 8.0 miles west of Rialto Municipal Airport, and 8.5 miles northeast of Cable Airport (Upland). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alterthe type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Please refer to Response 7(e). g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less thtm Signi~cant Impact/No New Information or Changed Circumstances requiring Preparation of an EII~ The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(I) specify the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Compliance with emergency access requirements of the San Bemardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), San Bemardino County Sheriffs's Department (SBSD), and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga will ensure that emergency response to the site will not be hampered. Therefore, no impact beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. A combination of climate, topography, vegetation, and development pattern can create fire risks in the vicinity of the Revised University Project. The project site is currently vegetated with a variety of weeds, annual grasses, shrubs, and other forms of plant material. This vegetation will be removed to allow for the construction of homes, commercial sites, and community facilities. Ail new construction will comply with applicable standards of the Uniform Fire Code, regulations of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and/or City of Rancho Cucamonga. No impact beyond that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. LSA ASSOCIA"TES. lNG. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazards or hazardous materials. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This lnitial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental E1R The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. & Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the Project... a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. Development within the project will adhere to applicable provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue will be no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC b) Sub'.~tantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groa~ndwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses orplanned uses for which permits have been granted) ? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of water required to service the project site or the amount of impermeable surfaces is anticipated. Therefore, development of the project site will not :result in impacts related to groundwater supply and/or recharge beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. Therefore, substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR will not Occur. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in .flooding on-or off-site? No Impact. The Revised University Project includes on-site storm water facilities that will be designed, installed, and maintained to adequately handle the ultimate drainage anticipated for the area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. Therefore, no impact greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. No significant increase in the amount of impermeable surfaces is anticipated. Development within the project will adhere to applicable provisions of the NPDES permit as required by the RWQCB. No impact beyond that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. 99 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Please refer to Response 8(e). g) Place housing within a lO0-year .flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact will occur. LSAASSOCIATES, INC. h) Place withln a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. Refer to Response 8(g). 0 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The Revised University Project includes on-site storm water facilities that will be installed and maintained to adequately handle the ultimate drainage anticipated for the area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. The risk of exposing persons or structures to flooding hazards through the construction and occupation of on-site uses is no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to coastal waters, on large, contained bodies of water. Therefore, impacts resulting from either a tsunami or seiche will not occur. The project site is relatively flat, sloping generally to the south at an overall gradient of approximately 5 percent. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(5) requires City review and approval of selected slopes within the project site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Adherence to City standards pertaining to slope design will not result in impacts greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to hydrology and water quality. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major E1R Revisions 3-v 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revision.,; of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the Project.. a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Because the project site is currently undeveloped, no disruption of an established community will occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the owners of the Revised University Project permits development of the project site as entitled. Selected provisions of the Development Agreement require adherence to City standards, regulations and guidelines, modify the extent and scheduling of circulation improvements, or permit the City to apply new ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies to the project site. Adherence to City of Rancho Cucamonga standards, regulations and guidelines will result in a pattern of development which is consistent with adjacent properties. The consistency of standards resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement will provide a beneficial impact to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communiO~ conservation plan? No Impact. Subsequent to approval of the University/Crest PD in 1991, the County of San Bemardino established the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) (1994). This program seeks to establish open space areas and to provide connections between open space within a 7,243-acre area located north of the City of Rancho LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Cucamonga. The Revised University Project site is located within the NEOSHPP program area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental E1R will not occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use or planning. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 10. Mineral Resources. I~ould the Project... a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Final and Supplemental EIRs did not identify any on-site energy or mineral resources. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impact associated with this issue will occur. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC b) Resalt in the loss of ava/lability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Please refer to Response 10(a). Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new ~md/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral resources. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. Il. Nois~ [9buld the Project.. a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Final EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with development of the Revised University Project and provided mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses LS^ ~,SSOC~^r~s, ~Nc. within the project area; therefore, no increase in commercial, residential, construction and/or traffic related noise is anticipated. No impact related with this issue will occur. b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project area; therefore, the amount of on-site construction activity will remain unchanged. No increase in the amount of groundborne noise or vibration is anticipated. No impact related to this issue will occur. c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. Please refer to Response 1 l(a). d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. Please refer to Response 1 l(a). e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Revised University Project site is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of Ontario International Airport, 8.0 miles west of Rialto Municipal Airport, and 8.5 miles northeast of Cable Airport (Upland). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled,subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impact associated with this issue will occur. )9 If within the-vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. Please refer to Response 1 l(e). Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for noise related issues. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. LSA ASSOCtATES, ~NC. No Subs~antial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is: no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing ~4bility to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 12. Population and Housing. Would the ProjecL.. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? No Impact. Development under the Revised University Project will result in the development of sing}e-family residential units, and the installation of roadways, utilities, and community facilities. Impacts resulting from this development have been identified and, if necessary, mitigated for in the Final and Supplementa~ EIRs. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase would take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of e~cisting housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, persons or housing will not be displaced. No impact related to this issue will occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please refer to Response 12(b). Refined Project Mitigation Measures LSA ASSOCIATES, INC Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to population and housing. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental E1R This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental ElR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR 13. Public Services. Would the Project... a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site, therefore no increase in the demand for fire protection services will take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. ii) Police protection? LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no increase in the demand for police protection services will take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. iii) Schools? No Imp~ct. The Supplemental EIR stated, "Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residence, the developer shall pay school fees pursuant to Government Code 65995." Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase will take place. Demand for school services and facilities will be similar to that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No impact associated with this issue will occur. iv) Parks? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase will take place. Demand for park facilities will be similar to that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No impact associated with this issue will occur. v) Other public facilities? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no increase in the demand for library, medical, or social services will take place. No additional maintenance burden of public facilities is anticipated. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of public services. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised lJniversity Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions LSA ASSOCIATES, INC There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental E1R The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR 14. Recreation. Would the Project... a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase will take place. Demand for park facilities will be similar to that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Does the project include recreatlonal facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(8), requires the installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City of Rancho Cucamonga trail system. The location and construction of these paseos shall be in substantial conformance with "Exhibit L" and "Exhibit L-I" of the Development Agreement and/or approved by the City's Trail Committee. The construction and maintenance of these paseos will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site and, therefore, will not have an adverse effect of the environment. The Revised University Project included a 10-acre park site. Section 2(D)(2) of the Development Agreement specifies the extent and timing of park improvements, but does not entail actions which would have an adverse effect on the physical environment. No impact related to this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of recreational facilities. Addendum Determinations LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Major lq'IR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Sub&~antial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is; no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time theFinal and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 15. Transportation/Traffic. Would the ProjecL.. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (~, result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Because the type and intensity of development remains unchanged from that identified in the Supplemental EIR, no increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratios, or congestion on local roadways is anticipated. No impact related to this issue will occur. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. As noted in Response 15(a), no increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratios, or congestion on local roadways is anticipated as a result of development of the project site (as entitled). Therefore, impacts to level of service standards will be no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(I) specify the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. These modifications to the previously entitled Revised University Project, may improve traffic flow in and adjacent to the project site. Any such improvement would be a beneficial impact. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The Revised University Project does not include an air transportation component. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equlpmenO ? No Impact. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(I) specifies the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site, and will not increase hazards from incompatible uses or design features. Adherence to Development Agreement and mitigation measures included in the Final and Supplemental EIRs will reduce traffic related impact resulting from development of the Revised University Project. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(I) specifies the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Compliance with emergency access requirements of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), San Bernardino County Sheriffs's Department (SBSD), and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga will ensure that emergency response to the site will not be hampered. Therefore, no impact beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impacts associated with this issue were identified in the Final or Supplemental EIRs. Parking for commercial uses and community facilities will be provided per City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. No impact associated with this issue will occur. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The Final EIR includes Mitigation Measure No. 39, requiring that development within the project site shall include transit improvements such as bus shelters, bike storage facilities, benches, and bus pockets in streets. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Because Mitigation Measure No. 39 still applies to development within the project site, no impact related to this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of recreational facilities. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental E1R This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the Project... a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional }Fater Quality Control Board? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, no increase in the amount of wastewater generated by on-site uses will occur. No impact associated with this issue will occur.b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Without a change of uses or an increase in the intensity of development, no increase in the demand for water LSA ASSOCIATES, INC or wastewater treatment will take place. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities orexpansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. The Revised University Project provided a storm drain system. Construction and/or expansion of storm water drainage facilities beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR is not required. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The Revised University Project identified water system improvements which will Provide adequate service to planned on-site uses. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Without a change of uses or an increase in the intensity of development, no increase in the demand for water supply or delivery facilities will occur. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. "~13 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site and would not result in increased sewer flows or increased pressure on existing or planned waste water treatment facilities. Construction and/or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities beyond that identified in the Revised University Project. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site and would not increase the amount of solid waste generated by on-site uses. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Because modifications to the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement, will not result in an increase in the amount of solid waste generated by on-site uses, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of utility services. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required LSA ASSOCIATES, It4C, Based on thc foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to thc Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental I~TR This lnitial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory ? No Impact. As previously stated in Section 4 (Biological Resources), biological surveys conducted prior to and subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR did not identify any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species on site. Impacts associated with riparian areas, migration corridors, or natural community conservation areas were determined not to be significant. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources will be no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No historic, archeological, or paleotological resources have been identified on site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts to historic or cultural resources would be no greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ? No Impact. Cumulative impacts associated with development of the project site have been previously identified in the Supplemental EIR. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Implementation of provisions of the Development Agreement will not result in cumulative impacts which were not identified in the Supplemental EIR. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. Potential impacts associated with development of the Revised University Project have been identified and (where necessary) mitigated for in the Supplemental EIR. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and scale of permitted uses within the project site. Implementation of provisions of the Development Agreement will not cause direct or indirect impacts greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES/PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS This document was prepared under the direct management of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as Lead Agency for the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgement and position regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Lead Agency was assisted by the following outside consultant(s): Lead Consultant LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) Environmental/Planning Consultants Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP, Associate/Project Manager Carl Winter, Environmental Analyst Jennifer Schuk, Graphics Technician Elsa Brewers Word Processor 4.2 REFERENCES Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Crest Project (SCH No, 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., April 15, 1999 Final St~pplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Project (SCH No. 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., July 21, 1999 Final Biological Surveys for the University Planned Development and .4djacent Parcels, San Bernardino County, California, Harmsworth Associates, July 28, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W121-49 SCH No. 88082915, Environmental Perspectives, August 1989 LEGEND ~ Proposed Project Site ~ Northern Element (Day Canyon) ~ Proposed 172 Acm Ol:~n Space ~.._~- ...... :'...: ~ City of Rancho Cucarnonga Mal~ Source: TOPO!~ Wildflowcr Productions, 1998; U.S.GS. 7.5 Min. Quad. Cucamongn Peak, :.: ,~-;..£c~-: :~.i ~ .~ I;, "-~,~.--~,-,. '-. 2/2[/98 (SBE830/lnitial Study) Figure 1.2 o, ,,oo. 4,ooo, Vicinity Map Draft Date7/5/00 CEQA FINDINGS City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Findings Related to The University Crest Planned Development Environmental Impact Report, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Planned Development Project and Addendum in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). UNIVERSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CEQA FINDINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 Il. PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 2 B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 4 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................... 4 A. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING ......................................................................... 5 B. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................... 6 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 7 A. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT REQUIRING NO MITIGATION ....................................................................................... 7 B. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................. 9 C. IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE .......................................................................... 11 V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ 21 VI. PROJECT BENEFITS .................................................................................................................... 24 Vll. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 26 VIll. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 29 Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Effects from The University Planned Development (SCH # 88082915 and 98121091) I. IIVrRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("this Council")in approving The University Planned Development (PD), makes the findings described below and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented at the end of the Findings. The University Planned Development (PD) (the "Project") is a modification to a project previously approved by the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of San Bemardino in June, 1991. The prior project was identified as the University/Crest Planned Development (PD) (the "University/Crest PD"), and at the time of that project approval, the Board certified a Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) 88082915 (the "1991 Final EIR"). In May 1991, the Board approved the addendum to the 1991 Final EIR. Subsequent to the 1991 approval, a portion of the University Crest Development Project was purchased, and in 1998 the new owners made application to the County for approval of the Revised University Project, severing the University portion form the Crest portion of the original University Project. The Board was presented with the Revised University Project ard certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "SEIR") on October 26, 1999 (SCH 98121091). On November 29, 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga commended a judicial challenge to the Board's certification of the SEIR by filling an action entitled "The City of Rancho Cucamonga v. the County of San Bernardino and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, et al" Consolidated Case No. SCVSS 62412, (the Action). The Action challenged the adequacy of the SEIR for the Project on a number of grounds, of which the primary concerns included inadequate traffic impacts analysis, inadequate open space analysis and improper application of the City's zoning standards applicable within its sphere of influence. The City, Board, and the Project proponent have entered into a conditional settlement agreement as regards to the Action. The primary benefits to the City arising from the settlement agreement are (a) the Project proponent's agreement to enter into a development agreement as regards to the Project and (b) the addition of further clarifying language into the SEIR pursuant to an Addendum, as the same is defined in Section 15164 of the Guidelines. Through the settlement agreement, the City and the Project proponent have addressed the City's concerns about potential traffic impacts, and have agreed to modify certain traffic elements, primarily design and timing of construction issues, which address the City's concerns. The City has been advised that the Project proponent is acquiring additional off-site land for perpetual use as open space that addresses the City's other primary concerns. Finally, of additional benefit is the proposal that the Project be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, thus providing further benefits to the City and through the settlement agreement addresses concerns about the City's zoning standards as applied to the Project. These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") prepared for the Project and the addendum which augments the FEIR and SEIR for the Project as regulated by the settlement agreement and the development agreement. The EIR and SEIR were prepared by the County of San Bernardino acting as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The City of Rancho Cucamonga is identified as a responsible agency regarding the development of the Project pursuant to CEQA and the Notice of Preparation of the SEIR. II. PROJECT SU3,11VlARY A. PROJECTDESCRIPTION The site proposed for the Project is located in an unincorporated area of southwestern San Bemardino ICounW, approximately 35 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles northeast of central Orange County. The Project site is located just west Interstate 15 (I-15) and north of the future State Route 30 (SR-30) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence. The City ofRancho Cucamonga is located to the south and east. (SEIR Figures 1.1 & 1.2) The University/Crest PD was approved in 1991 with 1,238 residential units, related commercial development, school, park and open space on 1,111.29 acres. To provide for comprehensive planning and infrastructure efficiency, two separate properties "known as University and Crest" were included under a single land use approval. The University/Crest PD was never developed. The current owner of the University portion, U.C.P. lnc., proposed revisions to reflect the changes in circumstances with regard to ownership, land area, and concept design. The Project provides a detailed plan for residential and commercial development, park, school and open space on 250.67 acres. The specific modifications analyzed in the SEIR were: · Revise the existing University Development Plan of 578 re~dential units, commercial, school, and park on 186.83 acres by: - Adding 64 acres of former SCE property to the project; Increasing the proposed number of dwelling units from 578 to 685; - Modifying the location of proposed commercial uses and adding a new 23 acres of commercial development as shown in Figure 2.3; and _ Increasing the size of the proposed school and park sites from a cumulative total of 11.96 to 18.00 acres. Revise portions of the project design by adding new street alignments, new lot designs,and new lot sizes. All parcels are proposed to be a minimum 7,200 square feet. Transfer to the County of San Bernardino, in fee, of a one-half interest in 172 acres of off- site land for permanent open space purposes, along with funding to provide for the long- term maintenance of the off-site land. Create two stand-alone planned development projects, which will be called the University Planned Development and the Crest Planned Development. Eliminate the 675-acre open space area from the project. Extend Banyan/Summit Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel to connect with Rochester Avenue. Reduce the design standard of Day Creek Boulevard from six lanes to four lands divided from SR-30 to Banyan Avenue, four lanes undivided to Wilson Avenue and two lanes north of Wilson Avenue. The SEIR was to evaluate the potential environmental effects that would result from the development of these modifications to the approved University/Crest PD, according to the requirements of the CEQA. The FSEIR, and subsequent SEIR together with and as clarified by the Addendum was intended to serve as an informational document to be used by the City in its responsible and lead agency role in assessing the environmental effects of the proposed Project, and to provide mitigation measures to avoid or minimize identified significant impacts. The proposed project is the development of the University Project Site as entitled by the County, subject to applicable provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Development Agreement. Provisions of the Development Agreement include the following: · Section 2(B): The extension of City street improvement, lighting, storm drain landscape, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to uses within the project site; · Section 2(C)(l)(a)(ii): The extension of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design criteria to commercial uses located within Area "G;' · Section 2((;)(2): The design of the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape shall be modified to be consistent with the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape south of the project site and/or substantially consistent with the City's Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan; · Section 2(C)(3): Provision by the Property Owner of funding and/or construction necessary to improve Banyan Avenue from the existing SCE easement, through to Rochester Avenue; · Section 2(C)(5): Review and approval by the City of slopes within all landscape maintenance districts and adherence to City standards for slopes in excess of 12.5 feet in height; · Section 2(C)(8): The installation of seven additional "paseos' to provide access to the City trail system; · Section 2(C)(9)(c): Modifications to type, extent, location, and/or timing of circulation improvements included in the Revised University Project; and · Section 2(D)(1): The timing and funding of circulation improvements to Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and the timing and extent of development of the park site. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Project are as follows: Integrate the former utility easement which extended through the boundaries &the original University/Crest PD, the easement was sold by SCE as surplus property to the project proponents, U.C.P. Inc., for incorporation, thereby increasing the project area by 64 acres. Allow for an independent entitlement so that the independently owned University property can be developed separately from the independently- owned Crest property. Modify the prior approval to take into account the changes in off-site urban development. · Increase the amount of acreage provided for the school site. Realign the location of community facilities to achieve a better relationship between these uses. Relocate commemial land uses adjacent to SR-30 in order to take advantage of the proximity to this transportation corridor. Better reflect the current residential development market, and improve the compatibility of proposed development with surrounding communities. Recognize that the 675-acre parcel originally proposed for open space mitigation is not controlled by the owners of the University and Crest properties, has been committed to permanent open space by its current owner as mitigation for a project other than he University/Crest PD, and is no longer part of the University or Crest development projects. Provide substitute off-site permanent open space to replace the 675-acre parcel. Develop the Project in conformance with the design standards within the EtiwandaNorth Specific Plan regulating commercial land uses. · Provide for the timely installation of roadway improvements in conformance with City standards. IlL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The County of San Bemardino has previously conducted an environmental review for this project which included a the FSEIR, the SEIR; including technical repons concerning traffic and circulation impacts; air quality; biological resource and open space impacts, as well a review of the project site's previous environmental documentation. The following is a summary of the County's environmental review for this project: A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study identifying the scope of environmental issues, were distributed to 89 state and federal agencies, and local agencies md organizations on December 21, 1999, and notice was provided through publicatim~ on December 25, 1999, in the San Bemardino Sun. A total of 17 comment lettem were received. Copies of those comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR (under separate cover). Relevant comments received in response to the NOP/lnitial Study were incorporated into the Draft SEIR. · The Draft SEIR was distributed for public review on April 19, 1999, for a 45-day review period with the comment period expiringon June 3, 1999. Seventeen comment letters were received at the close of the public comment period. The specific and general responses to comments are in the Final SEIR. A Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent with the Draft SEIR to the State Clearinghcuse on April 16, 1999, and notice was provided on April 19, 1999, in the following newspaper of general and/or regional circulation: The San Bemardino County Sun The Final SEIR was distributed for a 10-day notification period beginning on July 26, 1999. The San Bemardino County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations on August 19, 1999. Following public testimony, and staff recommendations, the Commission recommended to the Board that the SEIR is adequate and should be certified and that the Board adopt these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the Project. On October 26, 1999, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations. Following public testimony and staff recommendations, the Board certified the SEIR and adopted the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the Project. · On July 26, 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing on the development agreement and recommended the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council approve adoption of the addendum to the SEIR and approve adoption of the ordinance approving the proposed development agreement. A. NDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FIIN-DI~NG San Bemardino County in undertaking the CEQA review of the project solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare a SEIR to the FEIR for the Revised University PD. Subsequently, LSA Associates, Inc., was retained to prepare the SEIR. The SEIR was prepared under the supervision and direction of the County of San Bemardino Land Use Services/Planning Division with the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a responsible agency. The City of Rancho Cucamonga subsequently retained LSA Associates to prepare the Addendum to the FEIR and SEIR. The addendum was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department, Planning Division. Finding: The FEI1L SEIR, and addendum reflect the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised its independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code, Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the addendum to the EIR, SEIR, and addemndum as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant. B. FINDING ON THE EIR, SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND ADDENDUM Finding: The proposed changes to the revised University Planned Development require only minor technical changes or additions to the EIR, SEIR to adequately make the EIR and SEIR apply to the Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the supplemental EIR is the required environmental documentation for the City's consideration of the Project. C. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES In preparing the conditions of approval for this project, the County incorporated the mitgation measures recommended in the FEIR, SEIR. In the event that the conditions of approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the SEIIL in each such instance, the adopted conditions of approval are intended to be identical er substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intended purpose. Additionally, the City has reviewed the conditions of approval and mitigationmeasures applicable to the Project as a result of the County's approval of the University/Crest PD in 1991. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a table comparing their environmental mitigation measures fi.om the 1991 Final EIR to the mitigation measures applicable to the Project. Findings: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, it isthe City's intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the FEIR, SEIR and addendum. Ifa measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR, SEIR and addendum are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures as worded in the FSEIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. Finally, the mitigation measures applicable to the Project have incorporated, or deleted, as necessary, the mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR, as shown on Exhibit "A." Such mitigation from the 1991 Final EIR has been properlyassigned to mitigate the impacts of the Project, or has been deleted because the mitigation is no longer applicable as set forth in Exhibit "A." IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS City and County staff reports, the EIR, SEIR, and addendum, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or hearings, and these Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the DEIR, Draft SEIR and within the addendum. Responses to comments and any revisions or omissions to the Draf~ SEIR are provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final SEIR. The SE1R evaluated throe major environmental categories (traffic and cimulation, air quality, and biological resources/open !;pace resources) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these three environmental categories, the City concurs with the conclusions in the SEIR that the issues and subissues discussed below can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold and for those issues which cannot be nitigated below a level of significance, overriding considerations exist which make impacts acceptable. In addition to the three major environmental categories addressed in the SEIR, twelve other major categories were found to be nonsignificant in the Ini~al Study prepared for the project. The City concurs with the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Drafi SEIR) and finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to those categories identified in fie lnitial Study and no further analysis is required. In addition the City prepared an addendum to the SDEIR to address potential irapacts which may result from development of the Revised University Project site, subject to applicable provisions of the development agreement. A. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN TH~ SEIR AS LESS THAN SIGNIIqCANT REQUIRING NO MITIGATION The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having the potential to cause significant impact and were carried forward to the SEIR for detailed evaluation. These issues were found in the SEIR as having no potential to cause significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. In the following presentation, each resource issue is identified and the potential for significantadverse environmental effects is discussed. 1. BIOLOGICAL AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES a. Plummer's Mariposa Lily Potential Significant Impact: The proposed Project would substantially diminish habitat for the lummer s Mar posa Lily (Calochortus plummerae). Finding: Potential impacts to Plummer's Mariposa Lily are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SEIR. The analysis concluded that, impacts to Plummer's Mariposa Lily brought about by the implementation of the proposed Project would not be significant. No mitigation is required. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The Plummer's Mariposa Lily, a species designated by the California Native Plant Society under CNPS List lB was observed in several locations on the University portion of the site but not within the SCE easement. Currently, this species has no federal or state status but is on a watch list by CNPS which indicates that this species is rare in California and is eligible for state listing. The Biological Survey completed for the SEIR shows that approximately 50 +/- individual plants are located on the University project site, in gravely alluvium and rocky soils. The range of this species extends from Pasadena to Yucaipa, and includes the Etiwanda Wash, where the largest intact population exists. Substantial numbers of this plant are protected within the North Etiwanda Preserve and the loss of 50 +/- individuals is not considered to be significant. Because no plants were found with 64 acre easement acquired from Southern California Edison, which is being added to the previously approved project, no additional mitigation is necessary. b. "Blue-line" stream. Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in the loss of an on-site "blue-line" Finding: Potential impacts to the "blue-line" stream are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SElR. The analysis concluded that the loss of the "blue-line" stream would not be significant due to the lack of riparian vegetation associated with this intermittent watercourse. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: This "blue-line" stream does not fit the normal stream/wetlands pattern. No riparian vegetation was associated with this intermittent watercourse. The vegetation associated with the stream is Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub instead of the typical willow/coaonwood riparian association found for most blue-lined streams. The loss of this intermittent stream course would not result in a loss of streamcourse associated or wetland habitat. Therefore, impacts to the "blue-line" stream are not significant and no mitigation is required. c. Wildlife Movement Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project would interfere with local wildlife movement patterns. X2v'-t 3 8 Finding: Potential impacts to any potential on-site wildlife corridor are discussed in Section 43 of the SEIR. The analysis concluded that the loss of any potential on-site wildlife corridor would not be a significant impact. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The former utility easements which cross the proposed project site were previously identified as potential corridors for the movement of wildlife. The 1991 Final EIR found the quality of habitat in these easements to be degraded. Utility easements directly south of the proposed project site have been sold and are planned for development. The proposed project is located at the southern extreme of the NEOSHPP area and is located directly north and east of commercial and residential development and north of the right-of-way for the future SR-30. The pattern of commercial and residential development in the areas adjacent to the proposed project site lessens the value of the parcel as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project on wildlife corridors is not significant and no mitigation is required. B. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE IVIITIGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES. The following issues from the environmental categories analyzed by the FEIR and SEIR; Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, and Biological/Open Space Resources, were found to be potenially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the imposition of mitigation measures. Tie San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (The Board) finds that all potentially significant impacts of the project listed below can and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by inposition of the mitigation measures, and these mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan adopted by the Board. Specific findings of the Board for each category of such impacts are set forth in detail below. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or can'y out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one or more ffthe following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiclon of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the SEIR. The City hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21081 that the following potential environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the implementation of the mitigation measures in the FEIR, SEIR and Addendum. Each mitigation measure discussed in this section of the findings is assigned a code letter correlating it with the environmental category used in the Mitigation Monitoring Program included in the SEIR. 1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a. Roadway Construction and Improvement Potential Significant Impact: The proposed Project would significantly impact area roadways. The 1991 Final EIR determined that with mitigation, no significant project-related or cumulative impacts would result from development of the University/Crest PD. Finding: The potential impacts to area roadways are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR determined that with mitigation, no significant project-related or cumulative impacts would result from thc University/Crest PD. The SEIR analysis 0oncluded that construction of internal roadways and improvements to roadways providing access to the Project site to standards required to maintain satisfactory operations and safe traffic conditions contained in the mitigation measures avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects analyzed in the SEIR such that no significant impacts remain. The following measures from the 1991 EIR are still applicable and will mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. 4.1.lB Landscape plantings and signs shall be limited in height in the vicinity of project roadways to assure good visibility. 4.1.0 The project proponent shall construct the following roadway and intersection improvements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit wHhin each development phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approvah Day Creek Boulevard/Wilson Avenue - Install traffic signal. Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue - Install trafftc signal Day Creek Boulevard/Vintage Drive. Install traffic signal. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: Since the certification of the 1991 Final EIR, the 762-acre Oak Summit development project, located north of the Project site, has been converted to permanent open space, resulting in a decrease in future traffic volumes. Consequently, some of the traffic mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR are no longer required to mitigate project-related and cumulative traffic impacts, as analyzed in the SEIR. The required improvements to roadways and intersections within the Project site will provide adequate access and maintain satisfactory levels of service. Design standards related to roadways and intersections generally ensure the safe and adequate design, construction and maintenance of these facilities will reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. b. Public Transportation Potential Significant Impa~: Increased demand for public transportation in the vicinity of the proposed project. Finding: The potential impacts related to public transportation are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. The analysis concluded that the project will increase demand for transit service along the Day Creek Boulevard, Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street/Summit Avenue corridors. This is a potentially significant impact of the proposed project Implementation of the mitigation measures stated below will substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the SEIR such that no significant impacts remain. The following measure from the 1991 EIR is still applicable and will mitigate these impacts below a level of significance. 4.1.7 To mitigate the project's increase in demand for transit service in the project area, bus transit stops shouM be provided at major intersections as follows: Day Creel{ Boulevard: - Bus turnout northbound far side of Vintage Drive - Bus turnout southbound far side of Vintage Drive - Bus turnout northbound far side of Banyan Street-Summit Avenue ~ Bus turnout southbound far side of Banyan Street-Summit Avenue - Bus stop northbound far side of Vintage Drive - 3'us stop southbound far side of Vintage Drive Summit ,4 venue: - Bus stop eastbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Banyan Street: - Bus stop westbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Wilson A venue: Bus stop eastbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Bus stop westbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Facts and analysis to Support of the Finding: As with the University/Crest PD, the proposed Project would increase the demand for transit service along the Day Creek Boulevard, Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street/Summit Avenue corridors. The TIA for the Revised University Project identified measures associated with providing transit stops along roadways within the project. Implementation of these measures will reduce potential impacts related to public transportation to less than significant levels. 2. AIR QUALITY a. On-site stationary emissions Potential Significant Impact The project will increase emissions from on-site stationary sources. Finding: The potential impact to air quality is discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. The long-term occupancy of the proposed development of homes and retail commercial uses would consume natural gas and electricity. On-site stationary sources (i.e., energy consumption) emissions would be below the emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD and, therefore, is not a significant long-term impact of the proposed project. Adherence to the following energy conservation measures will reduce energy consumption and mitigate impacts related to stationary source emissions identified in the SEIR such that no significant effect remains. The following measure from the 1991 EIR is still applicable and will mitigate these impacts below a level of significance. 10. Require bus turnouts and shelters in commercial developments and public use areas as identified. 11. Include solar water heaters and pool heaters in model homes and community facilities with pools. 12. Use extensive landscaping to shade buiMings Facts and analysis in Support of the Findings: Criteria pollutant emissions associated with stationary sources are generally small compared to those of the mobile sources. This was reflected in the 1991 air quality analysis. There would be an increase in indirect stationary source emissions (energy consumption) associated with the addition of 107 dwelling units. Total net increase in daily emissions for all criteria pollutants would be less than 5 pounds for NOx, and less than 3 pounds for the others. The project also proposes a lower density for the on-site commercial development. Together, the proposed modifications would not result in significant changes to the County's General Plan and SCAG's projection for the project area. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the local Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Implementation of the mitigation measures stated above will reduce potential impacts from on-site stationary sources to less than significant levels. C. IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE FEIR, SEIR AND ADDENDUM AND DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, the following adverse impacls of the project stated below are considered to be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in the SEIRand addendum, in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on this project. These impa:ts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation measures which are imposed and which will reduce impacts to the e~:tent feasible. 1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a. Key Intersections are forecast to exceed LOS standards at one or more peak hours Significant Unavoidable Impact: The following intersections are forecast to exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga minimum standard of LOS D or meet warrants for installation of traffic signals under 2003 background plus project conditions during the one or both peak hours: · Rochester Avenue/Banyan Street Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street. Finding: Issues associated with the proposed Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures stated below cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement &overriding considerations. 4.1.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each devel- opment phase of the project, the applicant shall pay its fair share cost in accordance with Table 4. I.G (Table 6-4 of the TL4 for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of the SEIR) for installing signals at the following intersection: Rochester Avenue/Banyan Street Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The project peak hour trip assignments were added to the year 2003 traffic base. Intersection level of service analysis was conducted for the year 2003 with project peak hour condition at key study area intersections, based on existing intersection configurations with the SR-30 Freeway improvements. In addition, improvements to roadways and intersections within the project site which would be required to provide adequate access and maintain satisfactory levels of service are included. The Etiwanda Avenue/ Victoria Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour with year 2003 plus project traffic volumes. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact b. Key Intersections are forecast to exceed LOS Standards Significant Unavoidable Impact: The following intersections are forecast to exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga minimum standard of LOS D: Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue Etiwanda Avenue/Summit Avenue Etiwanda Avenue/Highland Avenue Findings: Issues associated with the proposed Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems arc discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the stated mitigation measures cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.3 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each devel- opment phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approval, the applicant shah pay pro-rated costs as shown in Table 4.1. G (Table 6-4 of the TI,4 for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of the SEIR) for the following intersection improvements: Day Creek Boulevard/Highland A venue - .4ddition ora second southbound left turn lane, a second eastbound left turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, and a second westbound through lane. Etiwanda /lvenue/Summit.dvenue - Signalization of the intersection. Etiwanda.~venue/Highland.4venue -.4ddition ora westbound right turn lane. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The project trip assignment was added to the future year 2015 traffic base. The 2015 plus project daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in the SEIR. The project scenario level of service analysis is based on the future year 2015 circulation network improvements discussed previously. With the addition of the project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volume to the future year 2015 traffic base, four intersections will operate below local LOS threshold standards It should be noted that the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street will operate at LOS E with the current stop control. However, as noted in the discussion of year 2003 plus project impacts, this intersection will require signalization by 2003 to maintain satisfactory levels of service. With signalization, this location would continue to operate with satisfactory levels of service under 2015 plus project conditions. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. C. Required Intersection Improvements Significant Unavoidable Impact: The following intersections will require additional lane improvements to maintain satisfactory operations: · Milliken Avenue/Highland Avenue Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road Finding: Issues associated with thc proposed project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the stated mitigation measures cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at be time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact.' This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.4 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each development phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approval, the applicant shah pay pro-rated costs as shown in Table 4.1.G (Table 6-4 of the TIA for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of the SE1R) for the following intersection and roadway improvements: Milliken Avenue/Highland Avenue - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane. · Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road - Addition of a second eastbound left turn lane. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: While the level of service analysis indicates that these locations will operate with satisfactory levels of service, examination of the forecast volumes for the northbound left turn at Milliken Avenue/Highland Avenue and the eastbound left turn at Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road warrant additional left turn lanes to accommodate forecast demand. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. d. Signalization of Key Intersection Significant Unavoidable ImPact: The intersection of East Avenue/Summit Avenue will require installation of a traffic signals under 2015 background plus project conditions. Finding: Issues associated with the proposed project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures stated below cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.5 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each development phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approval, the applicant shall pay its fair share cost in accordance with Table 4.1.G (Table 6-4 of the TI~t for the Revised University Project, included as ,,tppendix B of this supplemental E1R) for installing a signal at the intersection o fEast ,4venue/Summit ,,1venue. .Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The project proponent is required to pay its fair share contribution for installing a signal at the intersection of East Avenue/Summit Avenue. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. e. Freeway Segments Levels of Service Significant Unavoidable Impact: The proposed project will contribute to deficiencies along the following freeway sections: SR-30 Eastbound - Euclid Avenue to 1-15 and Cherry Avenue to Beech Avenue SR-30 Westbound - Beech Avenue to Cherry Avenue and I-15 to Euclid Avenue I-15 Northbound - I-10 Freeway to SR-30 Freeway 1-15 Southbound - SR-30 Freeway to 1-10 Freeway. Finding: Issues associated with the proposed Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. There is no mechanism for individual projects to contribute financially to freeway mainline improvements. No mitigationis proposed that is feasible, therefore the impact to freeway mainline improvements remains significant and unavoidable. Development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The forecast year 2015 freeway mainline analysis summary tables are contained in the T1A for the Revised University Project (Appendix B, Tables 5-10 and 5-11 of the SEIR). Within the project study area, 11 freeway segments are forecast to operate at LOS F during the a.m. and/or p.m. peak hour, without or with the project. The project would not be responsible for the degradation of freeway segments to LOS F; however, the project would contribute additional traffic to the forecasted impacted segments on SR-30 and 1-15. Funds have not been made available for freeway improvements along these sections of SR-30 and 1-15. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. 2. AIR QUALITY a. Impacts from Construction and Grading Significant Unavoidablelmpact: Peak grading and construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for the criteria pollutant of NOx and PM i0, which is 100 and 150 pounds per day respectively. Finding: Air quality issues for project grading and construction are discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR found the University/Crest PD to be consistent with the 1989 AQMD update and to have no project related impacts, which would not be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, the SEIR identifies that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below and identified in the Addendum to the 1991 Final EIR would not reduce the criteria pollutant emissions for NOx and PMI0 associated with construction of the proposed Project to a less than significant level under current standards. Despite implementation of the stated mitigation measures significant and unavoidable impacts remain. This impact is overridden by the Project benefits as'set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. The following mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR, as revised, are still applicable and will mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. 61. As a requirement of the County Development Code. Sections 810.0305 through 810-0360, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the County Agricultural Commissioner for the purpose of controlling wind borne soil erosion. 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures as defined in District Rule 403. b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune. 2. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: a. Spread soil binders. b. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. c. Sweep streets should silt be carried over the adjacent public thoroughfares. 3. During construction: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. c. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. 4. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 4b. The dust control measures shall be required for both the grading period and for long-term control of dust once grading has been completed and prior to building construction. 4c. Grading shah be restricted during high velocity sustained wind conditions exceeding 25 mph in accordance with the requirements established by the Inland Empire Conservation District. 4d. Soil binders and stabilizers which are non-hazardous shah be used Facts in Support of theFinding: Grading and construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during grading and constraction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. It is anticipated that peak grading days would generate larger amounts of air pollutants than during peak construction building erection days. The project will be required by law to comply with regional rules, which would assist in reducing the short-term air pollutant emissions. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques as required by the SCAQMD can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component) by 50 to 75 percent. Building erection or construction would have different types of equipment being used on the project site. Similarities do exist in terms of equipment exhaust emissions and fugitive dust emissions. However, it is anticipated that emissions during building erection phase would be below peak grading day emissions. Therefore, mitigation implemented for the peak grading day emissions would be adequate to reduce emissions during the building erection phase. Emissions associated with architectural coating can be reduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials, water- based or Iow-VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. Compliance with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations for architectural coatings would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable air quality impact remains. b. Increased Vehicle Emissions Significant Unavoidable Impact: Vehicular trips associated with the proposed Project would produce emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollutant of CO, ROC, and NOx. Finding: Issues associated with the proposed Project's impact on air quality are discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum to the 1991 Final EIR would not reduce the criteria pollutant emissions for CO, ROC, and NOx associated with vehicle emissions of the Revised University Project to a less than significant level. This air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations The following measure from the 1991 Final EIR is still applicable, but will not mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. 39. Transit improvements, such as bus shelters, bike and storage facilities, benches and bus pockets in the streets, if recommended and approved by the County Transportation Department and the local transit authority, shah be included in the project design and shown on the final Development Plan. Bus turnouts and shelters shall be included in the commercial and public use areas, where feasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: Although emissions of these criteria pollutants would be I 1 percent less than those associated with the original development plan analyzed in 1991, mobile source emissions associated with the Project would exceed daily thresholds established by SCAQMD (550 ppd CO, 75 ppd ROC, and 100 ppd NOx), and is an impact which remains significant and unavoidable. c. Cumulative Impacts Significant Unavoidable Impact: Cumulative short-term air quality impacts from grading/construction and long-term impacts from increased vehicle emissions. Finding: Cumulative impacts to air quality are discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR determined that the site is located within a non-attainment, that is, ambient air . quality exceeds EPA standards for the air basin. The proposed project will result in a locally and regionally significant unavoidable impact to air quality. These impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed in the 1991 air quality analysis, the project would contribute less than 0.03 percent of criteria pollutants to the entire South Coast Air Basin projected for the year 2000. Although this appears to be insignificant for the regional air quality, grading and construction emissions for NOx and P10, as well as operational emissions for CO, ROC, and NOx would exceed the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD, and would contribute cumulatively to local and regional air quality degradation which is significant and unavoidable. 3. BIOLOGICAL AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES a. Loss of Alluvial Sage Scrub Significant Unavoidable Impact: Project implementation would result in the loss of mature and intermediate alluvial fan sage scrub. The loss of the alluvial fan sage scrub represents a significant addition to the ongoing loss of this regionally limited resource. Finding: Impacts to Biological and Open Space resources are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SElR. The 1991 Final EIR determined that cumulative impacts to biological resources, specifically, the loss of natural alluvial sage scrub habitat, would remain significant. Based on the whole record, project development, which will result in the loss of intermediate alluvial fan scrub is a significant and unavoidable impact. The loss of this resource within the proposed project site will still contribute to a significant adverse unavoidable cumulative impact within the region. The cumulative loss of open space will remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 1. Any sycamores and oaks removed for the project shall be replaced either on site or in the mitigation site in a sufficient ratio to guarantee replacement. 21 tree removal and replacement plan for native trees or plants shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. In addition, the removal of any vegetation within 200feet of the bank of a stream or indicated as a protected riparian area on a community or specific plan shall be subject to a tree removal permit. 4. All graded and disturbed surfaces remaining outside developed areas following construction shall be revegetated as soon as feasible. Landscape design and plant selection in areas directly adjacent to open space shall conform to the composition of surrounding vegetation. The use of native trees and sbrub species shall closely match those already present in the allawial fan scrub on-site. 7. The potentially adverse effects of night lighting on surrounding open space areas shall be mitigated by implementing one of the following alternatives: · low intensity street lamps at the development edge low elevation lighting poles · shielding by internal silvering of the globe or external opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized should be dependent upon the distance of the light source from the urban edge. 4. 3.1.4. The long-term preservation of a one-half interest of the 172-acre parcel is the principal mitigation included in the proposed project. This off-site property has been acquired jointly by U.C.P. Inc. and the new owners of the Crest properties. Eighty-six acres along with funding to maintain the open space area shall be offered as mitigation for project impacts related to the loss of open space. 4.3. lB. Deed restrictions to future development shall be placed the 172-acre parcel in order to ensure that it retained as natural open space. 4.3.1C. Until such time as biological habitat studies determine otherwise, the northerly 30 acres of the former SCE easement are presumed to be potential habitat for species protected by the California and federal endangered species act, and no development of that area may be permitted. Facts in Support oftheFinding: The biological habitat impacts of development within the southerly portion of the University/Crest PD, encompassing the University and Crest properties is unchanged from the existing, certified 1991 Final EIR. The addition of the SCE easements to the Project represents a loss of an additional 64 acres of this plant community. The principal impact of the Project is the conversion of land from undeveloped open space to mixed residential, commercial, and community uses. Riversidian alluvial fan scrub habitat is designated by California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) as a plant community requiring a high priority status for preservation. The conversion of alluvial fan scrub represents a significant addition to the ongoing loss of this regionally limited resource. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, project development will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological and open space resources. 21 b. Cumulative Impacts Significant Unavoidable Impact: The cumulative loss of intermediate alluvial fan scrub and open space. Finding: The cumulative impact to biological and opens space resources is discussed in Section 4.3 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR determined that the cumulative impacts to biological resources, specifically, the loss of natural alluvial sage scrub habitat, would remain significant. The proposed Project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact to these resources. These impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Facts in Support ofthe Finding: The 1991 Final EIR concluded that the conversion of Riversidian alluvial fan scrub community to urban uses would add to the cumulative loss of this regionally significant resource. The cumulative loss of such habitat was considered an unavoidable, significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1991 Final EIR was determined to reduce all remaining biotic impacts to a less than significant level. In the time since the certification of the 1991 Final EIR for the University/Crest PD, the county has established the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area. The University Project is within the NEOSHPP area. The NEOSHPP was adopted by the County to aid in the future preservation of open space and sensitive biological habitat in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Potential mitigation for cumulative impacts includes participation in a regional mitigation plan (i.e., the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan). However, the participation in the plan as a mitigation measure is speculative at this time as no such plan is yet in place and the San Bernardino plan is only in its early formative stages. Therefore this cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Three project alternatives are discussed in Chapter 6 of the SEIR and the potential significance for all of the alternatives are analyzed in Section 6 of the Dra~ SEIR. The Board has considered these alternatives for the development of th6 Revised University Project and makes the f~llowing findings. Previously Approved Project Alternative This alternative includes the implementation of the previously approved University/Crest PD. The previously proposed project consists of approximately 1,100 acres in the West Foothills Planning Area in unincorporated San Bernardino County. The property is comprised of parcels under different ownership and is divided into two discrete elements. The larger of these encompasses 675 acres in Day Canyon, north of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), and extends approximately 2 miles into the San Bernardino National Forest. This element had been proposed to be set aside for open space preservation. The southern element of the previously proposed project is located adjacent to the northern limits of the City and is completely within the City's sphere of influence. Planned development within the southern element consists of 1,238 single-family residential units on 377.79 acres. The addition of commercial areas (12.66 acres), a school site (4.66 acres), parkland (7.30 acres), and necessary acreage (31.25) required for landscaping and drainage brought the total acreage in this southern element to 433.66 acres. The 675-acre northern element which was owned by Etiwanda Highland Properties in 1991, was required as a condition of approval for the 1991 project to be dedicated through an easement to the County of San Bernardino for open space, recreational, scenic purposes. In the time since approval of the University/Crest PD, this property has been sold to individuals not associated with the University/Crest PD project. Eventually, the 675 acres was acquired by MWD and has since been committed to permanent open space as environmental mitigation for its Inland Feeder Project. Under this alternative, significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, especially the loss of natural alluvial sage scrnb would remain after mitigation. The implementation of the previously approved project would result in the loss of approximately 425 acres of natural alluvial plant and animal communities. The previously approved project would generate a total of 26,980 average daily trips (ADT) and 2,530 trips at the PM peak hour. This is approximately 14.0 percent of the traffic expected with development of the entire traffic study area. Project related impacts can be fully mitigated by the implementation of the improvements identified in the 1991 Final EIR. Cumulative development anticipated in the vicinity of the proposed pro. iect as previously approved, would result in unacceptable levels of service (LOS) at two future intersections. The implementation of regional mitigation measures will reduce this potential cumulative impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of the University/Crest PD would result in increased stationary and mobile source emissions in the air basin. The project emissions would be expected to be 0.03 percent of the total air basin emissions forecast for the year 2000. Although the previously approved project is consistent with AQMD, cumulative impacts would be significant. Impacts associated with noise, cultural resources, and sewer facilities would be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the measures stated in the 1991 Final EIR. Finding: The Previously Approved Project Alternative was rejected as an alternative to the Project because the removal of the area set aside for open space purposes alters the status of the University/Crest PD approval. Compliance with the conditions of approval is now impossible; therefore, implementation of the previously approved University/Crest PD as an alternative to the proposed project is not possible. Project With SCE Easement Used To Increase Park And Open Space Alternative The Project as proposed contains 8.0 acres for an elementary school and 10.00 acres of parkland. Under this alternative the amount of acreage for parks would increase by 2.38 acres for a total of 12.23 acres by adding additional park area long Day Creek Boulevard. This alternative would also increase the school site from 8.0 acres to 10 acres and reduce the single-family units by 85. The overall residential density would increase from 3.09 to 3.11 dwelling units per acre. This alternative would also provide for 30.07 acres of on-site open space as the northern portion of the SCE easement would never be developed, and one-half interest in a 172-acre off-site parcel for open space. This alternative would generate approximately 17,458 daily trips. While the Revised University Project would generate 18,289 daily trips. Thus, this alternative would generate 831 less daily trips than the proposed project. The proposed project would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts by the installation of roadway improvements such as street widening, traffic signals, and stop signs. Cumulative traffic impacts would be mitigated by fair share costs to provide future roadway improvements. This alternative would be required to provide the same mitigation because the reduction in trip generation is not substantially less than that generated by the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to traffic from this alternative are substantially the same. With implementation of the proposed Project, emissions of the three criteria pollutants (NOx, ROC and CO) by mobile sources associated with the modified development on the University property would remain greater than the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Emissions of these criteria pollutants would be 11 percent less than those associated with the original development plan analyzed in 1991. This alternative would reduce the number of daily trips by 0.88 percent and therefore, reduce the amount of pollutants from mobile sources by about 0.88 percent. The reduction in emissions would be minimal and the impact to air quality from development of this alternative would remain significant. Under this alternative, the northern portion of the SCE Easement would remain as open space. In the 1991 Finale EIR, the quality of habitat in the SCE Easement was found to be degraded, and would not be quality habitat for wildlife, nor would it serve as a wildlife corridor because of urban development, which surrounds the Easement. Under this alternative, impacts to biological resources would remain significant although they would slightly diminished. Finding: The Project With SCE Easement Used To Increase Park And Open Space Alternative was rejected because the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project on the cumulative impacts to traffic, air quality and biological resources would not be avoided nor substantially lessened with development of this alternative. Project With SCE Easement Converted To Open Space Alternative This alternative would propose leaving the 64-acre SCE easement in permanent open space. In leaving the SCE easement in permanent open space the amount of acreage for residential, commercial, and parkland would be reduced. This alternative would reduce the proposed Project's residential units by 144 units and residential area by 48.10 acres, for a total of 541 units (685 residential units are proposed in the Revised University Project on 433.43 acres). A total of 14.95 acres of commercial land is proposed with the Project, but this alternative would reduce the commercial land to 4.4 acres. Park acreage would be reduced from 10.00 acres with the proposed Project to 4.64 acres with this alternative. This alternative would also provide one-half interest in a 172-acre off-site parcel for open space. This alternative would retain the elementary school acreage at 8.0 acres and not increase the elementary school acreage to a minimum of l0 acres that has been requested by the State Department of Education and the Etiwanda School District. This alternative would have fewer impacts on schools, traffic generation, air quality, and open space than the proposed Project. Impacts to biological resources would remain similar to those of the proposed Project due to the degraded nature of the SCE easement and its Iow quality as habitat for wildlife. Impacts to parks would increase, but still remain less than significant, with a reduction in acreage allotted to active park space. Potential mitigation for cumulative impacts includes participation in a regional mitigation plan (i.e., the San Bemardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)). However, the participation in the plan as a mitigation measure is speculative at this time as no such plan is yet in place and the MSHCP is only in its early formative stages. The proposed Project is providing one-half interest in a 172 acre off site parcel for open space, which is located within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area. This alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project on biological resources because the majority of the 250.67-acre site would be developed with the exception of 26.8 acres within the SCE easement. This alternative would generate approximately 10,226 daily trips while the Revised University Project would generate 18,289 daily trips. Thus, this alternative would generate 8,063 less daily trips than the proposed project. The proposed Project would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts by the installation of roadway improvements such as street widening, traffic signals, and stop signs. Cumulative traffic impacts would be mitigated by fair share costs to provide future roadway improvements. This alternative would be required to provide the same mitigation even through trip generation is less than the proposed project because traffic generated under this alternative would still have a significant impact on roadways in the project area. With implementation of the proposed Project, emissions of the three criteria pollutants (NOx, ROC and CO) by mobile sources would remain greater than the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. However, emissions of these criteria pollutants would be 11 percent less than those associated with the original development plan analyzed in 1991. This alternative would reduce the number of daily trips by 44 percent and, therefore, reduce the amount of pollutants from mobile sources by about 1.8 percent. Construction emissions would also be reduced because the 64-acre site would not be graded. These reductions in emissions would be minimal however, and the impacts to air quality would remain significant. The proposed project was determined to have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on biological resources. The loss of Riversidian sage scrub within the proposed development area will still contribute to a significant adverse unavoidable cumulative impact within the region. The cumulative loss of open space will also not be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of required mitigation measures. Potential mitigation for cumulative impacts includes participation in a regional mitigation plan (i.e., the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan). However, the participation in the plan as a mitigation tueasure is speculative at this time as no such plan is yet in place and the San Bernardino plan is only in its early formative stages. The proposed project is providing one-half interest in a 172- acre off- site parcel for open space. This alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project on biological resources because the majority of the 250.67-acre site would be developed with the exception of 64 acres within the SCE easement. Finding: The Project With SCE Easement Converted To Open Space Alternative would have less impacts on schools, traffic, air quality and open space, than the proposed project. However, this alternative does not have the benefits of the proposed project, which will provide orderly residential and commercial development and provide additional acreage for the school site. ~0 25 Alternative Site to the Proposed Project An alternative site was not considered because the University/Crest Project is an approved and entitled project. The proposed project simply modifies the existing, entitled project; therefore, relocating the proposed project to another site is impossible. An alternative site would not accomplish the objectives of the proposed project that is to amend the original approved plan and was, therefore, rejected from further consideration. VI. PROJECT BENEFITS The benefits from the approving the Revised University Planned Development Project are related to the establishment of a residential and commercial planned development that will provide a new, high quality residential community within theCity. The benefits of the Project will result in a well-designed urban type development that provides for some major backbone infrastructure that would not be made available to the community without this Project's development. The following benefits will occur as a result of project implementation: 1. Construction of Banyan/Summit Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel to Rochester Avenue will provide an east/west corridor north of future SR 30. This will allow Hanson Aggregate, located west of Day Creek Channel, access south of Highland Avenue after the completion of SR-30. 2. Relocating planned commercial development near the future interchange of Day Creek Boulevard and future SR-30, which will provide amenities to travelers on SR-30 and to future residents north of SR-30 and Highland Avenue. 3. Providing continuous, compatible development by integrating the former utility easement into the University Planned Development. 4. Providing a new site as a substitute off-site permanent conservation area to replace the prior off- site acreage, which is now unavailable for the University/Crest PD. 5. Implementation of the Project will provide additional housing, in addition to that approved in the University/Crest PD to meet housing demands in the City. The Project provides for a well- developed and adequate infrastructure, and which complements existing and proposed development in the area. 6. Implementation of the Project will result in new soumes of income to the area through new property taxes, and through the creation of new jobs, both short-term construction and long-term commercial and retail jobs. 7. The commercial component of the Project provides new job opportunities and provides shopping amenities closer to the housing components to reduce some of the vehicular trips of residents. 8. The joint use of the park and school site will benefit both the community and the school district. 9. The extension of Banyan Avenue, west of Day Creek Boulevard to Rochester Avenue will provide a vital link in the City's circulation plan. VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant unaw~idable impacts identified in the FEI1L SEIR and Addendum, specifically (1) traffic and circulation related to (a) off.site Development Plan roadway impacts, (b) levels of service along freeway segments on 1-10 and 1-15 in the peak direction, and (2) air quality related to (a) temporary increases in PMI0, NOx emissions from construction, (b) increased local and regional air pollutant emissions from future development, (c) contribution to increased CO concentrations at one intersection and (3) biological resources (a) cumulative impacts of alluvial fan sage scrub and loss of open space of the project when combined with other projects in the vicinity. This section of findings specifically addresses the requirements of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts and to determine whether the impactsare acceptably overridden by the project benefits. The City finds that the previously stated major project benefits, see Section V and VI above, of the University Project, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed development to be governed by the planned development cited in Section V above, is hereby determined to be, in itself and independent of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental inpacts identified in the Final EIR, SEIR, and addendum and in these findings. The City's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts t~ less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the proposed Project. The EIR presents evidence that implementing the development pursuant to the University Planned Development Project will cause significant adverse impacts, which cannot be substantially mitigated to nonsignificant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above and the City makes the following finding: Finding: ltaving considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the University Planned Development to construct the planned development, the City hereby determines that all li~asible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the ·Final EIR, SEIR and addendum, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City finds that economic, social, and other considerations of the University Planned Development outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reasons for accepting these remaining · unmitigated impacts are described below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks. Furthermore, the City has considered the alternatives to the project, and makes the following finding: Finding: .Feasible alternatives to the proposed Project which are capable of reducing identified impacts have been considered and rejected because the alternatives offer a reduced level of benefit when compared to the Project. The City further finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and override each unavoidable impact of the project, as follows: 1) Findings Regarding Traffic and Circulation Impacts Offsite traffic circulation impacts resulting from Project-related traffic are significant, despite numerous modifications to the circulation system of the University Development Plan, and despite offsite traffic improvements to be constructed by the project applicant and the project's contribution to fair share expenses of other off-site improvements. Implementation of the identified traffic mitigation measures cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contribution toward needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. The proposed Project's impacts to freeway segments remain significant and unavoidable because there is no mechanism for individual projects to contribute financially to freeway mainline improvements. Operating levels at three intersections, as specifically analyzed in Chapter 4.4 of the EIR and in the Traffic Impact Analysis, cannot be mitigated- Day Creek Boulevard at Highland Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue at Summit Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue. Operating levels at Milliken Avenue and Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Avenue will require additional land improvements to maintain satisfactory operations. The applicant will provide funds on a fair-share basis for improvements to the roadway intersections; however, the City cannot ensure that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Since additional mitigation measures are technically and economically infeasible, this impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Project. The proposed Project will also contribute to deficiencies along the following freeway sections; SR-30 Eastbound - Euclid Avenue to 1-15 and Cherry Avenue to Beech Avenue; SR-30 Westbound - Beech Avenue to Cherry Avenue and 1-15 to Euclid Avenue; 1-15 Northbound - I-10 Freeway to SR-30 Freeway; and 1-15 Southbound - SR-30 Freeway to 1-10 Freeway. Widening of the freeways to improve levels of service is not feasible mitigation, and there is no mechanism for a private project to contribute a pro rata fair share, which could likely be economically infeasible. Since additional mitigation measures are technically and economically infeasible, this impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Project. 2) Findings Regarding Air Quality Impacts Construction activities occurring in the Project area, including mass grading, will result in short-term increases in air emissions that exceed applicable thresholds of the SCAQMD, despite the imposition of mitigation measures. Short-term increases in air emissions from construction can be mitigated but are not entirely avoidable, as construction activities within this region will continue to provide necessary and vital housing. This impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Project. The impacts from the Project on air quality will increase local and regional pollutants despite the imposition of several mitigation measures and implementation of Best Available Control Technology. Increases in local and regional pollutants are not entirely avoidable, as development activities within this region will continue to provide necessary .and vital housing. This impact is also overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Project. The project related traffic may contribute to increased CO concentrations at one intersection which already exceeds the State's threshold of significance. The EIR identified no feasible mitigation to control traffic flow at the impacted intersection, and it remains a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Project. 3) Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts The project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts including shor~term impacts to air quality during construction or other major projects in the area and on a long term basis as a source of vehicle emission from the Project and other projects in the region contributing to an increase in pollutants. Since the South Coast Air Basin is a nonattainment area for federal air quality standards, cumulative increases are considered significant and unavoidable. This impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the project. The Project will also contribute to the cumulative loss of mature and intermediate alluvial sage scrub on a regional basis. The conversion of alluvial fan sage scrub represents a significant addition to the ongoing loss of this regionally significant limited resource. The loss of open space will also contribute to the cumulative loss of open space in the Rancho Cucamonga area. These impacts are overridden by the Project benefits. While the prior proposed off-site conservation area was substantially larger, 675-acres, no permanent funding was provided under the prior approval, and that land is now set aside as permanent conservation for a project built by the Metropolitan Water District. The undivided one-half interest in the 172-acre amenity site and the dedication of now proposed as a part of the Revised University Planned Development project provides for permanent conservation of land located within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area, consisting of a portion of alluvial fan draining into San Sevaine Canyon. This amenity site has the potential for endangered species or species of special concern, and if protected from encroachment, Riversidean sage scrub can be re-established to support a diverse habitat. The channelization of Day Creek, near the project site, diminishes the biological value of the project site, which is no longer subject to flooding and natural regeneration. The long-term commitment to provide funding for the amenity site represents a positive action towards preservation and conservation of regional open space. As the CEQA Responsible Agency for the EIR and SEIR and Lead Agency for the addendum to the DSEIR and development agreement, the City has reviewed the project description and the SEIR and fully understands the Project proposed by U.C.D. Inc. for its development in accordance with The Revised University Development Plan. Further, the City finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts have been identified in the SEIR and addendum, the Final EIR and public testimony. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section VI above. The City also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the SEIR and this document, Section VI above, and that no feasible alternatives which substantially lessen project impacts are available for adoption. The City has identified economic and social benefits and inportant public policy objectives, Section V above, which will result from implementing the proposed project. The City has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the region, from developing under Revised University Development Plan, the City finds that the benefits identified herein override the unavoidable environmental effects. California Public Resources Code 21002 provides: "In the event specific economic, social, and other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Section 21002.1(c) provides: "tn the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency...." Finally, California Administrative Code, Title 14, 15093(a) states: "lf the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable.'" VlII. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CEQA 1VIITIGATION 1VIEASURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resoumes Code requires the City adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program, included as Chapter 5 in the Final SEIR, (MMCP) is adopted because it fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoringrequirements: a) The MMCP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation; and b) Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures. 30 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE EIR AND SEIR CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS AUGMENTED BY AN ADDENDUM PREPARED BY THE CITY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02, FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM OF 685 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND UP TO TWO COMMERCIAL CENTERS IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND HANLEY AVENUE, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14493 THROUGH 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, AND 15902. A. Recitals. 1. U.C.P., Inc. has filed an application for Development Agreement 00-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Agreement is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 26, 1999, the County Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved a residential development project consisting of 685 residential lots and two commercial centers. 3. On October 26, 1999, ~n Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors 4. On November 29, 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed a lawsuit on the adequacy of the EIR and SEIR for the Project. 5. In June 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, and U.C.P. Inc. reached a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, the developer is required to enter into a development agreement with the City, and the City is required to f~le an annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of the project area into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 6. On July 12, and continued to July 26 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing and recommended to City Council the adoption of Development Agreement 00-02. 7. The subject prope~J of the Development Agreement is legally described herein. 8. A true and correct copy of the proposed Development Agreement is attached as Exhibit "A" to the attached draft Ordinance. 9. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the associated Environmental Assessment prepared for said project. 10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. July 26, 2000 Page 2 B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This Commission hereby specifically finds that the Development Agreement and each and every term and provision contained herein conform to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. This Commission hereby recommends approval of the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit "A" of the attached draft Ordinance and draft City Council Resolution affirming the EIR and SEIR as certified by the County of San Bemardino and as augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga attached as Exhibit "B." 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lan~ T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AFFIRMING THE EIR AND SEIR AS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND AS AUGMENTED BY AN ADDENDUM PREPARED BY THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR THE UNIVERSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. A. Redtals. 1. The Board of Supervisors of the Count of San Bernardino (Board) previously certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the University Development Project in 1991 (SCH #88082915). The project was never constructed. Subsequent to the 1991 approval, a portion of the University Development Project was purchased, and in 1998 the new owners made application to the County for approval of the Revised University Project (Project), severing the University portion from the Crest portion of the original University Development Project. The Board was presented with the Project and certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on October 26, 1999 (SCH #98121091). In its Statement of Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, dated October 26, 1999, the Board found that the SEIR had been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects that would result from the development of the proposed modifications to the Project in accordance with the requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines). No judicial determination to the contrary has been issued. 2. On November 29, 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga commenced a judicial challenge to the Board's certification of the SEIR by filing an action entitled "'The City of Rancho Cucamonga v. the County of San Bemardino and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, et al" Consolidated Case No. SCVSS 62412, (the Action). The Action challenged the adequacy of the SEIR for the Project on a number of grounds, of which the primary cencems included inadequate traffic impacts analysis, inadequate open space analysis, and improper application of the City's zoning standards applicable within its sphere of influence. The City, Board, and the Project proponent have entered into a conditional settlement agreement as regards to the Action. The primary benefits to the City arising from the settlement agreement are (a) the Project proponent's agreement to enter into a development agreement as regards to the Project and (b) the addition of further clarifying language into the SEIR pursuant to an Addendum, as the same is defined in Section 15164 of the Guidelines. Through the settlement agreement, the City and the Project proponent have addressed the City's concerns about potential traffic impacts, and have agreed to modify certain traffic elements, primarily design and timing of construction issues, which address the City's concerns. The City has been advised that the Project proponent is acquiring additional off-site land for perpetual use as open space that addresses the City's other primary concerns. Finally, of additional benefit is the proposal that the Project be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, thus providing further benefits to the City and through the settlement agreement addresses concerns about the City's zoning standards as applied to the Project. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is identified as a responsible agency regarding the development of the Project pursuant to CEQA and the Notice of Preparation of the SEIR was served on the City as such responsible agency. However, the City is the lead agency as regards to the processing of the development agreement. This Resolution is intended to satisfy CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DA 00-02 - U.C.P. INC. July 26, 2000 Page 2 all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines in regards to the Project as amended by the settlement agreement and in regards to the development agreement as set forth in the related Addendum. Upon annexation, the City will become the lead agency for all CEQA purposes as regards the Project. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been completed as required by law. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This City Council makes the following findings in regard to the addendum prepared for, and which augments the EIR and SEIR, for the Project as regulated by the settlement agreement and the development agreement; a. The City, as a responsible agency under CEQA for the Project and as lead agency for the development agreement, has prepared an addendum to the SEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 and 15164 to address the refinements to the Project as set forth in the development agreement. b. The decision not to prepare a further subsequent environmental impact report or a Supplement to the SEIR is explained and supported by substantial evidence in the Initial Study/addendum attached hereto as Attachment 1. The City Council expressly finds that through the settlement agreement which settles the Action and through the adoption of the development agreement the Project has been sufficiently modified in terms of certain design, construction timing, circulation issues, and zoning concerns, affecting the development of the Project, that the issues alleged in the Action have been resolved and the City can now support the Project. The modifications have not substantially altered the previously identified significant environmental impacts and/or related mitigation measures, as reflected in Attachment 1. c. That on the basis of the facts and evidence set forth in Attachment 1, an addendum is the adequate further environmental analysis that is required as authorized by Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the Guidelines. d. That the addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA. e. In reaching its decision concerning the development agreement, the City has considered the environmental effects of the Project as shown in the EIR, the SEIR and the addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(f), prior to approving the development agreement, which will govern development of the Project. f. That the EIR, SEIR, and addendum collectively reflect the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DA 00-02 - U.C.P. INC. July 26, 2000 Page 3 3. The City Council, pursuant to the requirements of Guidelines Section 15096(h) hereby makes the findings required by Section 15091 of the Guidelines as shown on Attachment 2 and the findings required by Section 15093 of the Guidelines, as shown on Attachment 3 hereto. 4. The City Clerk shall cause the notice of determination required by Section 15094 and Section 15096(i) of the Guidelines to be filed as required by law. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-02, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND U.C.P. INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATELY 250-ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 685 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND UP TO TWO COMMERCIAL AREAS, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, BETWEEN DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF HANLEY AVENUE - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14493 THROUGH 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, AND 15902. A. .Recitals. 1. California Government Code Section 65864 now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 'q'he Legislature finds and declares that: a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other developments to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage pdvate participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." 2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Any city.., may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property as provided in this article..." 3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A Development Agreement shall specdy the duration of the Agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density of intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the Agreement..." 4. "Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference is proposed Development Agreement 00-02, concerning that property generally located north of Highland Avenue, east of Day creek Channel and west of Hanley Avenue, and CITY COUNCIl. DRAFT ORDINANCE DA 00-02 - U.C.P. INC. July 26, 2000 Page 2 as legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement." 5. On July 12, and continued to July 26, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed headng concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution. 6. On ,2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development AgreemenL 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, this Council has reviewed an addendum to the EIR and SEIR as certified by the County of San Bemardino and augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as legally sufficient for the University Planned Development Project. SECTION 3: Based upon substantial evidence presented dudng the above-referenced public hearing on , including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a) The location, design, and proposed uses set forth in this Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity. b) The Development Agreement conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. SECTION 4: It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good zoning practice require the approval of the Development Agreement. SECTION 5: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement 00-02, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published with 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontado, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (Space above for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA and U.C.P. INCORPORATED, a California corporation Dated: ,2000 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND U.C.P. INCORPORATED CONCERNING THE REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT This AEfeement (the "Development Agreement") is made and entered into this th day of ,2000, by and between U.C.P. Incorp,o, rated ,~ California corporation (,,U.C.p.,,) and the Ci of Ra~c municipal corporation (the CITY ~ .......... L .~ . ~ ~ . ty ho Cucamonga, a / r~o,,~,L ~o u~e aumonty oI~ecUons 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code. U.C.P. and its successors and assigns, if any, are referred to collectively hereinafter as the "Properly Owner." The CITY and U.C.P. are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS: A. To provide more certainty in the approval of development projects, to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic risk of devehipment, the Legislature of the State of California has adopted Sections 65864, et seq. of the California Government Code, thus authorizing the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property, in order to establish development rights with respect thereto. B. Section 65865(b) of the California Government Code authorizes the CITY to enter into a binding development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporated territory but also within CITY's sphere of influence, provided that the effect veness of the development agreement is conditioned upon the annexation of such real property to the CITY within the period of time for annexation as specified in the Development Agreement. C. Property Owner owns fee title to approximately 250.67 acres of real property located entirely within the County of San Bemardino (the "County") and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Project Site"). Previously, the Project Site was subject to land use entitlements resulting bom the County's approval in 1991 of the University/Crest Project Planned Development, PUD No. WI21-49 (the "University/Crest PD"). The University/Crest PD entitlements combined two separately owned nroperties with I 2 residentia units, commercial development, school, park and open space of 1,111.29 acres. The~Project Site is the I~versity port on of the University/Crest PD. D. In 1998, Properly Owner applied to County for approval of revisions to the University/Crest PD, to modify the previous entitlements related to the Project Site (the "Revised University Project" or the "Project"). The requested modifications included: 1. Separating the University portion of the University/Crest PD from the Crest portion; 2. Adding 64 acres to the University portion, formerly owned by Southern California Edison which had bisected the Project Site; 3. Increasing the number of dwelling units from 578 to 685; 4. Modifying the location of commercial uses and adding a net 2.3 acres of commercial development; 5. Increasing the proposed school and park sites by 6.0 acres; 6. Revising the project design with s~'eet alignments, lot designs and increased lots sizes; 7. Extending Banyan/Surmmt Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel, to connect to Rochester; 8. Transferring to the County of San Bemardino, in fee, 86 acres (one-half of a 172 acre parcel) ofoff- si~e land for permanent open space, along with funding in the amount orS110,000.00, to provide for long-term maintenance of such off-site land; and 9. Eliminating thc 67S-acre open space area from the Project, as it had already been transferred to the County by the Metropolitan Water District. E. On October 26, 1999, the County approved the Revised University Project, namely Revised Preliminary Development Plan WI21-49, and a Minor General Plan Amendment and zone change for the former SCE property (the "Revised University Project Entitlements"). In accordance with the rules, regulations and policies of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the County's Development Code, the County certified a Supplemental EIR in connection with the Revised University Project Entitlements (the "SEIR") as being accurate, adequate and complete in the environmental evaluation of the impacts associated with the Revised University Project and adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. F. On November 29, 1999, the CITY filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief challenging County's approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the SEIR (the "Litigation"). The CITY filed a f~rst amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on February 3, 2000 (the "Petition"). In the Petition, the CITY alleged, inter alia, that (1) the County should have prepared a new, or subsequent EIR for the approval of the Revised Project due to the requested changes in the Project; (2) the SEIR is inadequate; (3) the Findings did not support the Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) the County failed to consider and apply the CITY's land use and zoning standards when it approved the Revised University Project; (5) the County's finding of conformity with the CITY's land use and zoning laws was not supported by substantial evidence; and (6) the County's general plan amendment related to spheres of influence was invalid. G. On March 20, 2000, U.C.P. filed its answer and response to the Petition, denying each and every allegation. H. On March 24, 2000, the County filed its answer and response to the Petition, denying each and every allegation. I. Subsequent to initiation of the Litigation, the CITY and Property Owner have resolved their differences, as memorialized in a transaction which is the subject of a Settlement, Pre-Annexation, and Tolling Agreement between them, dated April __, 2000 (the "Settlement and Pre-Annexation Agreement"). As a condition of entering into the Sei~lement and Pre-Annexation Agreement, the CITY and Property Owner have agreed to enter into a development agreement, substantially in the form of this Development Agreement, subject to compliance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, hearing and findings. In addition to providing a vehicle for settlement of the Litigation, this Development Agreement will enable the CITY to realrze recreational, commercial, residential and regional benefits and facilities. The development of the Project at the earliest practicable date will enhance the quality of life of present and future residents of the CITY. J. As further set forth in Ordinance No. enacted by the CITY on __ __, 2000 (the "Enacting Ordinance"), the execution of this Development Agreement and the performance of and compliance with the terms and conditions set, for& herein by the Parties hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (ii) will promote the public convenience general welfare, and good land use practices in the CITY; (iii) will promote preservation of land values: (iv) will encourage the development of the Project by providing a level of certainty to the Property Owner; and (v) will provide for orderly growth and development of the CITY consistent with the CITY's General Plan. Agreement NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants of the Parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effectiveness of Development Agreemen! Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall only become operative and the fights and obligations of the Parties shall only arise, if all of the following have occurred before March 01, 2001, unless that date is mut~aIly extended in writing by Property Owner and the CITY: (i) The Project Site has been annexed to the CITY and said annexation is final as to any and all administrative actions, and is not then subject to judicial challenge; and (ii) The Parties have performed ail of their respective obligations under the Settlement and Pre-Annexation Agreement. B. Term The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date of the enacting Ordinance and shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter (the "Term"), unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the extensions provided below and any extension attributable to the "force majeure" circumstances described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties. Following the expiration of the Term, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any fight or duty arising fi.om project entitlements granted prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Development Agreement and the structm'es that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of those structures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring, for land use puq~oses, that those structures continue to be legal conforming structures and that those uses continue to be legal conforming uses. C. Assi~znment Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, Property Owner shall have the right to convey, assign, sell, lease, sublease, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise txansfer (for purposes of this Development Agreement, "Transfer") the Project Site, in whole or in part, to any person, par~ership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, and to the extent of each such Transfer, the ~'ansferor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such obligations under this Development Agreement at the time of the Transfer, except to the extent Property Owner is in Default, as defined in Section 3C hereof, of any of the terms of this Development Agreement when the Transfer occurs. If all or a portion of the Project Site is Transferred and there is noncompliance by the transferee owner with respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the txansferor with respect to any portion of the Project Site not sold or Transferred, such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that transferee or transferor, as applicable, but shall not be deemed to be a breach hereunder against other persons then owning or holding any interest in any other portion of the Project Site and not themselves in breach under this Development Agreement. Any alleged breach shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3C hereof. In no event shall the reservation or dedication ora portion of the Project Site to a public agency cause a ~ansfer of duties and obligations under this Development Agreement to such public agency unless specifically stated to be the case in this Development Agreement, any of the exhibits attached to this Development Agreement, the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public agency. Property Owner shall notify the CITY not less than sixty (60) days before any such Transfer, and such notice shall contain all material information regarding the contemplated Transfer, including but not limited to the identity of the transferee, and the material terms of such contemplated Transfer. D. Amendment of Agreement This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the Panics may enter into one or more implementing agreements, as set forth below, to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending this Development Agreement. Property Owner and the CITY acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Property Owner and the CITY and that, in the course of the development of the Project Site, it may be necessary to supplement this Development Agreement to address the details of the Panics' respective performance and obligations, and to otherwise effectuate the proposes of this Development Agreement and the intent of the Parties. If and when, from time to time, the Panics find that it is necessary or appropriate to clarify the application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending the Development Agreement, the Panics may do so thi'ough one or more implementing agreements (the "Implementing Agreement"), which shall be executed by the Community Development Director of CITY (the "Community Development Director") and by an authorized representative of Property Owner. After execution, each Implementing Agreement shall be attached as an addendum and become a part of this Development Agreement, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary. Such Implementing Agreement shall not require the approval of the City Council of the CITY and shall only be executed by the Community Development Director (on behalf of the CITY), if the Community Development Director has determined that such implementing agreements are not materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement, and the applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of this Development Agreement. Any changes to this Development Agreement which would impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purport to change land use designations applicable to the Project Site under the Revised University Project Entitlements, shall be considered "material" and require amendment of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Section 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT A. Land Use Entitlements The land use entitlements approved by the County are depicted on Exhibit "B". The Parties acknowledge that, without being obligated to do so, Property Owner plans to develop the Project Site in substantial conforrmty with the Revised University Project Entitlements as amended by this Development Agreement. During the Term, the permitted uses for the Project, or any portion thereof, the density and intensity of use, zoning, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, building and yard setback requirements, provisions for reservations or dedications, design and performance standards and other terms and conditions of development of the Revised University Project, shall be those set forth in the Revised University Project Entitlements as amended by this Development Agreement. The specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling over any conflict anti/or inconsistency with the Revised University Project Entitlements. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approved tracts total 685 lots and that lots may be shifted between tracts without increasing the overall number of lots and be in substantial conforrmty with the Revised University Project Entitlements as amended by this Development Agreement. The CITY Planner shall exercise his reasonable discretion to review transfers of lots between tracts and make the determination of substantial compliance. Other certain specific modifications of the Revised University Project Entitlements to which the Parties agree are set forth below. All Exhibits anached hereto constitute material provisions of the Development Agreement, and are incorporated herein. B. Rules and Regulations Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, the ordinances, roles, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of such uses, and design, improvement, and construction standards and specificatinns applicable to deveinpment of the Project, shall be the Revised University Project Entitlements and those ordinances of the CITY, as implemented by this Development Agreement, roles, regulations and official policies and General Plan provisions in force at the time of the effective date of this Development Agreement, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the Revised University Project Entitlements, as modified and/or amended by this Development Agreement (the "Existing Laws"), except that the CITY's street improvement, lighting, storm drain, and Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") standards shall be followed, and the landscape standards applicable shall be those specified in this Development Agreement, and/or the CITY's standards. In the event of any conflict between the CITY's ordinances, roles, regulations and official policies and General Plan and the Existing Laws, then the Existing Laws shall control. The CITY shall not be prevented in subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies in effect ("Future Policies") to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Laws. Such conflict shall be deemed to occur if, without limitation, such Future Policies: (i) modify the permirted types of land uses, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height or size of proposed buildings on the property, building and yard setback requirements, or impose requirements fur the construction or provision of on-site or off-site improvements or the reservation or dedication of land for public use, or the payment of fees or the imposition of exactions, other than as are in each case specifically provided for in this Development Agreement; (ii) prevent the Property Owner from obtaining all necessary approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements at such dates and under such circumstances as the Property Owner would otherwise be entitled under this Development Agreement; (iii) prevent or inhibit Property Owner from commencing, continuing and finishing on a timely basis the construction and development of the Revised University Project or timely satisfaction of Property Owner's obligations under this Development Agreement, in the manner contemplated by this Development Agreement; and/or (iv) render any conforrmng use of the Project Site a non-conforming use or any structure on the Project Site a non-conforming structm'e. C. Design and Infrastructure Issues 1. Commercial, Park and School Sites The County's approved land uses in the Revised University Project are depicted on Exhibit "B'. Despite these approved land uses, the CITY and Property Owner desire that Property Owner modify certain of the approved commercial sites, and provide for the joint use of the Park and School site in conformity with this Development Agreement. a. Commercial Sites (i) The Intex Properties Commercial Site The CITY desires that the commercial site located on the northwest comer of Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard be enlarged and have a minimum depth of three hundred (300) feet. If a larger commercial development is not feasible, then this site should be considered for residential development. However, this commercial site is owned by Intex Properties, and not by Property Owner and, therefore, Property Owner has no legal ability to make an agreement about the future development of this commercial site. Nevertheless, Property Owner shall use good faith, diligent efforts in negotiations with Intex Properties to accommodate the CITY's desires to provide for a commercial site of 9.1 acres in substantial conformity with Exhibit "C". The CITY recognizes that the commercial development depleted on Exhibit "C" does not meet the CITY's usual 10-acre minimum site. Should these negotiations result in an agreement to develop a larger commercial site, Property Owner agrees to make application to the CITY to modify its Entitlements and to use diligent, good faith efforts to cause an application to be made to the CITY for the entitlements to develop the larger commercial site. Should the negotiations not result in an agreement with Intex Properties, then Property Owner may proceed with residential development of Tract 14494 of its project site, as generally depicted on Exhibit "D". Ifa larger commercial development is not possible, then the Intex Properties Site may be considered for development with residential development or other CITY-approved commercial uses allowed under the low residential district of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In that case, the approved entitlements of Tract 14494 will be modified to extend the street south to Banyan Avenue, as generally depicted on Exhibit "D" and the CITY agrees to participate in any required condemnation proceeding to allow the construction of the new street to connect to Banyan Avenue in conformity with CITY standards. (ii) Area G Property Owner may apply to the CITY for development of the commercial site located within Area G of the Project Site Plan (see Exhibit "B") in accordance with the Revised University Project Entitlements and the CITY agrees to consider, in good faith, such application. The Parties acknowledge that the design criteria for this commercial development shall be those contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, except the commercial site will be approximately 6.77 acres. All other development criteria shall comply with the applicable development standards of the CITY. Should commercial development under these criteria be infeasible, then the use of Area G will revert to residential, which may include a minimum of 26 lots for single family, detached homes, with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet as depicted in Exhibit "E". Upon final decision by the CITY that commercial development of Area G is not feasible, the Property Owner shall initiate a zone change and General Plan amendment for residential development of the site within 120 days of such final decision. b. Park and School Sites The CITY and Property Owner agree to use diligent, good faith efforts to obtain the Etiwanda School District's agreement for reciprocal rights to shared parking facilities and use of the park site and school site. 2. Day Creek Boulevard Streetscapes The CITY desires that the design of Day Creek Boulevard streetscapes be modified from that approved as part of the Revised University Project Entitlements, to accommodate a wider landscape setback along the east side of Day Creek Boulevard, and that the walls, pilasters and landscapes be modified to be substantially consistent with the development of Day Creek Boulevard south of the Project Site. Property Owner agrees to modify the design of Day Creek Boulevard as depicted on Exhibit "F", to build said streetscapes in substantial conformity with Exhibit "F- 1". With the exception of grading and hardscape requirements, the improvements for Day Creek Boulevard shall be substantially consistent with the CITY's approved Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan however, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the median width shall be a maximum of 10 feet, and the parkway on the east side of Day Creek Boulevard shall be 25 feet in depth from curb face, except as shown on Exhibit "F-2". The monuments at the intersections on Day Creek Boulevard shall be constructed in substantial conformity with Exhibits "G" and "G-I" and with the "Entry Monument Constructions Documents" on file with the CITY on October 1, 1999. 3. Banvan/Surnn'at Avenue From SCE Easement to Rochester Avenno The CITY desires that Banyan Avenue, west of Day Creek Boulevard, be fully extended from the existing Southern California Edison easement, which parallels the western boundary of the Project Site, through to Rochester Avenue on the west as this is identified as a vital link in tl)e CITY's circulation plan. The CITY acknowledges and agrees that such extension is not a part of the Revised University Project Entitlements, and is not required for traffic circulation related solely to the Revised University Project. Property Owner hereby agrees to provide the funding, and/or, construction necessary to build the improvements to Banyan Avenue through to Rochester Avenue, including all construction drawings and plans. The CITY agrees that within thirty (30) days of the receipt of final drawings and required completed applications, it will apply to the County of San Bernardino and any other local, State or Federal agencies with jurisdiction for all necessary permits to complete such improvements (the "Permits"). Property Owner shall have no obligation to obtain the Permits, but agrees to cooperate as necessary with the CITY to obtain such Permits. Once the CITY has obtained the Permits, Property Owner agrees to make such approved unProvements to Banyan Avenue, in substantial conformity with the improvements depicted on Exhibit "H'. The CITY agrees that it has requested that landscaping, including irrigation, be installed along the south side of the extension of Banyan Avenue, west of the properW line of the Project site, and the CITY agrees that it will be responsible for the cost of maintenance of this landscaping, which may include, at the CITY's option, inclusion in any landscape maintenance district created pursuant to Section 2K, below. Attached as Exhibit "H- l" is the "Banyan Offsite Full Width Construction" costs estimate. 4. Dry Utilities The Revised University Project Entitlements do not require that Burd vaults be installed and the CITY and Property Owner agree that no Burd vaults will be required throughout the Project Site. 5. Slopes Grading plans depicting slopes in all landscape maintenance districts ("LMDs") shall be reviewed and approved by the CITY. The goal of such review is to minimize the slopes within the LMD project site areas. 2H: 1V slopes may be permitted for up to 12 feet, six inches (12.5 feet) in height; hardscape conforming to the CITY's standards above the 12.5 feet height may be used upon review and agreement with CITY Staffand with retaining walls and/or crib walls as approved by the CITY Engineer. The location of slopes in excess of 12.5 feet within the Project Site are depicted on Exhibit 'T'. Proposed specific slope treannents which shall be applied to the slopes in excess of 12.5 feet are depicted on Exhibits "I-l" through "I-6". 6. Area H - with 68 Future Lots The Revised University Project Entitlements include a density of 68 lots on lots of a minimum size of 10,000 square feet for Area H, as depicted on Exhibit "B". Property Owner proposes to develop Area H as generally depicted on Exhibit "J". The Property Owner shall cooperate with the CITY to address transportation and circulation issues. The CITY agrees that this density will be applied to Area H, including the agreement to allow grading to achieve this density, unless public health and safety issues preclude approval of the necessary grading to allow the density as approved in the Revised University Project Entitlements. The CITY further agrees that any future approvals for Area H will rely upon the Revised University Project Entitlements, including the SEIR. In all other respects, Area H shall be reviewed and approved in compliance with the CITY's then applicable rules and regulations. The CITY acknowledges that the property now owned by the Etiwanda School District, identified as Area I in paragraph 7 below, may allow for residential development and provide alternate access to Area H. In the event that such development of Area I is approved, the Property Owner shall alter its development to accommodate the additional point of access. 7. Area 1 - Etiwanda School District Property The Parties acknowledge that the Etiwanda School Distxict ("District") owns the area depicted as Area I on Exhibit "K". Representations have been made to the Parties that the Distxict is prepared to submit a tentative tract map for residential development in Area I which will propose the development of 30 tots in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The CITY and Property Owner agree to use diligent, good faith efforts in considering the development of Axea I in conjunction with the Revised University Project. 8. Paseos In accordance with the previous Settlement Agreement among CITY, COUNTY and Property Owner's predecessors-in-interest, the Project Site is to include seven (7) additional paseos to provide access to the trails provided in CITY. The CITY and Property Owner agree that the number ofpaseos to be required within the Project Site and the location of the paseos shall be approved by the CITY's Trails Committee. The CITY's Staffaccepts eight (8) foot maximum widths for construction of the paseos in substantial conforrmty with the drawing attached as Exhibits "L" and "L-1". 9. Circulation Issues and Fees a. Hanson Aggregates (i) Access. The Revised University Project Entitlements require that Property Owner provide to the Hanson Aggregates operation located west of the Project Site, interim and permanent access ~long Banyan Avenue to the Day Creek Boulevard interchange at State Highway Route 30. CITY and Property Owner agree that such access shall be provided in accordance with the Revised University Project Entitlements and as depicted on Exhibit "M". Furthermore, the Parties agree that the intersection of Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard will be constructed in substantial conformity to the depiction on Exhibit "M-1". (ii) Disclosure. Property Owner agrees to provide a disclosure statement to all purchasers stating that the Hanson Aggregates operations has rights of access for its truck traffic along Banyan Avenue from the operation to Day Creek Boulevard, and to the interchange at State Highway Route 30. b. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impacts Analysis Circulation improvements necessary to serve the area in and around the Project Site, not currently within the CITY, are generally depicted on Exhibit "N." The Parties acknowledge that the Property Owner plans to build improvements that exceed the Project Transportation requirements. The CITY agrees to establish a circulation fee for the area depicted on Exhibit "N" as a mechanism to reimburse the Property Owner for construction of infrastracmre in excess of Property Owner's fair share. The fee shall be calculated on a per-acre basis, with the cost of the infrastructure allocated to the benefiting properties. Exhibit "N-I" depicts the benefiting properties and their respective fair share. Exhibit "N-2" through "N-5" depict the estimated costs of the infrastracture. Exhibit "N-6" depicts the street cross-sections. c. Other Circulation Improvements The CITY has requested and the Property owner has agreed to make the following changes to the Revised University Project: (i) Hanley Avenue shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width, curb to curb, from Banyan Street to the School District's north property line in order to provide left turn pockets and overflow parking for the school as depicted on Exhibit "O". (ii) Property Owner shall construct sidewalks on the west side of Hanley Avenue from Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue, except for the portion of fee property depicted as "N.A.P." on Exhibit "P". As to this portion, the Parties acknowledge that the School District owns this portion and has already submitted plans to the State of California which depict the construction of a sidewalk on this portion. (iii) Traffic signals shall be installed on Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue, Banyan Avenue, and Vintage Drive, the traffic signal at the intersection of Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard shall be operational when warranted, or by the issuance of the one-hundred and fiftieth (150a') building permit, whichever first occurs. The other traffic signals shall be installed by the end of the Project development, or when warranted, whichever first occurs. (iv) A raised median shall be provided on Day Creek Boulevard from Wilson Avenue to the Route 30 Freeway. Median island openings shall be allowed on Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue, the intersection located one-half distance between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, Banyan Street and Vintage Drive. (v) Banyan Street from Hanley Avenue to Rochester and Day Creek Boulevard from the Route 30 Freeway to the north project limit; shall be posted "no parking any time". (vi) Wilson Avenue shall be fully improved by Property Ovaler fi.om the western boundary of Tract 14494 to the existing termmns of Wilson Avenue located west of Hanley Avenue, except for the north side of ¥~'ilson Avenue from Hanley Avenue to the point that is approximately 330' east of Day Creek Boulevard wh/eh is the responsibility of Tract 13527, except one lane north of the median shall be installed to allow for traffic circulation. Wilson Avenue shall be constructed with 72 feet of paved width, fi.om curb to curb. A raised medium shall be constructed on Wilsun Avenue, with median breaks allowed only at Day Creek Boulevard and Hanley Avenue. Any other median breaks must be approved by the CITY Engineer. The westerly terminus of Wilson Avenue shall include a suitable turn-around area for vehicles. (vii) Wilson Avenue shall be open to public traffic, but not necessarily fully improved, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. (viii) Property Owner shall construct Day Creek Boulevard from Route 30 to Vintage Avenue, as depicted on Exhibit "F", by the issuance of the une-hundreth (100t~) building permit, except that the Parties acknowledge this construction cannot be completed without the cooperation of th/rd parties who own the properties on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard above Route 30 or condemnation of a right of way along these properties. If, for any reason outside the control of the CITY and the Property Owner, Property Owner cannot timely complete the construction of this portion of Day Creek Boulevard, then Property Owner shall be entitled to deposit with the CITY a sum of cash or a letter of credit equal to two-hundred percent (200%) of the projected actual costs, either total or partial, of such construction in full and complete satisfaction of its obligation, and to be relieved of any further i'estrictions on the issuance of building permits. If the CITY is required to construct these improvements because of the Property Owner's failure or inability to do so, then Property Owner shall be entitled to an accounting for the use of funds by the CITY to complete the construction and to a refund of monies not used for such construction. d. Reimbursement to Property Owner fi.om The CITY's Street Improvement Deposits The CITY acknowledges that it has received deposits fi'om other surrounding property owners or projects, including, but not limited to, Centex Homes (Tract 12659, $148,152.40), and Panda Development (Tract 13812, $225,000.00), and may collect other fees for construction along Hanley and/nr Wilson Avenues (Tract 14120) (as more fully depicted on Exhibit "Q") (the Street Improvement Deposits). The CITY agrees that it will cooperate with Property Owner to requ/l'e such surrounding property owners or projects to complete such Street improvements $o that the improvements on Summit Avenue and Hanley Avenue, on Vintage Drive and on Wilson Avenue are completed at the same time as Property Owner's adjacent development. Alternatively, the CITY will complete the construction of these Street Improvements using the Street Improvement Deposits, or the CITY agrees that Property Owner may elect to complete construction of all or a portion of the street improvements, limited to curb, gutter, street paving and striping, and street lights and CITY further agrees it will reimburse Property Owner fi.om the Street Deposits upon the CITY Engineer's acceptance of the Street Improvements and review and of Property Owner's costs of construction, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 10. Storm Drains According to the Revised University Project Entitlements, the regional portion of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine drainage fee is $114,000.00, which Property Owner shall pay to the County, if required. The Property Owner shall also reimburse Kaufman & Broad and The Lyon Company on a per-acre basis for the construction of storm drain systems in Day Creek Boulevard south of Highland Avenue in the form of payments at the time of the first certificate of occupancy of any unit tributaD' to the storm drain systems. The per-acre basis calculation and Property Owner's fair share of the total cost of the construction of the storm drain systems set forth herein is contained in Exhibit "R.' D. Timing of Development and Fees 1. Development of Circulation Improvements a. Banyan/Summit Avenue - Hanley Avenue to Rochester Avenue Property Owner agrees to promptly make such improvements for acceptance by the CITY Engineer before the issuance of any building permit for a housing unit over and above one-h~xndred (100) such units. However, if, for any reason not within the control of the CITY or the Property Owner, the CITY cannot obtain the Permits so that Property Owner can complete the improvements prior to the issuance of the building permit for the one-hundred and first such umt, Property Owner shall be entitled to either deposit with the CITY a sum of cash or a letter of credit equal to two-hundred percent (200%) of the projected actual cost, either total or partial, of the construction of the improvements in full and complete satisfaction of its obligation, and to be relieved of any further restrictions on the issuance of building permits. If the CITY is required to construct these improvements because of the Property Owner's failure or inability to do so, then Property Owner shall be entitled to an accounting for the CITY's use of the funds to complete the improvements, and to a refund of monies not used for such improvements. b. Day Creek Boulevard Property Owner agrees to construct Day Creek Boulevard north to Wilson Avenue concurrently with Phase 1 (as defined in the Revised University Entitlements) and that such improvements will be substantially complete no later than issuance of the one-handredth (100m) building permit in the Project. The CITY agrees to promptly process all applications and permits consistent with its usual and customary procedures. Streetscape improvements from the curb will be constx'acted as development of the adjacent ~xacts occurs. 2. Develovment of the Park Site Property Owner agrees to constract the Park (as defined in the Revised University Project Entitlements) at the park site in substantial conformity with the depiction on Exhibit "S" and in conformance with ADA standards, except that the Parties agree that the Park will be constructed with up to four (4) lit basketball courts and two (2) lit ball fields. The Park improvements will be substantially complete no later than issuance of the one- hundredth ( 100m) building pen'mt in the Project. The Parties agree that the product specifications for the park amenities are listed on Exhibits "S- 1" through "S-2" and that such amenities shall conform to CITY standards. The quantities and sizes of the amenities and materials shall be as depicted on Exhibit "S-3" and any remaining issues shall conform to CITY standards. The CITY agrees to promptly process all applications and permits consistent with its usual and customary procedures. The CITY agrees that through dedication of 10 acres and construction of the Park, Property Owner will exceed, through its construction costs, all requirements of the CITY's parl~ fees and applicable standards. The CITY waives any requirement for payment of a Park fee against the Revised University Project. Property Owner shall dedicate the Park to the CITY and the CITY shall accept the dedication promptly upon completion. The CITY reserves the right to name the Park. 3. Development of Remainder of Project Site Neither Property Owner nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases of the Project Site shall be developed, since such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the contxol of Proper'Pi Owner including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, competition~ and other factors. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Proper~ Owner retains flexibility under this Development Agreement to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the exercise of the Property Owner's business judgment. The CITY fm-ther acknowledges that Property Owner may desire to market, sell, or otherwise arrange for disposition of some or all of the Project Site, prior to development, and that the rate at which the Project develops will likely depend upon the business judgement of subsequent owners of the Project Site. 4. CITY's Cooperation CITY shall use good faith, diligent efforts to promptly process and take £mal action on any applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owner with respect to the Project. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation, (a) using good faith, diligent efforts to process subsequent Development/Design Review in accnrdance with state regulations; and (b) promptly processing all ministerial permits in accordance with Section 2I below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of this Development Agreement, any future regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Project Site or the extent thereof, shall be deemed to conflict with Property Owner's vested rights to develop the Project under this Development Agreement and shall, to that extent, not apply to the development of the Project. Processing and review of development proposals shall be subject to established procedures in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review, as specified in the Existing Laws. Howeve. r, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal shall be based on the objectives, policies and specific development standards specified herein. 5. Force Maieure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, Property Owner and CITY shall be excused from performance of their obligations under this Development Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, tints, s~'ikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the other pan'y, economic consideration or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of CITY or Property Owner, as applicable. The time of performance of such obligations as well as the term of this Development Agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of such delay hereunder. E. Reimbursement Provision 1. Reimbursement Mechanism As set forth herein, pursuant to the Revised University Project Entitlements, the Property Owner will construct certain traffic/circulation improvements which will benefit other proper~ owners and developments adjacem to or surrounding the Project Site. The Property Owner has incurred the costs of designing ~hese improvements and will incur additional costs, including but not limited to construction, installation, permit and mspectinn (the "Cnsts"), as depicted in Exhibits "O-l" and "O.2." The Parties agree and acknowledgn that the Costs are estimates, and ultimately, Propen3, Owner will submit its actual costs to the CITY, and the CITY's calculation of Property Owner's reimbursement shall be based upon such actual costs. The CITY further acknowledges and agrees that as a part of the approvals of each of the projects referenced herein, it will condition such projects to pay fees for ~raffic/circulation improvements consistent with Section 9.b. hereof. This will provide the sole source of funds to reimburse Property Owner for its Costs. The Property Owner, upon application to the CITY made by the Property Owner not more frequently than once a calendar quarter, will be entitled to recover from the CITY the fees so collected as reimbursable Costs. The CITY £mds it reasonable and appropriate to provide for a mechanism for reimbursement to the Property Owner for these Costs. However, the CITY's reimbursement obligations shall be limited to the extent that the CITY eun collect such funds. 2. Term of Reimbursement Provision The CITY agrees to collect the funds identified and to use those funds to reimburse the Property Owner, without interest thereon, pursuant to this provision. This reimbursement provision shall continue in effect until the ProperS. Owner has been fully reimbursed as set forth herein, and shall survive the Term of this Development Agreement, unless the obligation is sooner satisfied by the payment in full of all reimbursable Costs due and owing to the Property Owner, after which the obligation shall cease. F. Future Entitlements With respect to any entitlements that Property Owner may require in the future, including, without limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals, conditional use permits, and Development/Design Review related to the Park Site, Commercial Sites and Area H, the CITY shall retain its discretionary review authority and the CITY's applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies. However, any such discretionary review shall be expressly subject to the provisions of tins Development Agreement and the CITY may only impose conditions upon such discretionary entitlements which are consistent with the Revised Uinversitv Project Entitlements as amended by this Development Agreement, except as otherwise specifically required by state federal law. or G. Environmental Review Other than the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the SEIR and the Revised University Project Entitlements (and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated therein), no other mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the Revised Uinversity Project, as presently approved and as evaluated in the SEIR, shall be required. In connection with the CITY's issuance of any further entitlement (as contemplated in Section 2F above), winch is subject to CEQA, the CITY shall promptly commence and diligently process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA, and to the extent permitted by CEQA, the CITY shall use and adopt the SEIR and other existing environmental reports and studies as adequately addressing the environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requiring new or supplemental environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the CITY may impose additional measures (or conditions) to mitigate, as permitted by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts of such future entitlements, which were not considered at the time of approval of the Project; provided, however, that: (i) Unless required by state or federal law, no new or additional mitigation measures shall be imposed as a result of any Future Policies; and (ii) The CITY agrees and acknowledges that the TIA incorporated in the SEIR has fully analyzed the traffic projected to be generated from the Revised University Project, and, in accordance with all applicable legal requirements including, without limitation, the TIA Guidelines set forth in the San Beruardino County Congestion Management Plan ("CMP"), no additional traffic impact analysis shall be required for development of the Project Site as long as the number ofveincle trips generated do not exceed the veincle trips evaluated in the TIA analysis. In the event and at such time as the Project generates more vehicle u'ips than analyzed in the TIA, the CITY may require a new traffic impact analysis in accordance with such CMP standards as may exist at such time. Except in such event (and except for such traffic circulation/site-access analysis as may be reasonably required to detemUne the configuration and alignment of Streets adjacent or internal to the Project), no further traffic impact analyses shall be required by the CITY with respect to implementation of the Project. FI. CITY Fees and Mandates by State or Federal Law: The Parties acknowledge and agree that the fees and impositions winch may potentially be imposed by the CITY on the Revised University Project and Property Owner (collectively, "Fees") fall within one of three categories: (a) fees for processing land use and constn~ction permit applications which are not otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code (but winch are subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 66013,66014 and 66016-66018.5 of the Government Code) (collectively, the "Processing Fees"); (b) fees or other monetary exactions which are contemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date of tins Development Agreement and which puq~ort to defray all or a portion of the cost of impacts to certain public facilities, improvements and other amenities from development projects, including any fees described in Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (collectively, the "Existing Fee Categories") (the Existing Fee Categories include any increases, decreases, or other modifications to existing fees, so long as such modified fees relate to the same category of impacts identified in the Existing Fee Categories); and (c) fees or other monetary exactions which may be imposed in the funa'e by the CITY for purposes of defra34ng all or a portion of the cost of public facilities, improvements, or amenities related to development projects, but excluding the Existing Fee Categories ("Other Fees"). The Property Owner's obligation to pay Fees shall be specifically governed by the following provisions: 1. Processing Fees. The CITY may charge Processing Fees which are in force and effect on a CITY-wide basis at the time of Property Owner's application for a land use entitlemem or a construction perrmt. The amount of any Processing Fees shall be determined by the CITY in accordance with all applicable laws including, witlaout limitation, Government Code Sections 66013,66014 and 66017-66018.5 (or any successor laws, as applicable). Unless otherwise agreed by Property Owner and the CITY, the Processing Fees assessed Proper~ Owner shall be the same as those imposed upon other development projects throughout jurisdictional limits of the CITY. 2. Existinr, Fee Categories. As set forth above, the CITY agrees that certain fee categories, (including, without limitation, Transportation Improvement fees, storm drain improvement fees, and commUmty park fees) haw.* been or will be met by Property Owner through the construction of improvements. In consideration of the construction costs to be borne by Property Owner, CITY waives its right to collect a Beautification Fee from the development of the Revised University Project. Neither Property Owner nor the Project shall be subject to any additional CITY imposed fees, impositions or monetary exactions with respect to any Existing Fee Categories, for a period often (10) years following the effective date of this Agreement. The period during which fees within any Existing Fee Categories are limited as described in this section (and as further applied in paragraph 3 below) is referred to hereinafter as the "Fee Limitation Period." 3. Other Fees. In consideration of the Property Owner's agreement to modify the Revised University Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and implement the timing of development in accordance with the terms set forth above, no Other Fees shall be imposed upon Property Owner or the Revised University Project during the applicable Fee Limitation Period, except as may be specifically required to carry out any state or federal law or mandate enacted after the effective date of this Development Agreement, as necessary to mitigate environmental impacts of the project in accordance with Section 2G above. Even in those cases where Property Owner or the Project may be required to pay Other Fees, any such Other Fees shall be limited to Property Owner's fair share contribution to impacts created by the Project, shall not discriminate against Property Owner (as compared to other property owners in the CITY) and shall not duplicate any Exactions or other mitigations or fees contributed or paid by Property Owner or the Project, or borne by property Owner or the Project through in-lieu construction. 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis. In consideration of the Property Owners' agreement to modify the Revised University Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and to implement the timing of development and improvements in accordance with the terms set forth above, and including the additional improvements the Property Owner has agreed to construct, including but not limited to, the extension of Banyan Avenue from the SCE Easement to Rochester Avenue, the CITY hereby waives any requirement which it could impose of the Property Owner or the revised University Project to complete a fiscal analysis for any approvals or permits that the CITY might issue under this Development Agreement. I. Non-Discretionary Permits The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing the Revised University Project, Property Owner will, from time to time, apply to the CITY for various ministerial permits, licenses, consents, certificates, and approvals, including, without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals, grading permits, construction permits, certificates of occupancy and permits required to connect the Project to utility systems under the CITY's jurisdiction (collectively, the "Non-Discretionary perrmts"). Property Owner shall have the right to apply for any such Non-Discretionary pernuts in accordance with the Existing Laws (and any applicable Future Policies under Section 2B, above). The CITY shall issue to Property Owner, upon such applications, all required Non-Discretionary Permits, subject only to compliance with the terms ofth~s Development Agreement, the CITY's Existing Laws (and any applicable Futu~'e Policies under Section 2B above) and payment of CITY's usual and customary fees and charges for such applications and Non-Discretionary Permits (subject to the provisions of Section H above). The CITY further agrees that upon its approval of any plans, specifications, design drawings, maps, or other submittals of Property Owner in connection with such Non-Discretionary Permits (the "Approved Plans"), all further entitlements, approvals and consents required f~om the CITY to implement the Project which are consistent with and further implement such Approved Plans, shall be expeditiously processed and approved by the CITY in accordance with this Development Agreement. J. Cooperation 1. Cooperation With Other Public Agencies The CITY acknowledges that Property Owner may apply from time to time for permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Revised University Project, in connection with the development of or provision of services to the Project, including, without limitation, approvals in connection with developing and implementing a tertiary water system, potential transportation improvements and other on-site and off-site infrastructure. The CITY shall cooperate with Property Owner in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals from such agencies (including, without limitation, the Cucamonga County Water District, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and shall provide any documents or certificates reasonably required to process and obtain such permits and approvals. 2. Construction of Off-Site Improvements To the extent that Property Owner is required to consmact any off-site improvements as a c~nditinn of developing the Project, the Property Owner shall make good faith, diligent efforts to acquire any off- s~te property interests required to construct such public improvements. If Property Owner fails to do so, Property Owner shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the first final subdivision map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements under Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the CITY acquires the property interests required for the public improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Property Owner of all costs incurred by the CITY to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of thnse costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount stated in an appraisal report obtained by Property Owner, at Propert3' Owner's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the CITY prior to commencement of the appraisal. To the extent that such off- site improvements, or the consmaction of any substantial infrastructure on-site, substantially benefit other property owners or other portions of the jurisdiction of limits of the CITY, the CITY agrees to assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in obtaining reimbursement or other fair share contribution by such other benefited property owners. Such assistance may include, without limitation, conditioning the approval of development projects proposed by such benefited property owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share, pro-rata basis, to the construction costs of such improvements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CITY agrees that with respect to the infrastructure improvements identified in Section 2E above, which are adjacent to and benefit other properties (whether such properties are undeveloped or developed), any further discretionary approvals sought by such property owners shall be conditioned to require fair share reimbursement to Proper~y Owner for construction and related costs incurred in providing such improvements to the extent legally permissible. 3. Public Financing The Panics hereby acknowledge that substantial public improvements must be constructed in order to develop the Park Site and the School and the remainder of the Project Site and that public financing of a substantial portion of these improvements will be critical to the economic viability of the Revised University Project. Subject to the CITY's ability to make all fundings required by applicable law and complying with all applicable legal procedures and requirements, the CITY agrees to cooperate with and assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in developing and implementing a public financing plan for the construction of the public infraslructure improvements. The implementation of such plan may include, without limitation, the formation of one or more assessment districts, or Mello-Roos community facilities districts, or the issuance of bonds, certificates of participatinn, or other debt securities necessary to implement such plan. The Parties acknowledge that it is Property Owner's intention to request that the Etiwanda School District act as the lead agency for the plan, possibly with a joint powers agreement with CITY, for school facilities fees, the Park improvements, the storm drain improvements, and other CITY facilities. If the Etiwanda School District declines to act as the lead agency, CITY agrees to act in that capacity. All formation costs shall be borne by Property Owner subject to reimbursement by the Community Facilities District. K. Creation of the Landscape and Street Lighting Maintenance Districts The CITY agrees to promptly form the necessary Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Disu'icts ("LMD') pur.,;uant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq. (the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972") for the Revised University Project development to encompass the Project Site as well as the area being annexed by the CITY in accordance with the Settlement and Pre-Annexation Agreement. The Property Owner shall pay for the formation of the LMDs. The Parties agree that the LMD's must be established no later than recordation of the final tract map and that the CITY may create LMD's which allow annexation of other areas. The Parties also acknowledge that assessments for LMD's are collected annually in June, and to the extent that assessments are not collected through the LMD for the period ending June 2001, the CITY may request, and Property Owner agrees to provide, a reasonable cash deposit to fund the LMD. The CITY shall promptly upon receipt of assessments the following June reimburse Property Owner for any such cash advances to fund the LMD's. Section 3. ANNUAL REVIEW A. Good Faith Compliance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865. I, the CITY shall, once every twelve (12) months during the term of this Development Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Property Owner with the terms of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that it is intended that this review shall apply to the Project Site as a whole, as opposed to each individual Property Owner who may own a parcel comprising the Project Site. In connection with such annual review, Property Owner shall provide such information as may be reasonably requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of this Agreement have been breached by Property Owner. If at any time prior to the review period there is an issue concerning a Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the provisions of this Section 3 will apply. B. Certificate of Comnliance If Property Owner is found to be in compliance with this Development Agreement after annual review, the Community Development Dh'ector shall, upon written request by Property Owner, issue a certificate of compliance ("Certificate of Compliance") to Property Owner stating that based upon information known to the CITY, the Development Agreement remains in effect and Property Owner is not in default. The Certificate of Compliance shall be in recordable form and shall contain such information as shall impart consm~ctive record notice of compliance. Property Owner may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of San Bemardino. C. Finding of Default If, upon completion of the annual review, the Community Development Director intends to find that Property Owner has not complied in good faith with the material terms of this Development Agreement (a "Default"), he shall first give written notice to such effect to Property Owner. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of all staffrepons, staffmcommendations and other information concerning Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement as the CITY may possess and which is relevant to determining Property Owner's performance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds and all facts allegedly demonstrating such noncompliance, so Property Owner may address the issues raised on a point-by-point basis. Property Owner shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice to file a written response with the Community Development Director. Within l0 days after the expiration of such 20-day response period, the Community Development Director shall notify Property Owner whether he has determined that Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement ("Notice of Default"). Such Notice of Default shall specify the instances in which Property Owner has allegedly failed to comply with this Development Agreement and the terms under which compliance can be obtained. The Notice of Default shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than tha-ty (30) days from the date of the Notice of Default, and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. D. Right to Anneal Upon receipt of a Notice of Default, Property Owner may appeal the Community Development Director s dee's'on directly to the City Council. Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (I0) calendar days following Property Owner's receipt of the Notice of Default. The hearing on such appeal shall be scheduled in accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the CITY's Development Code. At the hearing, Property Owner shall be entitled to submit evidence and to address all of the issues raised by the Notice of Default. If, after considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council finds and deterr~nes on the basis of substantial evidence that Property Owner is in Default, then the City Council shall specify m writing to Property Owner the instances in which Property Owner has failed to comply and the terms under which compliance can be obtained, and shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of such writing from the City Council and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. E. Prol:,ertv Owner's Cure Rights If Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement, it shall have a reasonable period of time to cure such Default before action is taken by the CITY to terminate this Development Agreement or to otherwise amend or limit Property Owner's rights under this Development Agreement. In no event shall such cure period be less than the time set forth hi the £mding of Default made under Sections 3C or 3D above (as applicable) or less than the th'ne reasonably necessary to cure such Default. Any such cure period shall be extended by the force majeure circumstances described hi Section 2D5 above. Section 4. ENFORCEMENT A. Enforceable by Either Parry Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law, this Development Agreemem shall be enforceable by any of the Parties.' B. Cumulative Remediv~ In addition to any other rights or remedies, any of the Parties may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default (to the extent otherwise permitted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et seq. or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, and relief in the nature of mandamus. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. The provisions of this Section 4B are not intended to modify other provisions of this Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise pertained by law. C. Attorneys' Fees In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enforce any covenant or any of the Parties' rights or remedies under this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any action for declaratory or equitable relief, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and ali reasonable costs, expenses and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by either of the Parties in enforcing a judgment hi its favor under this Development Agreement, shall be recoverable separately from and in addition to any other amount included in such judgment, and such attorneys' fees obligation is intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Development Agreement and to survive and not be merged into any such judgment. Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Successors and Assigns Subject to the provisions of Section 1C above, the terms of this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and their successors and assigns. Insofar as this Development Agreement refers to Property Owner, as defmed herein, if the rights under this Development Agreement are assigned, the term "Property Owner" shall refer to any such successor or assign. B. Project as a Private Undertaking It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Revised University Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect under this Development Agreement, and that each of the Panics is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No parmership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between the CITY and Property Owner is that ora government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private prope~'. C. Captions The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. D. Mort~,agee Protection 1. Discretion to Eucumber. T/ds Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Property Owner, in any manner, at Property Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Revised University Project or any portion of the Revised University Project or any improvement on the Revised University Project, by any mortgage, deed of mast or other security device securing financing with respect to all or any pan of the Revised University Project or any improvement thereon (a "Mortgage"). 2. Effect of Defauh. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any Mortgage subsequently placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, including the lien of any mortgage or deed oftrnst. Despite the foregoing, breach of any provision of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. 3. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding anything in this Development Agreement to the contrary, (al) any holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage ("Mortgagee") may acquire title to or possession of all or any portion of the Revised University Project or any improvement thereon pursuant to the remedies provided by its Mortgage, whether by judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise, and such Mortgagee shall not have any obligation under this Development Agreement to consU'uct, fund or otherwise perform any aff'u'mative obligation or afl-u'mative covenant of Property Owner hereunder or to guarantee such performance, and Mortgagee may, a/ter acquiring title to all or any portion of the Project as aforesaid, assign or otherwise transfer the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity, and upon the giving of notice of such assignment or transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or transferee of the obligations of the Property Owner with respect to the Property or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue from and after the date of assignment or transfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and all further obligations or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to the Project or portion thereof so assigned or transferred; and (b) the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any portion of the Project by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Mortgage, and such purchaser shall, by virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof, be deemed to have assumed all obligations of Property Owner with respect to the Project or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue subsequent to the date of purchase, but such purchaser shall not be respomible for an) prior defaults of Property Owner; provided, however, that in either of the instances referred to in clauses (a) and (b) above, to the extent any obligation or covenant to be performed by Property Owner is a condition to the granting ora specific benefit or to the performance of a specific covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the CITY's granting of such benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder. 4. Notice of Default to Mort~;agee: Right ofMortt, a~ee to Cure If a Mortgagee files with the CITY Clerk, a written notice requesting a copy of any Notice of Defanlt given Property Owner under this Development Agreement and specifying the address for delivery thereof, then the CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with delivery thereof to Property Owner, any notice given to Property Owner with respect to any claim of the CITY that Property Owner has not complied with the terms of this Development Agreement or is otherwise in Default under this Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of thirty (30) days after the expiration of any cure period given to Property Owner with respect to such Default, to cure such default; provided, however, that if any such Default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thixty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such Default, if such Mortgagee commences to remedy or cure within such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Default is of a nature which can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default if such Mortgagee shall, within such thirty (30) day period, commence efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through implementation of foreclosure, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure or commence to remedy or cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3E above. 5. Bankruntcy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5D4 above, if a Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owner, Mortgagee shall for the purposes of this Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to obtain possession of the Property during the period of such prohibition if Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to terminate such prohibition. 6. Amendment to Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to modify or amend this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended xn any way, or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior written consent of each Mortgagee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contrary, the CITY and Property Owner shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement, by suitable implementing agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in this Development Agreement and allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preserve the lien of the Mortgage on the occurrence of a default under the terms of this Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner each agree to execute and deliver (and to acknowledge, if necessary, for recording proposes) any implementing agreement necessary to effect such request; provided, however, that any such implementing agreement shall not in any material respect adversely effect any rights of the CITY under this Development Agreement or be materially inconsistent with the substantive provisions of this Development Agreement, the Revised University Project Entitlements and the Existing Laws. E. .Consent Where the consent or approval of any of the Parties is required in or necessary under this Development Agreement, unless the context otherwise indicates, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. F. ~nt re Agreement This Development Agreement and the documents attached to and referred to in this Development Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement. G. Further Actions and Instruments Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated under this Development Agreement in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. H. ~ This Development Agreement including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the fights of each of the Parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. I. Recording The CITY Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Bemardino no later than ten (10) days following the effective date of this Development Agreement. J. Time Time is of the essence in this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition of this Development Agreement. K. Waiver The failure of any of the Parties at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition shall not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar nature which would have originally constituted a breach of or default under tiffs Development Agreement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or default, and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullest extent provided by this Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by any of the Parties. L. Partial Invalidity If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. M. Notices All notices between the CITY and Properly Owner and any transferee under this Development Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal delive~ or facsimile shall be deemed effective upon the delivery of such notice to the party for which it is intended at the address set forth below (or, in the case ora n'ansferee, at the address specified by such transferee in a written notice to CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the addressee. The Panics' current address are as follows: To CITY: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Arm: Commumty Development Director With copies to: Mr. James Markman City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershun One Civic Center Circle Brea, California 9282 l To Property Owner: U.C.P., Inc. 5109 La Palina, Suite D Anaheim Hills, California 92807 Arm: Mr. Bruce Elieff Mr. Ben Anderson With copies to: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden 600 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300 San Bernardino, California 92401 Arm: Mr. Mark Ostoich Ms. Penny Alexander-Kelley Either of the Parties may change its mailing address or the person to whom notices are to be sent at any time by giving wrinen notice of such change to the other of the Parties in the manner provided above. N. Indemnification Property Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY and its Council members, representatives, agents, officers, attorneys, and employees (the "Indenmified Parties") from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemaified Par6es to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that Property Owner's obligations under this Section are subject to and conditioned upon the CITY and Proper~ Owner entering into a mutually satisfactory joint defense agreement under which the CITY shall cooperate fully with ProperVd Owner in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, Property Owner will be entitled to coordinate and direct the prosecution and defense of such claim, action, or proceeding, and Property Owner shall retain settlement authority with respect thereto. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to unreasonably withhold or delay their approval of such joint defense agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year frrst above wrinen. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA U.C.P., Inc. a California corporation By:. By: Mayor Name: Brace Elieff Its: ATTESTED TO: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci/~ AHomey Attorneys for U.C.P,, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE U.C.P. owned property is described as follows: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF SECTIONS 20 AND 29, TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNAKDION BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Excepting therefrom the Intex ovmed properties further described as follows: THE SOUTH ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29 AND THE NORTH ~ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29 AND THE SOUTH ~A OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29 EXCEPTING THE WESTERLY 330 FEET, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN SAN BERNARIDNO COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXHIBIT "A" LEGEND ~ SINGLE FAMILY (7,200 SF = ~INIMUM LOT SIZE) P~UC (P~( & ~L~. SCHOOL) RANCHO ETIWANDA ADOPTED UNI~RSI~ P~NNED DE~LOPME~ WQson Avenue RANCHO ETIWANDA TRACT !'!.'!.94 BANYAN COMMERCIAL 81TE ~ ~r~a 9.1 ACRE OPTION "°' "'"'"' )1 ~-"'J EXHIBIT C RANCHO ETIWANDA BANYAN COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OPTION 15 LOTS 65' 88' 63' II 98' . ..~- ~ ._.~?j. 99' ( ~2' ~ ~ ~oo' ~oy ~ ~ 106' 106' 108' 100' - RANCHO ETIWANDz A~A G LOTTING OPTION ~'"~ ""-'"" "" {~ EXHIBIT E ROUT~ 30 TO VINTAGE DRIVI~ N.T.$. WILSON AVENUE TO NORTH PROPEFR'~ UNF N.T.S. RANCHO ETIWANDi ~: DaY CREEK BOULEVARI~ ~D ~N~ STREET CROSS SECTION '~ ~'-'~ ""' EXHIBIT F ROUTE 30 TO VINTAGE DRNF Wll ~ AVENUE TO NORTH PROPERTY LII'~ N.T.~. N.T..~. ) I~_~. _ , TREE WASHIGTONIA ROBUSTA I ~"~"~ SHRUBS & GROUND COVI ~.' WALK I I O' WALK JBS & GROUND COVER CANOPY TREE RIVER ROCK PYRUS CALLERYANA VINTAGE DRIVE TO WILSON AVENL.~ N.T.~. RANCHO ETIWANDA STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT --- ~1~ I EX.,~,t ~-~ LU ~3 10' WALK ~ . MEDIAN DAYCREEK BLVD. BUS STOP SECTION EAST SIDE // RETAINING W~ , LL ~ RETAINING WALL S~R~SS ~ ~- o.c. LOT ~3S LOTS 16, 17 DAYCREEK BLVD, LOTS 16, 17, & 3~ EAST SIDE RANCHO ETIWAND STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT EXH,~,T ~-~ ENTRY MONUMENT DNDARY ENTRY MONUMENT (S) , RANCHO ETrWANDA - '~-'' J '~1"~"~ INTERSECTIONS EXHIBIT G <,~_~'~.._._,~ ;~:~: .. ~ ~,.~.j .NOTE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ON ~; ~____.~,-~----- FILE WITH C'~ FOR EXACT ~"~ ~'~'~ DESIGN AND DIMENSIONS, ~ ~.m~ P~NS DATED 10/1/99 DAY CIL~2~C I~LV'D RANCHO ETIWAND~. INTERSECTIONS -- ~'~ '~- EXH,Bn' ~-~ 1/4 SEC. LINE AND F"I/ ,:,.,'--ZI-~--IA ~ _L ~ Al_ II~-""'"l ~-.._ t~) SEc'noN ~ 1520' 240 ......... S,B. CO. FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTY ~ SCE .... ~ ~ EX~ST~NG 16" CORRIDOR 3 I ac u. CCWD WATERLINE j PROPOSED w o uJ ~ C,L. ~ -~ 3o .l 96" ac~ -- 3 E MWD PIPELINE -PROPOSED ~ W/CHAIN O' GATE FUTURE C&G BANYAN PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN W .. PROPOSED TRAIL ~ 8.B. CO. FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTY n - ~rO 0 RANCHO F,?IWANDA ,,: BANYAN AVENUE ~.'u'J'~. SN~:¢R~v~ FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS I I / glaring - Land Planning ___ * '.~'._~";7..._~'J"~ ..... Banyan Offsite Full Width Construction UCP Incorporated Rancho Etiwanda 685 LOT.~; 280 ACRES DATE ESTIMATED: 2/22/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/8/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering ~ ITEM AMOUNT CONSTRUCTION AC PAVING 56,200 S.F. $2.00 $112,40 CURB AND GUTTER 2,610 LF $10.00 $26,10 SIDEWALK 5,440 S.F. $3.00 $16,32 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL 15,520 S.F. $3.00 $46,56 10' x 8' x 130' BOX CULVERT 1 EA. $200,000.00 $200,00 6' x 4' x 130' BOX CULVERT I EA. $200,000.00 $200,00 72" RCP 130 LF $282.00 $36,66 HEADWALL 2 EA. $20,000.00 $40,00, RIPRAP 14,000 TON $15.00 $210,00~ CATCH BASIN 2 EA. $5,000.00 $10.00~ CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 450 SF $5.00 $2.25~ AC DRIVEWAY (TO PL) 3,720 SF $5.00 $18.6OI 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE 2,190 LF $15.00 $32,85( 6' x 12' CHAIN LINK GATE 6 LA. $1,000.00 $6.00( SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ROW 105,600 SF $1.00 $105,60( STREET LIGHTS 7 EA. $1,500.00 $10,50( LANDSCAPING 7,150 SF $4.00 $28,60( Sub Total Full Width Construction $1,11 ENGINEERING 6% $66,14( SURVEY 5% $55,12; PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION 8% $88,1 CONTINGENCY 20% $220,48E TOTAL FULL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION $1,532,39~ Notes: Box Culvert costs are market projections EXHIBIT H-1 __ L! .! ,! ,! ,! ,! ,!,~ LEGEND ,J~ SLOPES HIGHER THAN '[2..: Wilson Avel3ue EXHIBIT I-4 EXHIBIT I-3 .,~ RANCHO ETIWAND.~ ": ~Pl ~--~LMD SLOPES EXHIBIT e~o~ c~ ~ 'STAT~ HIGHWAY RIVER ROCK 36" HIGH CRIB WALLS OR RETAINING WALLS AS APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER. 4' WALK WILSON AVENUE RANCHO ETIlgAND~ LIVE) SLOPES EXHIBIT EXHIBIT I-1 4' WALK -- PAYCREEK BLVD. WEST SIDE RANCHO ETIIgANDA ~ SLOPES EXI-III~'I' RIVER ROCK 4' WALK VINTAGE DRIVE RANCHO ETIWAN LMD SLOPES EXHIBIT ----. '"-~ -~) ~'O EXHIBIT I-3 ~.o-~ RIVER ROC 1 O' WALK DAYCREEK BLVD. EAST SIDE RANCHO ETIWANDA ~ SLOPES EXHIBIT --~--. '~ )/'Jl' [ EXHIBIT I-4 36" HIGH RETAINING WALL -- 4'_ WALK HANLEY AVENUE I~ANCHO ETIWAND~ LIVE) SLOPES EXHIB~ '"'" TALL NARROW UPRIGHT TREE FLOWERING MEDIUM SHRUB CASCADING GROUND COVER  / 4' HIGH RETAINING WALLS (2) ~ 10' WALK · ~ ~'~ - PRIVATE SLOPE EXHIBIT RANCHO ETIWANDA PRIVATE SLOPE FXH~B~T EXHIBIT I-6 il s.c.~. Intermediate School Site Avenue · EI.~LRD E.N'OJ~,~'~'O AREA H ,~"~' ~ ,~ I EXHIB~ d · ~CLUDE$ 30 LOT~ OWN~ BY ET1WANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT RANCHO ETIWANDA 715 LOTe LOTTING EXHIBIT A T.I.A.RD "~' ~ ~ EXHIB~ K WIDE UAX. LEGEND PASEO ~ PASEO LOCATION WIDE MAX;. PASEO PAS wUson Ivenue 8' WIDE MAX. PASEO 8' WIDE MAX. ~ PASEO 8' WIDE MAX. PAS EO 20' WIDE STORI DRAIN EASEM! AND PASEO NAP Elementar~ School Site WIDE MAX PASEO latex PASEO 8' WIDE MAX PASEO 20' WIDE PASEO 8' WIDE MAX- NAP PASEO 8' W, DE MAX RANCHO ETIWAN PASEO STAU "': ~o~ ~o .o, PASEO EXHIBIT ~D ~G~ER~G RANCHO ETIWANDA ~ PASEO CROSSECTIO. ---' ~:)) ~"'~ EXHIBIT L-1 ,¢' t- 0 Avenue INSTALLED BY  ge Drive ;tote Highwoy 30 RANCHO ETIWANDA HANSEN AGGREGATE HAUl_ ROAD SCALE: 1"= 100' RANCHO ETIWANDA BANYAN/SUMMIT AVE. INTERSECTI¢ I ....5' "'.",'~-..' ' ~ '~ ~.'.:' '" !' ;','."': ".'ii,ii I -..,':,.. ...,, ,. ~ ~--.. ! ' .. .. I . .-..i" '"!' ~:-.',..;. '"" i1': s. ~' ~' !1 . ,e ,'., :,:i::;~il ~ ' '! Ill ~ *'' ,! ii, ! · .:., ,'{ wil~o, a,en.e ...: ,.,:~ , .~ ::, · LEGEND ~" ~ I '-, .... :--. ':, ;.: ~ ; :.'~' o, o I ....... "::: ~', I~ , ' ' m; ~1 "' .: / ' :~ ' " ".~' . __ .__ -- --~ Ba~n ~/'-'~: II I ' Surest Avenue I I I~:~'.~! i':~ r ..." ~ ~m ~ : ~ I · ';:t~ 'ii ' ' ,,L : ~ ' ' ~' ' I I;il j; ~11~ .U,L.:~' ' ' ~ ; :,:'"' · ' ~ · I" ~ ::" ' .' : ~ '; · ~~., , :.,,,~ =~1~ ~)'.~ ~., .. RANCHO ETIWANDA mot ~ .i ~ ; I ...:J .i3 · : ' .... ' ~ .-'. ' .. '". rm~ ~lro~ e2~ '1 i ~ "'"~"~ .~-.. ~ . .; .':' : ~ ,... ~1~- ~." '.: ' '. I ~' " .ouT~ 3o ' :'"' IMPACT FEE AN~Y81S ' ' .t '~:'; -': ' ;:2 t~' ' ..... Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4115/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering Total Transportation Costs $3,028,800.00 Total Area Acres 508 Fee Per Acre $5,962.20 PER ACRE BASIS Parcel APN Acres Lots % of Project Fee Per Acre Fair Share Amount Comments UCP 232 685 46% $5,962.20 ' $1,383,231.50 No school or park ~Crest 240 660 47% $5,962.20 $1,430,929.13 660 lots exclude Park ~ School Lots 12 30 2% $5,962.20 $71,546.46 30 lots Intex Commercial 225-101-34 5 15 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Inlex Lots 225-161-45 5 15 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Kolo 225-161-66 5 20 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Chun 225-161-65 5 20 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Chang 225-161 - 13 4 16 1% $5,962.20 $23,848.82 Total 508 100% $3,028,800.00 EXHIBIT N - 1 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis. City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA. Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15100 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Aliard Engineering ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT ITEM QUANTITY MEASURI PRICE AMOUNT FACILITY 1 ETIWANDA Avenue. 25th street to LADWP 1320 LF $240.00 $316,800.0 2 DAY CREEK BLVD. RL30 to Wilson 4300 LF $240.00 $1,032.000.0 3 DAY CREEK BLVD. North of Wilson 800 LF $225.00 $180,000.0, 4 WILSON AVE. - East of Day Creek 1400 LF $240.00 $336,000.01 5 WILSON AVE.. West of Day Creek 1050 LF $220.00 $231,000.0~ 6 BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Rochester 1320 LF $155.00 $204,600.0( 7 BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Hanley 1380 LF $180.00 $248,400.0C 8 Traffic Signals 3 EA $160,000.00 $480,~ TOTAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS $3,028,800.0( EXHIBIT N - 2 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT NUMBER ITEM QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT MAJOR ROAD ETIWANDA Avenue - 25th street to LADWP Corridor Excavation 2.2 CY $1.60 $3.52 Fine Grade 78,0 SF $0.20 $15.60 5" AC over 12" AB 60,0 SF $1.50 $90.00 1" AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24,00 8" Curb & Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 8" Curb Only 2.0 LF $6.00 $12.00 4" P.C,C, Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Median Landscaping SF $3.00 $0.00 Signing & Striping 4.0 LF $0.50 $2.00 Fog & Seal Coating 60.0 SF $0,15 $9.00 Sub Total $171.12 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $17.11 Contingencies 30% $51.34 TOTAL $239.57 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $240.00 DAY CREEK BLVD - Rt.30 to Wilson & WILSON AVE. - East of Day Creek Excavation 2.2 CY $1.60 $3.52 Fine Grade 78.0 SF $0.20 $15.60 5" AC over 12" AB 60,0 SF $1.50 $90,00 1' AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24.00 8" Curb & Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 8" Curb Only 2.0 LF $6.00 $12,00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Median Landscaping SF $3,00 $0.00 Signing & Striping 4.0 LF $0.50 $2.00 Fog & Seal Coating 60.0 SF $0,15 $9.00 Sub Total $171.12' ~ltility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $17.11 Contingencies 30% $51.34 TOTAL $239.57 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $240.00 EXHIBIT N -3 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATE[): 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21100 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering NUMBER~ ITEM ] QUANTITY ] MEASURE PRICE AMOUNT DAY CREEK BLVD - North of Wilson Excavation 2.2 CY $1,60 $3,52 Fine Gra(~e 78.0 SF $0.20 $15.60 5" AC over 12' AB 60.0 SF $1.50 $90.00 1' AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24.00 8" Curb & Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Signing & Striping 4.0 LF $0.50 $2.00 Fog & Seal Coating 60.0 SF $0.15 $9.00 Sub Total $159.12 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $15.91 Contingencies 30% $47.74 TOTAL $222.77 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $225.00 WILSON AVENUE - West of Day Creek Excavation 1.3 CY $1.60 $2.08 Fine Grade 60.0 SF $0.20 $12.00 5" AC over 12" AB 60,0 SF $1.50 $90.00 1' AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24.00 8" Curb & Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0,00 Signing & Striping 3.0 LF $0.50 $1.50 Fog & Seal Coating 60.0 SF $0.15 $9.00 Sub Total Collector $153.58 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $15.36 Contingencies 30% $46.07 TOTAL $215.01 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $220.00 EXHIBIT N - 4 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4121/00 ESTIMATED BY: Ailard Engineering ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT NUMBER ITEM QUANTITY MEASURE PRICE AMOUNT BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Rochester Excavation 1.3 CY $1.60 $2.08 Fine Grade 44.0 SF $0.20 $8.80 5" AC over 12" AB 40.0 SF $1.50 $60.00 1" AC Cap 40.0 SF $0.40 $16.00 8" Curb & Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Signing & Striping 3.0 LF $0.50 $1.50 Fog & Seal Coating 40.0 SF $0.15 $6.00 Sub Total Collector $109.38 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $10.94 Contingencies 30% $32.81 TOTAL $153.13 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $155.00 BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Hanley Excavation 1.3 CY $1.60 $2.08 Fine Grade 50.0 SF $0.20 $10.00 5" AC over 12" AB 48.0 SF $1.50 $72.00 1" AC Cap 48.0 SF $0.40 $19.20 8" Curb & Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Signing & Striping 3.0 LF $0.50 $1.50 Fog & Seal Coating 48.0 SF $0.15 $7.20 Sub Total Collector $126.98 Utility/Right of Way AJlowance (10%) $12.70 Contingencies 30% $38.09 TOTAL $177.77 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE'* $180.00 EXHIBIT N - 5 SECTION A ~"~" N.T.S. DAY ~ BOULEVARD - ~ 30 TO W~LSON WiI.~ON A~U[ -- ~ OF DAY CR~ BOU~D N.T.S. R~ ~C~ON C N.T.S. NO~ R~ ~ SO~ SEt'ON E N.T,S. ~: ~NSPO~A~ON ~ ~a~ IMPACT ~E A~YSIS Tract 14497 · .... Not a Pe. rt /i RANCHO ETIWANDA HANL~ A~NUE I '~" ' Not a Part I. I Park Site ....................... i .... '  School Site J - RANCHO ETIWAN SIDEWALK EXHIBIT 13527 , , , Conditioned to build ~ ~'~Wilson Avenue Half Width [mprovements including the medJe~ ~ _ .Tract 12659 ~l I I I I J'/' ~'~'~ '1' I"[~.~ Centex Homes $'148,152.40 in ' Cucamonga Account 14120 Conditioned to build Full Width (66' ROW) Improvements ]~ Park Tract 13812 Panda Development $200,000.00 in it City of Rancho , Cucamonga Account .... . ..-_. :-:' L'~..i '~ i' ." ~--Tract 13812 JZZ~ '. ': ....... / Panda Development ~[.~J~l '; - ~--~-'~ ~ : $25,000.00 in "'J~zz~=J~- - .~1 ~_ i..":'" -.. City of Rancho Cucamonga Account ~ IL 'ql' - RANCHO E?];WANDA STREET IMPROVEMENT DEPOSIT: ,,o, ~--.. EXHIBIT Q Storm Drain Cost Sharing Proposal. City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREFK STORM DRAIN Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED ElY: Allard Engineering This proposal allows for the UCP project to participate in the cost of the Baseline Avenue and Victoria Storm Drain Systems. Costs and acreage assumptions are prelimina,%, from the developers and are subject to further review and approval. Facility Baseline Ave System $230,349.96 Victoria System $335,260.00 UCP ~;196,805.00 Total $762,414.96 Total Acres 199.60 Cost Per Acre $3,819.71 Property Acres CostJAcre Fair Share K & B - Baseline 21.1 $3,819.71 $80,595.97 RDA Parcel 19.8 $3,819.71 $75,630.34 Horrero 28.3 $3,819.71 $108,097.91 K&B Victoria 19.1 $3,819.71 $72,956.54 Lyon 26.3 $3,819~71 $100,458.48 UCP 60.0 $3,819.71 $229,182.85 Intex,Kolo etc. 25.0 $3,819.71 $95,492.86 TOTAL 199.6 $666,922.10 Note: ActuaJ Master Planned Limits and Construction Costs to be verified after construction. EXHIBIT R 'i: HOOL CONNEC'~ON Rancho Etiwanda Park Site RANCHO ETIWANDA PARK SITE EXHIBIT S '"~'~' Note: Product Specifications Cucamonga Standard: RANCHO ETIWAND PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS "--,,~ .o..,.,,~.,~ Note: Product Specifications · ,,~ ~o, "~ ~'~ ," ~ ~,~ --*, ,-0. are per City of Rancho · ,,----==~-~ ,~.~-,~*°'""'~'"'"~'°"'°"~ Cucamonga Standard: RANCHO ETIWANDA PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS ~ ~ \ L~'z~ EXHIBIT S-2 Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15100 DATE PRINTED: 4/21100 J ESTIMATEDI UNIT I ITEM I QUANTITY I MEASURE I Park -~,~cape Per 10-19.99 Plans 24' Box Tipu Trees 8 EA. 24" Box Elms 31 EA. 24" Box Evergreen Pear 19 EA. 24" Box Plum 15 Gallon Plane Tree 11 EA. 54 EA. 15 Gallon Pine Mondel 43 EA. 48" Box Pine Canary 25 EA. 36' Box Crepe Myrtle 11 EA. 24" Box Flame Tree 13 EA. 24' Box Camphor 43 EA. Shrub/Ground Cover Lonicera 24,572 SF Myoporum 5,684 SF Star Jasmine 1,662 SF Turf - per City of Rancho Cucamonga seed mix 314,298 SF Cobble 30,657 SF Park Hardscape Per 10-19-99 Plans Tot Lot area with 1,500 sf ADA rubber surface 1 EA. Lighted Basketball Courts 4 EA. Parking stalls with access to school parking 65 EA. Restroom Building (per plan) 1 EA. Entry Monumentation with Signage 1 EA. Picnic Tables (1 HDCP) 14 EA. Two-Bin Trash Enclosure I EA. Drinking Fountain 2 EA. BBQ Grill 12 EA. Trash Receptacles 2 EA. Bench 8 EA. !.,200 sf Wood Arbor Structure 2 EA. EXHIBIT S - 3 .---. RANCHO ETIWANDA OPEN SPACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION NORTHERLY PORTION: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BEKNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, LYING NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND BEING 85 FEET W]I)E AS CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. A PUBLIC CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 1969, IN BOOK 7363, PAGE 582, OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSI-I~ 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4, SAID POINT BEING N 00°05'03" E, 344.33 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; TI-[ENCE N 89°54'57'W, A DISTANCE OF 1322.81 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST. SOUTHERLY PORTION: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, LYING SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND BEING 85 FEET WIDE AS CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1969, IN BOOK 7363, PAGE 582, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 50 FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1949, IN BOOK 2464, PAGE 510, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXHIBIT C .~ t- 0 ,on Avem,e JCK ACTIVATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL (TO BE INSTALLED BY HANSEN AGGREGATE) ;tare Highway ~te. 30 RANCHO ETIWANDi SE'I-rLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D ~-//~-25- O; 11:25AM; 9099412782 => R CUCAMONGA COM OEV; #2 ~ ~.~'/2S/O0 T'~ 1i:27 FAZ 9099412782 Ins'cltutional De¥ ~002 ~/ The Alta I.oma Gardens Homeowners Asseoiation, Inc. J/. Craig Justice, Negotiating Committee Chairperson . 6330 Haven Avenue, Alta I. oma, CA 91737 Tel. 909.466-28~2, Fax 909.941-2783, ejuetice~ chaffey.cc.ca.ue July 21, 2000 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attn: Dcbra Meier Dear Ms. Meier, This letter is in support of the project being d~veloped by Evergreen Devco at Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive, which is adjacent to The Alta Loma Gardens ~esi&-ntial development (formerly Imow~ as ~ Garden Apa~huen~ of Alta Lonm'). I am the board- appoin~l representative who has liaison ~.spons/bilitie~ with the City, developer~, and others who are h~volved in discussions about proposed projects near our property. After several mouth* of detailed negotiationS, I am please ~o mpor~ that Everg~en and The I_oma Gardens Homeowners Association have successfully ceacluded an agreement that both panics sapport. This agreement addresses all the relevant issueS of engress, egress, a_~¢ss by public safety vehicles, compcasation~ and mitigations to thc satisfaction of all 25 of tl~ unit owne~ iu ou~ community. The Board of Directors of The Alta Loma Gardens Homeowners Association, Iuco~/xrrated, have voted unanimously to approve all executable documents involved in this transaction, Our legal counsel, Mr. Charles Doskow, has reviewed the documents and is also satisfied that they are sufficient and adcq,.~ate in addressing the interests of the homeowners. We fccl that Evergrecn's development is in the best interests of Tbe Alta Loma Gardens and The City of Rancho Cucamonga We recommend approval of thc project by the Plan~ing Commission. cc: Judy Piette, Board Pres/dent Jcannc Nichols, Board Member ~ Elbc~ Board Treasurer Nancy Mitchell, Board Sc~wtary Sylvia Raeca~ Board Member THE C ~ T Y OF II ~ANCHO CUCA~IONGA StaffRe rt DATE: July 26, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-49 - EVERGREEN/DEVCO INC. - The development of a drugstore with a drive- through window for prescription orders, consisting of a 13,813 square foot building on a 1.52 acre parcel in the Office Professional (OP) District, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. - APN: 201-262-37. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 99-37. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 99-37 - The removal of up to seven trees of mixed species ranging in size from 18 feet to 2 feet 8 inches generally along the west project boundary. Actual number of trees to be removed will be based on final wall alignment in the field. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Shopping Center South - Vacant land East Shopping Center West Residential condominiums B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Office/Professional North - Neighborhood Commercial South- Office/Professional East Neighborhood Commercial West Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant land. A concrete block wall borders the north end of the site while mature trees and shrubs border the western boundary of the site. The southern boundary was once lined with mature Eucalyptus trees, which have been removed to facilitate the construction of Alta Loma Drive, which was per[ormed by Caltrans in association with Route 30 construction. Several mature trees along the ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC.NVALGREEN'S July 26, 2000 Page 2 western project boundary are being protected in-place by adjusting the placement of the boundary wall. A scattered variety of trees along Haven Avenue were also recently removed to facilitate roadway widening and construction. Any trees which must be removed are subject to the conditions of a Tree Removal Permit with appropriate replacement on-site. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided General Retail 13,813 1 space/250 SF 56 57 ANALYSIS: A. General: Evergreen Devco, Inc. proposes the development of a pharmacy with drive-thru window on behalf of Walgreen's. The drive-thru window is located on the north building wall. All drive-thru traffic enters the window from the east and then must U-turn to the east to exit the site (Exhibit "A"). The 1.5 acre site will include a 13,813 store with required on- site parking, loading area, and landscaping. The loading activities will occur on the west side of the building in a gated delivery zone. An 8-foot high sound wall will be constructed along the western site boundary (not on the property line) to eliminate any potential for noise impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. The applicant has designed the site based upon discussions with the condominium homeowners immediately west of the site to address landscaping and access concerns. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel and Fong) reviewed the project on November 16, 1999, and again on January 18, 2000 (McNiel, Stewart and Coleman). The developer originally presented to the Committee essentially the same building that was approved earlier in 1999 for a Walgreen's located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Highland Avenue (Conditional Use Permit 99-10). However, because of the unique characteristics of this site, and particularly the relationship to the existing residential condominiums, the Committee requested several variations to the building architecture and the Site Plan. At the first Committee meeting in November, the discussion focused on the Site Plan issues related to the tight design of the site and the potential conflict between the loading area and the customer drive-thru circulation. In addition, the loading area is situated adjacent to an existing residential condominium neighborhood. The Committee felt potential for future conflict due to noise and disturbance with the neighborhood should be avoided and it recommended that the applicant consider variations to the drive-thru and loading/delivery area design and function. Also at the November meeting, the Committee considered the material sample board and the building architecture. The Committee approved the material sample board as presented; however, the Committee requested additional attention to architectural details including the entry tower and plaza and entry plaza area, and suggested incorporating pedestrian accessible colonnades along the south and east building elevations. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC.NVALGREEN'S July 26, 2000 Page 3 The project returned to the Committee in January 2000. The drive-thru customers are now directed to the prescription window from the east, and then will be directed to U-turn back to the east. The loading area is now independent of the customer traffic and will be gated and accessible only during the delivery periods. In addition, the applicant modified the wall along the west property boundary in order to preserve the majority of the mature trees that exist between the Walgreen's parcel and the residential neighborhood. The revisions made to the circulation through the drive-thru pharmacy were found to be acceptable, including the re~ocation of the gated loading area. Although the Committee still had concerns about the potential to generate excessive noise in the loading area; it recommended approval of the Site Plan subject to the following conditions (which have since been incorporated into the Site Plan and site design): 1. The applicant sha~l pursue with the noise consultant whether the use of noise absorption material can or should be added to the building wall to eliminate the "reverberation" of sound between the wall and the building. 2. The planters that direct traffic into the drive-thru pharmacy shall be expanded, and more pronounced, in order to direct traffic into the drive-thru lane, as wetl as provide additional landscaping in this location at the rear of the building. The Committee also recommended approval of the landscape concept subject to the following conditions: 1. The wall along the west boundary shall be designed using split face block, which is consistent with the block used on the buitding wainscot. The pilasters shall be designed using fluted block of the same integral color. 2. The landscaping along the west property line shall be designed to not only preserve the existing trees where feasible, but also to supplement the landscaping for buffering and screening purposes. Therefore, tree replacement and density of landscaping shall be incorporated as follows: Pinus Elderica at 10-feet on center; a double row of shrubs for a distance of 60 feet south of the delivery gate; a single row of shrubs from the delivery gate north to the maintenance access gate; a double row of shrubs from the maintenance gate to the north property boundary; all sh. rubs shall be planted 3-feet on center or as recommended based on the chosen species. 3. Vines shall be placed on the west side (facing the condominium project) of the west boundary wall. 4. The Haven Avenue streetscape is a Special Boulevard, which must include the following design elements: undulating mounding along with the use of river rock and/or boulders; and informal massing of shrubbery which can be used to screen the parking lot. The street tree shall be Magnolia Grandiflora "Majestic B~auty" (used within the street right-of-way). The background tree (used behind the right-of-way) shall be informal grouping of Brachychiton Populneus (Bottle Tree). 5. The trees used along Alta Loma Drive shall be Lagerstroemia Indica "Catawba" (Crape Myrtle) at approximately 20-feet on center. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC./VVALGREEN'S July 26, 2000 Page 4 6. Accent trees shall be used at project entries, and entry and building plaza areas. The recommended accent tree is a Palm species. The applicant has addressed the building design along the east elevation through incorporating the arcade along the entire elevation, wrapping the north side of the building. In doing so, the foundation planters have been removed, and tree wells have been added in front of the colonnade columns. The Committee approved this revision; however, recommended that the applicant work with staff to resolve any remaining design details, prior to the project's being forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval: 1. Incorporate additional trim on the arches along the colonnades. 2. Incorporate additional tile accent elements and vary the color patterns for additional variety. At this time, the applicant has satisfactorily responded to the issues raised by the Committee and any outstanding design items have been included as conditions of approval. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee Reviewed the project on November 3, 1999. All requirements of the Committee are included as conditions of approval. D. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was prepared for the project. The attached Resolution contains mitigation measures for air quality impacts during construction of the project, noise impacts due to location of the loading zone in relation to the adjacent residential neighborhood, and biological resources related to the preservation and replacement of trees along the westerly boundary. E. Neiqhborhood Meetinqs: The applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings, along with numerous meetings between the applicant and the condominium homeowners' representatives. The primary focus was the residents of the condominiums located immediately west of the site; however, the notice for the neighborhood meeting did include all properties within 300 feet of the project boundary. The first meeting was held on January 19, 2000, with approximately 20 residents in attendance. The general questions ranged from whether an ABC license is being requested, to the hours of operation and delivery. The primary concern raised by the condominium residents was the revision of the access into their neighborhood which has been necessitated by not only the proposed Walgreen's, but also by the construction of Alta Loma Drive west of Haven Avenue, which was recently completed by Caltrans. Walgreen's has proposed, as a part of this project, to create a second means of access for emergency purposes into the condominium neighborhood. In addition, the Walgreen's representatives have been assisting the residents in the location of a primary access from Alta Loma Drive further to the west with a separate property owner. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC.ANALGREEN'S July 26, 2000 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve issuance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-49 subject to all conditions of approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Site Cross Sections Exhibit"C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - Tree Removal Permit Exhibit"F" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions Landscape Legend · FROM CONSTRUCTION Existinfl tree Note Landscape Plan PERPEND/CULAR TO ~ ~ ~ALL NON-TURF AREA ARE TO RE- CEIVE A 2" TOP-DRESS OF GRA /NiTE MULCH 0~ ELEVATION ~OUTH ELEVATION NO~TH ELEVATIO~ Tree Removal Permit Development Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person remove or relocate any woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (30) inches or more (measured twenty-four (24) inches from ground level), without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the City. Location of Subject Site: ~%'[1J~(~2 't'~ ~ ~t-~ ~...[~/'V~ Name, Address, Telephone of Applicant: 6"J"'C.'Y-~ Name, Address, Telephone of Prope~ Owner (if other than applicant): y[~ ~ I~ Reasons for Removal (a.ach necessa~ sheet(s): Proposed Method of Removal: ~ ~ Applicant's Signature: ~~ ~ ~ Date: This application shall include a plot plan indicating location of all trees to be removed and retained. The species, number, and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased, then a writ*ten statement from a licensed arborist stating the natpre of. the disease shall be required. (-~., [] APPROVED [] DENIED BY: Reasons:. Date: Date/rime Received Received By ~ ~ Fees Received Receipt No.  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM c,~0,.~.c~ocuc.~o~. (Part I - Initial Study) (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETE APPI. I~A TIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to pedorm work required lo provide missing information. Applicalion Number for the project lo which lhi$ form petlains: ~ a~ ~--~l a~ Name & Address of developer or project Contact ~erson & Add.ss: Telephone Number: (~0~' '"]'~"~* ~ ~ [ ~ Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Number: Information indicated by astedsk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. °I) Provide a fU~ sca~e (8~1/2 x11) c~py ~f the USGS Quadrant Sheet(~) which inc~udes the pr~ject site~ and indicate the 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and fr~n! the site from the pdmary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features f~m the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) ProjectLocation(describe): ~O~J~hV~'- COY~ ~- ~V'C/Ct ~ Al"~ 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional .sheet if necessary): °5) Gross$iteArea(ac/$q. ft.): ~:~1 ~J~ ~.J~' :. '~' '' '6) Net Site Area (tatar site size minus ama ot'~b/'ic '~'t'm'ot'~ & P~'~bsedi~e'dicati~;s}.'. . ~, '~0 ~.'~" 7) Describe any proposed gerieral l~)an'ame.ndrhent or ~o,ne'chahge which Wou/d affect the project site (attach additional sheet 8) Include a description of all permits which wifl be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: INITSTD1 .WPD - 4~96 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including infon~ation on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features descdbed. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): 1 O) Descn'be the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): 11) Descdbe any noise sources and their levels that pgv~ affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: ~jITC;Tnl WPD - 4/96 Page 3 12) Descfibe the pmposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate deacfiption of the $ite in terrns of ultimate use which will result from the prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each incmment. A~ach additional sheet(a) if necessa~: ..... ,, 13) De$cdbe the su~munding properties~ inc~uding inf~tmati~n ~n p~an~s and anima~s and any cu~ural, hist~dcal. ~r scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department a/ores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear ya~l, etc.): 14) ~11 the pmpoxed pmlect change the peseta, *cele or chamctor of tho ~u~unding gene~l e~e of the project? INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Paoe 4 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affecl adjacent properties and on-site uses, What methods of sound proofing are proposed? 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) V~ [ ~ Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) [ l").--(JO Peak use (gal/min,/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. -- Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach pen:olation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gaUday) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) RE IDENTIA PR T: 20) Number of residential unit$: Dqtached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: AttachEd (indicate, whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ $ Rent (per month) $. $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who II be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High 25) Describe type of use(s) and majorfunction(s) of comm~ /iai. industrial or institutional uses; d ~'b~ 26) Total floor ama of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: INITSTDI.WPD - 4196 Paoe 6 Maximum Shift: ~ ~0~~(~-~ Time of Maximum Shift: ~ ~ ~ 29) Pr~vide broakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~a$si~ca~i~n$' inc~uding wage and sa~ar~ £anges~ as we~ as an indicati~n ~f ~he rate of hire for each classification (a~acfl additional sheet if necessa~): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that cumently reside in the City: '3 I) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verffied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District. at (818) 572-6283): adequate service to the proposed project? IfaD, please indicate their response. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, bul are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils. solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the matedals and descdbe their use. storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use. if known. 34) W?II the proposed project involve the temporary or Iong-tenm use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic matedals, including but not tim#ed to those examples listed above ? If yes, provide an inventory of afl such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequale evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief, I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 m-~.~, a City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-49 2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 99-37 3. Description of Project: The development of a drugstore with a drive-through window for prescription orders consisting of a 13,813 square foot building on a 1.52 acre parcel in the Office Professional (OP) District, located at the north west corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive. - APN 201-262-37. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Evergreen DEVCO, Inc. 2929 Camelback Road, Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 5. General Plan Designation: Office Professional (OP) 6. Zoning: Office Professional (OP) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is vacant land overgrown with weeds and grasses. A concrete block wall borders the north end of the site, mature trees and shrubs border the western boundary of the site. The southern boundary was lined with mature Eucalyptus which have been removed to facilitate the construction of Alta Loma Drive which is being preformed by CaITrans. Several mature trees along the western project boundary are being protected in place by adjusting the placement of the boundary wall. A scattered variety of trees along Haven Avenue will be removed to facilitate roadway widening and construction. Any trees which must be removed are subject to the conditions of a Tree Removal Permit with appropriate replacement on-site. Surrounding land uses include Chaffey Plaza to the north (NC), vacant land to the south (OP), Shopping Center on the east side of Haven Avenue (NC), including McDonalds, Union 76 gas station, supermarket and other in-line tenants, and an existing residential condominium project (M) who's construction pre-dates incorporation. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debra Meier, Contract Planner (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Parle ? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environm,gntal factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (x) Land Use arid Planning (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (x) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Aesthetics (x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (x) Air Quality (x) Noise ( ) Recreation (x) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (x) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~AiCP~~ Contract Planner June 26, 2000 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Parle 3 Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Significanl 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?. ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a/b) The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use and zoning designation of Office Professional. c/d The existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project include the following: North - Existing development established in the Neighborhood Commercial District. South - Undeveloped land, Office/Professional District. East - Existing development established in the Neighborhood Commemial District. West - Existing residential condominium development, which was established prior to incorporation. The zoning of the site is presently Low-Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). Land uses surrounding the project site to the north, south, and east are consistent with, and compatible with, the proposed project. A vadety of design elements have been included in the project in order to address compatibility issues with the existing residential condominium complex located immediately adjacent to the west boundary. The proposed project boundary wall has been moved off of the property line in order to allow the preservation of existing mature trees. Landscaping will include a dense planting of shrubs and trees to screen the truck loading zone and the westem elevation of the store from view of the residences. The project boundary wall will be constructed of split-face block with fluted-block columns for added architectural detailing. The building elevations include variation in the roof-line along with the use of crown molding and tile accent details to provide appropriate aesthetic value to the west elevation. With these considerations the proposed project would be compatible with the adjacent residential development. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Pacje 4 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan Designation of Office/Professional. No existing housing will be displaced by the proposed project. 3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Parle 5 Comments: a-c) The project site is not located within a Geotechnical Hazard zone as identified on Figure V-4 of the City General Plan. No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an Alquist-Pdolo Special Studies Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Spedal Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within one mile south of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 2¼ miles northerly. These faults are both capable of producing rv~ 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Aisc, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is 10 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 13 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincided with an extended pedod of heavy rains raising the local water table. The site is otherwise located on stable soils. Adhedng to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site is relatively fiat so landsliding or mudflows are not likely to occur. f) The topography of the site will be modified by the grading and construction of the proposed project. The General Plan (Figure V-2) indicates that the site is located within the Tujunga-Soboba soil association. On-site grading will be preformed under the supervision of a licensed civil engineer, based on an approved grading and erosion control plan, and a site specific soils investigation. The resulting impact will not be significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Pacje 6 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered due to the increase in pavement, hardscape, and building coverage. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and/or proposed drainage system facilities, which will be designed to accommodate the anticipated flows. The impact is less than significant. b) There are no special flood hazard areas within or near the project site. NO IMPACT. e) The project will not alter the course or direction of water movement. Surface runoff that currently reaches the site from off-site areas will be conveyed to the existing and/or proposed drainage facilities, which have been designed to handle the anticipated flows. NO IMPACT. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a/b) Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation including grading and equipment exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions dudng this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as soil disturbances by grading activities. NOX and PM~0 levels will be exceeded on a daily basis dudng construction. The following mitigation measures will be required to reduce short-term construction impacts to less than significant: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Page ? 1) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on- site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. 3) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut-off equipment when not in use. c/d) The proposed Walgreen pharmacy will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) (x) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The proposed project will result in increased vehicle tdps at this location. Alta Loma Road improvements are being completed by CalTrans as part of the SR-30 work scope, improvements to Haven Avenue along the project frontage will be required at the time of development. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use for the area and the surrounding streets have been designed in anticipation of future development. The resulting impact is less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Parle 8 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dpadan, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: b) The project site is vacant land overgrown with weeds and grasses. A concrete block wall borders the north end of the site, mature trees and shrubs border the western boundary of the site. The southern boundary was lined with mature Eucalyptus which have been removed to facilitate the construction of Alta Loma Ddve which is being preformed by CalTrans. Many mature trees along the western project boundary are being protected in place by adjusting the placement of the boundary wall. The proposal requires that a total of 12 trees be removed. Of the total, ten trees meet the cdteda for requiring a Tree Removal Permit (15' in height and 15" in diameter), these range in size from 18" in diameter to multi-trunk clusters of approximately 2'-8". 1. Trees that are to be retained shall be protected in-place by a construction barrier in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.08.110 and so noted on the grading plans. 2. Tree replacement shall consist of Pinus Eldarica (24" Box min. size) at 15- feet on-center along the western boundary (adjacent tot the loading zone). 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Page 9 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: c) The project site is not located in a Classified or Designated Mineral Resource area by the State Mining and Geology Board as identified by the San Bemardino County General Plan. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A dsk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a/c There is no evidence of commercial or industrial uses other than pdor vineyard cultivation. No evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes or discolored soils are observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Parle 10 Potentially Unless T~an 10, NOISl-'. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) Comments: A Noise Study was prepared by RKJK and Associates, Inc. dated August 1999, to analyze the impacts of noise on the adjacent residential condominium residents located immediately west of the site. An acoustical study has been completed to determine the extedodinterior noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Walgreen's store. The results of this analysis indicates that delivery trucks, autos and speakerphone noise impacts are the principal source of community noise that will impact the existing residents located west of the site. The Leq noise levels measured in the existing residential community ranged from 49.8 dBA Leq to 53.6 dBA Leq. The development of the Walgreen's project will generate noise extedor noise levels ranging from 62,2 to 62.8 dBA Leq. With the construction of an 8-foot high sound barrier, these levels can be reduced to 55.6 to 57.3 dBA Leq. The following mitigation measures were recommended by the Noise Analysis to minimize the potential noise impacts resulting from the development of this project. t) During construction the project shall comply with the following: a) All construction vehicles or equipment fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b) All operators shall comply with the City Ordinances with respect to hours of construction activity to minimize noise impacts. c) During construction best efforts shall be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas as far as practical from existing residential dwellings. 2) Construct an 8-foot high noise barrier along the western proJect boundary to protect the existing residential development from potential noise impacts of loading and service activities. The noise barrier shall be constructed of split- face masonry block consistent with the building wainscot. 3) Limit truck deliveries activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p,m, 4) Reduce delivery truck noise by minimizing engine idling time during deliveries, Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Page 11 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments a-f) Fire Protection - The site, located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of Alta Loma Drive, is served by either of two tim stations located near 19th and Amethyst Stme~ or near Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue, approximately 2 miles from the project site. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. Police Protection - The proposed Walgreens pharmacy and drugstore may incrementally increase the need for routine police protection services, this is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. Schools - The proposed Walgreens store will not increase the need for schools because the number of employees at this proposed store will not be significant to impact the population and housing in the immediate area. Nevertheless, development impact fees have been established by the school district for commercial development, which will be payable pdor to the issuance of building permits. Parks - The proposed Walgreens store will not incrementally increase the need for park and recreation services, because the number of anticipated employees is not a significant impact to the immediate area. Public Facilities - The proposed Walgreens store may incrementally increase traffic on adjacent streets, this is consistent with the expectations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The appropriate development impact fees have been adopted by the City Council to address incremental impacts to the citywide circulation system. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99.-49 Page 12 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Comments a-g) Existing utility systems are available immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed project will not require major modifications or alterations to the existing utility system. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Comments: a/b) The proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy is located on an in-fill parcel at the corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Ddve. Commercial development has occurred immediately north and east of the parcel, with a residential condominium cempiex located immediately to the west. The residential condominiums are estimated to be over 30 years old with significant mature landscaping which provides the setting for a very unique and secluded community. The Walgreen's development proposal has addressed mature trees at and near the property line, and has adjusted the location Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Pacje 13 c) The minimum requirement for lighting in the proposed parking lot is 1 foot-candle which could create light or glare on surrounding properties, particularly to adjoining residential condominiums. Vehicle headlights would be shielded from adjoining properties by the block wall and solid view-obstructing gate on the west property line. All other light fixtures are required, by Standard City Codes, to be shielded from shedding light on the adjoining property. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments a-e) No cultural resources have been observed on-site or on adjacent properties. As development of the proposed store will impact a surface area of approximately 1% acres, and that the adjacent and surrounding areas have been disturbed, the likelihood of unearthing cultural resources is minimal and impacts are considered less than significant. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments a) The proposed Walgreens Store will not incrementally increase the need for park and recreation services because only a minimal number of new employees will be created as a result of this development. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Page 14 b) The proposed Walgreens Store will have no impact to existing recreational opportunities. The surrounding propedies have been developed with either retail of office park development. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive pedod of time. Long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects Of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The proposed Walgreens Store will be include 13,813 SF of space on a 1~ acre parcel. The site will be completely landscaped. No endangered or sensitive species or habitats will be effected by this project. b) The proposed Walgreens Store will impact approximately 1~ acres and grading will be limited to preparing the pad for the building foundation and development of the parking and landscaped areas surrounding the building. There are sensitive receptors nearby that would be significantly affected by noise and fugitive dust Sent by: E~iERGREEN DEVC0 [NC 6028089100; 07/17/00 2:45PM;.~etFex #801;Page 3/3 SENT 6¥: R CtJCAMQNGA EOM QEV; 7-12- 0 3-'52PM; ~0~4772847 -> 802 2e~933~; #16118 Initial Study for ~ty of Rancho CuCamanga Cc~ndilionel Use Pecmi~ a~, Pa~e as~ w~ ~n of the f~lli~, and ap~da~ m~fi~ ~sures h~e ~en identified ~ ~u~ impa~ to ~ ~en sJgn~anL c] The p~ecl d~ ~t ~ impa~ that are ind~ualN limited, bul cumula~vely ~ns~m~e, The ei~ ia ~n ~mmer~ally~ffic~ area w~Jch pe~i~ ~ ~ p~a~ and m~ll s~m ~velop~m, ~e Ini~al 8~y ~l~ not iden~ ~y Impa uid less mn mfi nl or by ~e Ci~'s s~nda~ co~i~ons ~ approval. d) The Walgm~ S~ ~ ~ o~ a 1.5-~re ~a~, the pm~ pro~ not ~u~ au~nfial adve~ e~ ~ human b~ngs, e~ dlrec~ ot ~e si~ ~ I~d In a ~m~miel~offi~ z~ ama a~ He~n A~nue at EARLIER ANAL.Y~ Earlier analyses may be u..~d where, pumuant to the ~ierlng, program EIR, or o~her CEQA pmca.~. one or mere e~/ee~ Ilave been adequately analyze~l in an eadier EIR or Negative DecJaral~on per Seclion 15063(cX3XD), The effect~ idenlJfied above foi' l~is pmjecl we~e within the scope of and adequamly anatyz'ed i~ Ihe f~Jo~i~g eadler docu~eflt[s) pursuit ~appliC~ble I~l st~n~an~s, and such effects were acidm__~--~d by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, The f~[owing earlier analyses were ~ll~d in ~m~ietbg this Initial Study end ara available for review in the City of Rancho C~can3~la, Plafl~i~g Oivieien offset, 10~00 OIvl~ Center Drive (check ell that apply); (x) General Plan EIR (Certified Ap~l 6, 1881) (x) Master Environmental A~ser~ment for the 1888 Genera[ Pl&n Update {SCH ,~taO301 la, ~1ifie~t Jenualy 4, 1988) (x) Phase I F.~vimnn~al~al Site Asse~sment - Northwest Con, er Haven Avenue and Nra t. oma Drive, prepared by Klazan & A',eo~iates, Inc. dated April 19. t999, (x) Noise Analy~i~ - Nod~we~t C~mer Haven Avenue and Alta t.oma Drive, prepared by RKJK & Aero, iotas, In~. de~d August 3, 1~99. ~PLICANT CERTIFICATION I cattily that I am ~he applicant for the project described In this Inillal Study. I ac~no~edgo that I have reed this Initial Sh,dy and the pmpoS~ mitigalion measures. Fudher, I have revised the pro~ct plans er pmpml~ andl~r I~eret~y agree m the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the e//ec[s or mitigate the effect~ to a point where ¢lea~ no signitleant enviroamentel ei~ects wOUld City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-49 Public Review Period Closes: July 26, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Evergreen DEVCO, Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-37. Project Description: The development of a drugstore with a drive-though window for prescdpfion orders consisting of a 13,813 square foot building on a 1.52 acres parcel in the Office Professional (OP) District. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 99-37. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identJtied potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 26, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-49 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DRUGSTORE WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW FOR PRESCRIPTION ORDERS, CONSISTING OF A 13,613 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 1.52 ACRE PARCEL IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT (OP), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND ALTA LOMA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-262-37. A. Recitals. 1. Evergreen Devco, Inc. filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-49, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2000, the P1anning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 26, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive, with a street frontage of 355.42 feet along Haven Avenue and lot depth of 200.11 feet along Alta Loma Drive,and the site is presently unimproved; however, Alta Loma Drive has been constructed by Caltrans in association with Route 30 construction; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is Chaffey Plaza; the property to the south consists of vacant land; the property to the east is a shopping center, including a freestanding fast food restaurant and service station; and the property to the west is residential condominiums; and c. The property includes mature trees along the west property line. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. July 26, 2000 Page 2 b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliam_.e with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) The wall along the west boundary shall be designed using split face block, which is consistent with the block used on the building wainscot. The pilasters shall be designed using fluted block of the same integral color. 2) The landscaping along the west property line shall be designed to not only preserve the existing trees where feasible, but also to supplement the landscaping for buffering and screening purposes. The density of landscaping shall be as follows: Pinus Elderica at PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. July 26, 2000 Pa.qe 3 10-feet on center; a double row of shrubs for a distance of 60 feet south of the delivery gate; a single row of shrubs from the delivery gate north to the maintenance access gate; a double row of shrubs from the maintenance gate to the north property bounda'y; all shrubs shall be planted 3-feet on center or as recommended based on the chosen species. 3) Vines shall be placed on the west side (facing the condominium project) of the west boundary wall. 4) The Haven Avenue streetscape is a Special Boulevard, which must include the following design elements: undulating mounding along with the use of river rock and/or boulders; and informal massing of shrubbery which can be used to screen the parking lot. The street tree shall be Magnolia Grandiflora "Majestic Beauty" (used within the street right-of-way). The background tree (used behind the right-of- way) shall be informal grouping of Brachychiton Populneus (Bottle Tree). 5) The trees used along Alta Loma Drive shall be Lagerstroemia Indica "Catawba" (Crape Myrtle) at approximately 20-feet on center. 6) Accent trees shall be used at project entries, and entry and building plaza areas. The recommended accent tree is a Palm species. 7) The surface of handicap parking spaces, located near the building entry, shall be decorative pavement, matching the decorative pavement used for the pedestrian connections on-site. 8) Tree Removal Permit No. 99-37 is granted subject to replacement measures as identified in the Environmental Mitigation. Enqineerin.q Division 1 ) Caltrans is constructing Alta Loma Ddve and Haven Avenue adjacent to the project per Route 30 Plans. The developer shall provide for the completion of missing public improvements after Caltrans construction. However, should this development precede any portion of the Route 30 construction, this development shall be required to provide approved final or interim (to be determined) improvements on both Alta Loma Drive and/or Haven Avenue frontages. Also provide access to the adjacent properly. 2) Missing Haven Avenue improvements outside the limits of the freeway project shall be improved per improvement plans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. July 26, 2000 Page4 3) Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels for the Alta Loma Drive approach to the west. The easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. Also provide driveway relocation of the adjacent property. 4) Street improvements plans, prepared by a civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being preformed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to the issuance of a City construction permit. 5) The developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the reimbursement of the previously undergrounded overhead utility lines (telecommunications and electrical except for any 66 kv electrical lines) onthe opposite side of Haven Avenue, prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be based on Resolution No. 10-231 and Reimbursement Agreement UR-004. 6) The existing overhead utility lines located along the southern boundary shall be under grounded from the first utility pole west of the west project boundary to the first utility pole on the east side of Haven Avenue, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All service crossing shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half of the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the adjacent side of the southerly boundary. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all right of the developer to reimbursement agreement shall terminate. If the development is not allowed to underground, then in-lieu fee as contribution to the future under grounding of the existing overhead utilities shall be paid. 7) The development parcel (APN: 201-262-3'7) and the driveway portion along Alta Loma Drive (APN: 201-626-36) shall have a lot line adjustment to have the shared property line extend north-south to Alta Loma Drive right-of-way. Environmental Mitiqation Air Quality 1) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. July 26, 2000 Page 5 efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading Plans include a statement that ail construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or dieseFpowered equipment in-lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. 3) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading Plans include a statement that work crews will shut-off equipment when not in use. Biological Resources 1) Trees that are to be retained shall be protected in-place by a construction barrier in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.08.110 and so noted on the grading plans. 2) Tree replacement shall consist of Pinus Eldarica (24-inch Box minimum size) at 15 feet on-center along the western boundary (adjacent to the loading zone). Noise 1) During construction the project shall comply with the following: a) All construction vehicles or equipment fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b) All operators shall comply with the City Ordinances with respect to hours of construction activity to minimize noise impacts. c) During construction best efforts shall be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas as far as practical from existing residential dwellings. 2) Construct an 8-foot high noise barrier along the western project boundary to protect the existing residential development from potential noise impacts of loading and service activities. 3) Limit truck delivery activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., which shall be conspicuously posted. 4) Reduce delivery truck noise by minimizing engine idling time during deliveries. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. July 26, 2000 Page 6 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-49 - Evergreen Devco, Inc. NValgreen's This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the aboveiisted project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentationwill be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program CUP 99-49 - EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC.NVALGREEN'S Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City stafPs is needed, as deterrnined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may adse requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MM P is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall beused by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required pedod of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. h\FINAL\CEQA'u~4 MP Form-rev.wpd MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: CUP 99-49 Applicant: EverRreen Devco, Inc./VVal.qreens Initial Study Prepared by:. Debra Meier Date: June 26, 2000 Air Quallt'y ·" Selection of Iow-emission construction equipment. CP/BO B/C Plan Check C/A 2/4 Utilization of electric or diesel powered equipment CP/BO C Ongoing A 4 where feasible. Grading Plans state equipment shut off when not in CP/BO C Plan check C 2 use. Biologic~al ResoUrce : '~ *?' l,tTrees that are to be retained shall be protected in place CP B/C Plan review & A/C 2/4 ~in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. inspections :.Tree replacement shall consist of Pinus Eldarica (24" CP BID Plan review & A/C 3 ~)ox min.) at 15' on center along the west boundary, inspections Noise Construction equipment shall be installed with proper CP/BO C During 4 mufflers; stockpiling/staging shall occur as far as Construction practical from residential dwellings; and all operators shall comply with City Ordinances for construction hours and activity. Construct an 8-foot high noise barrier along the CP/BO D Plan check CIA 3 western property boundary. Limit truck deliveries to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. CP E Ongoing A 6 Minimize engine idling during delivery. CP E Ongoing A 6 Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person ' M0nltorleg Freque~;~Y , '. Method of Verification , , , ,, ~, Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director A- With Each New Development A- On-site inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-49 SUBJECT: Walgreen's Pharmacy APPLICANT: Evergreen Devco, Inc. LOCATION: Northwest corner Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Comoletion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Project NO. CUP 99-49 Completion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Appreval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Shopping Centers 1. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). b.Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g.Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 2. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 3. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. SC -2-00 Project No, CUP 9949 Completion Date 4. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 5. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 7. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. Cart corrals shall be provided for temporary storage. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of each work day. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doore to match main building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid care stacking into the public right-of-way. SC-2~0 Project No. CUP 99-49 Completion Date 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 7. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are. 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3.A minimum of 20% of trees planted within indus'~rial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 4. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 5.Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 6. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1- gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, SC -2-00 Project No. CUP 99-49 Comoletion Cate fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 9. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval arid coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 10. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Haven Avenue. 11. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 12. AIJ walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 13. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 14. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. H. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. I, Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. J. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; 5 Project No. CUP 99-49 Comoletion Date c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, pan,el schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number {i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) cleady identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4.Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5.Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. L, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4.Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5.Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). M. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the' Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. N, Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2.A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. Project NO. CUP 99-49 Comoletion Date 3. The final g~'ading plans shalt be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A separate, grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Varies from 60 to 67 feet total feet on Haven Avenue 33 total feet on Alta Loma Drive 2. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is invorved. P. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Odve Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Gutter Pvrnt walk Appr. Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail Island Haven Ave. x x x x x x x x Alta Loma Dr. x x x x x x 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. sc-2-oo C 7 Project No. CUP 99-49 CornDletion Date (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (atong streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight p~otted as required. 5. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Alta Loma Drive. Q. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Haven Avenue. R. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. S. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 3-V (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. T. General Requirements and Approvals 1. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: driveway at Alta Loma Drive. sc-2-00 8 Project No. CUP 99-49 Completion Date 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: U. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 3,000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). X A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 5. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage,,high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 6. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 7. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 9. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 10. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: X $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** SC-2-oo ~ 9 Project No. CUP 99-49 Completion Date **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 12. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: V. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. W. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. X. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the police with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed due to a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24-hour dispatch center at (909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at (909) 477- 2800 extension 2474 or 2475. Y. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. 2. Security glazing is recommended on store front windows to resist window smashes and impede entry to burglars. Z. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. Project No. CUP 99-49 Completion Date AA. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and I I employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. / / SC -2-00 11 THE C I T ¥ OF Rancho Cucamonga SlaffReport DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - A request to develop a temporary Youth Center totaling 4,900 square feet on an existing church campus of 4.95 acres of land in the Medium Residential District located at the Community Baptist Church, 9090 19th Street, at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. APN: 201-221-08. Related File: Pre-Application Review 00-05. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q: North Right-of-way for the SR-30 Freeway/Low Density Residential South - A large parcel with an existing Victorian home/Low Density Residential East Single-family residences/Low-Medium Density Residential West Multi-family apartment complex/Medium Density Residential B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North Low Density Residential (4-6 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Density Residential (4-6 dwelling units per acre) East Low-Medium Density Residential (6-8 dwelling units per acre) West Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The Community Baptist Church is an existing campus including a sanctuary and a classroom building, totaling approximately 26,000 square feet. The entire site is developed, including landscaping, a parking lot with 32'/spaces, and street improvements. The proposed Youth Center is to be located on an existing lawn area immediately north of the classroom building. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH July 26, 2000 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: No additional parking spaces will be added with the construction of the Youth Center. Parking for churches is based on sanctuary capacity and classroom space. By Development Code standards (1 space for every 35 square feet of sanctuary seating area), this facility requires a minimum of 200 parking spaces. The Youth Center is providing additional building space for Youth programs that are already conducted at the church. The existing 327 parking spaces will be adequate for the entire church campus. ANALYSIS: A. General: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a March 22, 2000, workshop as Pre-Application Review 00-05. At that workshop the Commission supported the innovative solution to their space requirements. The Committee provided design comments regarding the use of the two-tone building color scheme and encouraged the Church to go forward with the Conditional Use Permit application. The intent of the Youth Center is to provide additional space to conduct on-going youth programs that have out-grown the existing space available on-site. The Youth Center will provide a safe, positive environment for local teens to worship, do homework, receive counseling and tutoring, use computers, study, and play games. The stressed-membrane structure is a temporary building intended for use as the Youth center. The Development Code allows the use of a temporary structure for up to 5 years. The Church has chosen to use a stressed-membrane structure, rather than conventional temporary structures, to take advantage of the increased ceiling height and uninterrupted floor area of this structure which will allow a wide range of youth activities to occur, from recreation to counseling and studying. The proposed structure is 88 feet by 60 feet (4,500 square feet) in area and 26 feet high. The stressed membrane structures are made of acrylic-coated PVC fabric tensioned between an extruded aluminum substructure. This structure is designed to withstand 83 mph wind load, and meets the minimum requirements for flame/fire resistance established by the California State Fire Marshall. B. Desiqn Review Committee: This project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on June 20, 2000 (Coleman, McNiel and Stewart). The Committee recommended approval of the proposed project subject to appropriate screening of the ground-mounted air condiUoning units located on the north side of the building and providing shrub planting around the base of the entire building. C. Environmental Assessment: The Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II were prepared for the project. As a result of the analysis in the Initial Study, no mitigation is required and a Negative Declaration is provided for your consideration. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH July 26, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the issuance of a Negative Declaration, and adoption of the Resolution recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-13 subject to all conditions of approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DM\Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit"B" - Building Elevations Exhibit"C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Letter of Justification Exhibit"E" - Initial Study Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit 00-13 A ~ NEW ~'~ ~ I ~%~T ~A~ YOUTH I ___ ~ I~ I ~. ~j~ U~i__j~,~U COMMUNITY ~ I BAPTIST [ CHURCH ~ I ~ v~ ~ ~ = -- h ALTALOMA ' __ . - ~ ~ J~ .~~H~,~, ~(~1_ I I~l~ ~[~ UTILIZATION ...... ~ ~ II1~1111~17 r~llllll ~,~,~o MAP NEW YOUTH F~aDCC~C~ ~ COMMUNITY ~ ....... ~ BAPTIST ~ ~cmT ALTA LOMA BUILDING P~N NEW YOUTH n I In CENTER " " COMMUNITY ~ I i'u,, II II I BAPTIST ~'~ CHURCH ~!!!!!I!!!!!!!F~!!~!!!! !!!!!!!!!H~.~ ~llilll~lllll't'''~'',,,, u ~ ALTA OF ~,. LOMA CONCEPT lANDSCAPE BERYl. STREET . :,, .. ., ' PRE,APPLICATION REVIEW ~5~9-O~5- LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION / EXPLANATION Community Baptist Church (CBC) is located on 4.95 acres on the northwest comer of Beryl Street and 19th Street in Rancho Cucamonga. The site as it exists consists of two (2) existing buildings of approximately 26,000 sq. ft., 330 parking spaces and green space in excess of City requirements. It is the intent of CBC to construct a temporary building on the grass pad located on the north side of the property. This building will be used as a Youth Center whose purpose is to provide a safe, positive environment for local teenagers. The proposed use will in no way impact existing zoning regulations. The Youth Center will provide approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of facility. This Youth Center will provide an enclosed building for teenagers to do homework, be mentored, be counseled, use computers, get tutoring, and play games and study. These are current activities that have outgrown our existing facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) Planning Divi$~bn (909) 477-2750 The purpose .of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED, Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Pr~ect~tle: NEW YOUTH CENTER Name&Addressofp~ectowner~: COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH 9090 19th STREET, P.O. BOX 490 ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 (attn: ED REINGROVER, EXECUTIVE PASTOR) Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: ContactPe~on&Address: JAMES DiCAMILLO, ~qLC ARCHITECTS 10470 FOOTHILL BLVD. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Telephone Number: 9 0 9 - 9 8 7 - 0 9 0 9 Name & Address of person pre ,p~ ng this form (if different from above): TeIephone Number: 19O~} 9'd~' "S ~:~ ' INITSTOl .WPD - 4/96 Page 1 Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. "1) Provide a full scale (8-112 x ? 1) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which sen/e the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1.9th & BERYL. NFW YOUTH CENTER TO BE SITED NORTH OF EXISTING FAMILY LIFE CENTER BUILDING, 4) Assessors Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 2 0 1 - 2 2 1 - 0 8 '5) Gross Site Area (aclsq. ft.): 5.76 ACRES INCLUDING STREET RIGHT OF WAY. '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 4. 9 6 A C R E S 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: N/^ 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: BUILDING PERMIT INITSTD1 .WPD - 4~96 Page 2 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and reads, drainage coupes, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features desc~fbed. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeologica/ surveys, traffi~studies): THE SITE IS FULLY DEVELOPED WITH A GENTLE SLOPE FROM NORTH DOWN TO SOUTH. TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS OCCUPY THE SOUTH EAST QUADRANT OF THE PROPERTY. A ONE STORY SANCTUARY/OFFICE BUILDING OF APPROX- IMATELY 4,500 sf IS LOCATED AT THE STREET CORNER AND A TWO STORY FAMILY LIFE CENTER (CLASSROOMS) IS SET JUST NORTH OF THAT. THE SITES NORTH AND WEST EDGES ARE OCCUPIED BY 327 QN GRADE PARKING STALLS. THE NEW YOUTH CENTER WILL BE SITUATED NORTH OF THE FAMILY LIFE CENTER ON A GRASS PAD WHICH HAD BEEN M~RLANNED FOR JUST SUCH ~ EXPANDSION. THE YOUGH CENTER PAD IS WITHOUT MAJOR VEGETATION AND IS BASICALY LEVEL. 1 O) Descdbe the kr~own cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): N/A 11) Desc~eany~o~esourcesandthe~leve~thatn~wa~ctthesite~ra~ roadwayno~e, etc.)andhowthey~#a~ct proposeduses: THE SITE IS BASICALLY A QUIET SUBURBAN LOCATION. THE NEW 210 FREEWAY EXTENSION WILL EVENTUALLY PASS BY THE SITE ON THE NOBTH PROPERTY LINE. INiTSTD1 ,WPD - 4/96 Page 3 1 ~ Descdbe the proposed pmject ~ ~ ~ shou~ p~vide an a~quate ~sc~n of~e s~ ~ te~s of~tima~ use wh~h will ~sult f~m the pmsed pmjecL ~dicate if ~em am pmposed phases ~r developmen~ ~e ex~nt of development to occur with each phase, and the an~a~d complan of each ~cmment. A~ach ad~iona/ sheet~ ff necessa~ THE NEW 4,500 sf YOUTH CENTER IS INTENDED AS A TEMPORARY~ 10 YEAR MAXIMUM~ USE. THE ACTIVITIES IT WILL HOUSE ARE PRESENTLY ACCOMMODATED IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. THESE ACTIVITIES INCLUDE YOUTH GROUP MEETINGS~ RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES~ HOMEWORK AND SMALL GROUP/INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING. THE BUILDING IS INTENDED TO BE RELOCATED IN THE FUTURE TO A LARGER SITE WHICH THE CHURCH LEADERS ARE PRESENTLY SEARCHING FOR WITHIN THE CITY. THE NEW YOUTH CENTER IS INTENDED TO BE THE LAST BUILDING ERECTED ON THE SITE. NO NEW PARKING IS PROPOSED AS THE ACTIVITIES HELD IN THE BUILDING WLL NOT CONFLICT WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE PRIMARY SANCTUARY. 13) Desc~e ~e su~und~g pmpe~ies~ ~duding ~at~n ~n p~n~ and an~a~ and any cu~tu~L h~t~dca~ ~r scen~ aspects. In.cate the type of land use ~sidenfia~ comme~a~ e~.), ~tens~ of land use ~ne-~m~, apadment houses, shops, depadment stoms, etc.) and scale of development ~e~h~ ~ntage, se~ack, mar ya~, etc.): THE SITE's WEST NEIGHBOR IS AN EXISTING TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EXIST ACROSS BERYL ST. TO THE EAST. THE NORTH SIDE IS VACANT AWAITING THE 210 FREEWAY EXTENSION. THE SOUTH SIDE I$ VACANT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY VICTORIAN RESIDENCE ON THE CORNER. 14) ~hepmp~sedp~ectchange~epa~em~sca~rcha~ter~fthesu~undinggene~a~a~fthepmject? NO INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 4 15) ~ndicate~hetype~fsh~rt~termand~~ng~termn~ise~~begenereted~inc~udings~urceandam~unt~ Howwillthesenoiselevels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? THE BUILDING IS ENTIRELY INSULATED. NO USES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE NEW YOUTH CENTER WHICH ARE NOT PRESENTLY HOUSED WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: NOT APPLICABLE 17) indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water suppfies) into which the site drains: NOT APPLICABLE 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987.2591. NONE NONE a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commercial/ind. (gal/day/ac) NONE Peak use (gal/rain/ac) NONE 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. N / A Septic Tank ~ Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitaG' sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). Forfurthercladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County WaterDistdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) n o n e b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) none RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: L INITSTD1 WPD - 4/96 Page 5 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anficipated renge of sale prices and/or rent$: Sate Price(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL ANO INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Desc~betype~fuse(s)andmaj~rfuncti~n(s)~fc~mmercia~~indust~a~~rinstituti~na~uses: ?HE NEW YOUTH CENTER WILL BE USED FOR HOMEWORK HELP, GROUP COUNSELING, RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, AND CLASSROOM STYLE MEETINGS. 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: THE NEW YOUTH CENTER TOTALS 4 . 500 $ . f . INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 6 27) Indicate houre of operation: MONDAY - FRIDAY 8 a.m. - 10p.m. SATURDAY - SUNDAY 8 a.m. - lOp.m. 28) Numberofemployees: Total: ONE YOUTH PASTOR Maximum Shift: 0 N E Time of Maximum Shift: SEE ABOVE 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate o£ hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): VOLUNTEER PASTORAL STAFF 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: N/A '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pol/ution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): N/A ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood c°ntml agencies ser¢ing the project been c°ntacted t° detetmine their ability t° pr°vide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. WATER: n/a SEWER: n/a FLOOD CONTROL: n/a FIRE: ~ - 4/96 Page 7 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or diacha~je of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides;fuels, oils, aolvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe their use, atorage, and/or discharge on the property, aa well as the dates of use, if known. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventoo/ of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: Signature: Title: INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: CUP 00-13 2. Related Files: PAR 00-05 3. Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 00-13 - Community Baptist Church - An application for a temporary Youth Center totaling 4,500 square feet on an existing church campus of 4.95 acres of land in the Medium Residential District located at the Community Baptist Church, 9090 19th Street, at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. APN: 201-221-08 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Community Baptist Church 9090 19th Street Alta Loma CA 91701 5. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 6. Zoning: Medium Density Residential 7, Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land use surrounding the church include a multi-family apartment complex adjacent along the west boundary; single-family residences are present on the east side of Beryl Street; the right-of-way for the SR-30 th extension is adjacent along the north boundary; and on the south side of 19 Street is a large parcel with an existing Victorian home near the street corner. The Community Baptist Church is an existing campus including a sanctuary and a classroom building, totaling approximately 26,000 square feet. The entire site is developed, including landscaping, a parking lot with 327 spaces, and street improvements. The proposed Youth Center is to be located on an existing lawn area immediately north of the classroom building. No additional parking will be added (parking for churches is based on the seating capacity of the sanctuary). The intent of the Youth Center is to provide additional space to conduct on-going youth programs that have out-grown the existing space available on-site. The Youth Center will provide a safe, positive environment for local teens to worship, do homework, receive counseling and tutoring, use computers, study and play games. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 2 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Pfanner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population al~d Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological F roblems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Water ( ) Hazards (x) Aesthetics (x) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact'' or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~~ Debra Meier, AICP Contract Planner June 21,2000 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ((,/) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) ( ) (,/) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) ( ) (v') vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) (,/) established community? Comments: a-d) The proposed addition of the Youth Center to the existing church campus is designed to conform to the Development Code. No change of use or plan amendment is proposed. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~e,~a,y Unless Than 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) (v') population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ' ( ) (,/) directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ) ( ) (,/) housing? Comments: a-b) Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. c) The existing church campus presently includes a sanctuary and classroom building. No existing housing is located onsite, t'~ I Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Tllan 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (,/) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (,/) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (,/') f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) (,/') conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ( ) (,/') h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an AIquist-Pdolo Special Studies Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 2 miles south and east of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 2 miles northerly. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to tv1, 7.5 earthquakes is 13 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is approximately 15 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincided with an extended pedod of heavy rains raising the local water table. The site is otherwise located on stable soils. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site is relatively fiat so landsliding or mudflows are not likely to occur. f) The site is relatively fiat so grading in preparation of the building pad will be minimal. Grading will create the necessar,/ slope gradient to allow proper site drainage. g/h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Hanford-Greenfield. A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ( ) 0 (,/) ( ) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ( ) (,/) hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ( ) (,/) of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) (,/) water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ( ) ( ) . (,/) of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ( ) ( ) (,/) through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The site is relatively fiat so grading in preparation of the 4,500 square foot building pad will be minimal. Grading will create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage. b) The site is located not located within the 100-year flood plain. c-e) The project site is not located rear a body of water. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) (,/') ( ) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (,/) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) (,/) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (,/') Comments: a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive 'dust to be emitted from grading the site. Dust emissions could be sufficient to warrant the use of water at this site as a standard condition of approval for grading and earth-disturbing activities. c-d) The proposed Youth Center addition to the existing church campus will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenballyUnleS~ Than 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ( ) (,/) nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (,/') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (,/) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting (,/) alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? (,/') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 8 Comments: a) The proposed addition of the Youth Center to the existing church campus is providing additional square footage for youth activities, which are presently accommodated within the existing sanctuary and classroom buildings. The activities of the Youth Center will not increase the demand for parking and traffic generation of the main sanctuary. No new uses are being added to the site operation. b/c) The proposed addition of the Youth Center to the existing church campus will not create hazards or result in inadequate emergency access to the site. d) No additional parking spaces will be added with the construction of the Youth Center. Parking for churches is based on sanctuary capacity and classroom space. By Development Code standards (1 space for every 35 square feet of sanctuary seating area), this facility requires a minimum of 200 parking spaces. The Youth Center is providing additional building space for Youth programs that are already conducted at the church. The existing 327 parking spaces will be adequate for the entire church campus. e-f) The proposed addition of the Youth Center to the existing church campus will not impact cyclists or pedestrians nor create transportation-related hazards. The perimeter of the site is fully improved with curbs, gutters, sidewalk, and streetlights. g) Located 6 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Tnar~ 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or ram species or their ( ) ( ) ( )' (,/) habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish. insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) (,/) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( (-) (,/) vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ( ) (,/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 9 Comments: a-c) The proposed Youth Center will be an addition to an existing church campus. The site is completely landscaped. The Youth Center will be placed within a portion of the site that presently lawn. No endangered or sensitive species or habitats will be effected by this project. d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. e) The site, along with other sites in the vicinity, are developed. Therefore, development has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Ur~less Than 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ( ) ( ) (V') plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ( ) ( ) (v') inefficient manner?. c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ( ) ( ) (v') mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: c) The project site is not located in a Classified or Designated Mineral Resource area by the State Mining and Geology Board as identified by the San Bernardino County General Plan. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) health hazard? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources; PotenballyUnless Than d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ) ( ) ((,/) potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ((,/) brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a/c There is no evidence of prior industrial uses on the site; there is no evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes or discolored soils. At the time the church sanctuary and classroom building were constructed there was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 10. NOISE. Willthe proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise revels? ( ) ( ) ) (,/) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ) (v') Comments: a-b) The proposed project will not produce any noticeable long-term noise ~mpacts. The Youth Center is an addition to an existing church campus containing a sanctuary and classroom building. The temporary increase in noise during construction, is not considered significant because the extent of surface disturbance is related to approximately 5,000 square feet in area. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially unless Than 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Other governmental services? ,[~ "'~ ~.=~ .~. ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 11 Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The site, located at the corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street, is served by a fire station located near the corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Street - approximately ¼ mile east of the project site. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. Police protection - The proposed Youth Center is part of an existing church facility, and may incrementally increase the need for routine police protection services, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. Schools - The proposed Youth Center will not increase the need for schools. Parks - The proposed Youth Center will not increase the need for park and recreation services. Public facilities -The proposed Youth Center will not increase traffic on adjacent streets. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo/lowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-g) The proposed project will include the construction of approximately 4,500 square feet of space to be used as a Youth Center. Existing systems and utilities are available to the site. The proposed project will not require major modifications or alterations to the existing utility systems. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal'. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') Comments: a/b) The proposed Youth Center is a 4,500 square foot single-story stressed membrane structure, which will have the appearance similar to a tent. However, the stressed membrane structure will be of a similar two-tone color as the existing buildings on- site. The air conditioning units will be screened through a combination of fencing and landscaping, and the base of the building will be landscaped with shrubbery as would a standard building. The resulting impact to the surrounding neighborhood will be less than significant. c) The proposed Youth Center addition to the existing church campus may incrementally add to the creating additional light or glare within the area with the addition of exterior lighting. The church is an existing facility and any increase exterior lighting will have a negligible effect on surround residences. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) (,/) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (,/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (,/) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ( ) (,/) which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ( ) (,/) the potential impact area? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 13 Comments: a-e) Although no cultural resources have been observed on-site, grading of the site may expose or unearth historic cultural resources. As the site is relatively small (less than 5,000 square feet) and the site has previously been disturbed by grading and construction, the likelihood of unearthing cultural resources is minimal and impacts are considered less than significant. In the event that a historic or cultural resource is found, the contractor will be required to contact the owner of the site and the San Bernardino County Museum for the proper recovery and removal of the artifact. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote~l~ially u.less Than 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal'. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') Comments: a) The proposed Youth Center will not increase the need for park and recreation services. b) The proposed Youth Center addition to the existing church campus will not affect any existing recreation opportunities. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 14 Issues and Supporting information Sources: Po[entially Unless Than 16, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the ( ) (,/) potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaiaing 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 impodant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential ( ) (,/') to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) (,/) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have ( ) (./) environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The proposed Youth Center will be an addition to an existing church campus. The site is completely landscaped. The Youth Center will be placed within a portion of the site that presently lawn. No endangered or sensitive species or habitats will be effected by this project. b) The project site is 4.96 acres and grading will be limited to disturbing approximately 5,000 square feet of area. Sensitive receptors nearby will not be affected by the construction due to the minor nature of the construction activities. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH Page 15 c) The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The site is within an Medium Density residential area which allows churches through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The initial study did not identify any impacts that could not be mitigated through the City's standard conditions of approval. d) The proposed Youth Center development on the 4.96~acre site would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The site is located in a residential area at the corner of 1~h Street and Beryl Street. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): · General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) · Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 00-13 Public Review Period Closes: July 26, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Community Baptist Church Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the Community Baptist Church, 909019th Street at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. APN: 201-221-08. Project Description: A request to develop a temporary Youth Center totaling 4,900 square feet on an e)dsting church campus of 4.95 acres of land in the Medium Residential District. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 26, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-13, FOR AN INTERIM USE, A YOUTH CENTER, LOCATED IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 201-221-08 A. Recitals. 1. Community Baptist Church has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 00-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on July 26, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northwest comer of 19t~ Street and Beryl Street, which is the present location of the Community Baptist Church campus consisting of a sanctuary and classroom building; the site is presently improved with parking lot, landscaping, and all perimeter street improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is right-of-way for the State Route 30 freeway construction, the property to the south consists of an existing Victorian residence on a otherwise undeveloped parcel, the property to the east is single-family residential, and the property to the west is an apartment complex; and c. The application proposes construction of a stressed membrane structure with 4,500 square feet of area to be used for youth activities associated with the church; and d. The temporary use of the structure is for a period of 5 years from this date of approval. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 00-13 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH July 26, 2000 Page 2 a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvement.,; in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) The temporary use of this structure is for a pedod not to exceed 5 years. 2)The screen walls around the ground-mounted air-conditioning units shall be stucco coated, masonry walls. 3) Shrub planting shall be used around the base of the entire building.. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 00 - 13 COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH July 26, 2000 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Builer, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 00-13 SUBJECT: Temporary Youth Activity Center APPLICANT: Community Baptist Church LOCATION: NWC 19th Street and Beryl Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements ComoleflonDate 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2.Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3.Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall sc-2-oo ::P 1 Project No. CuD 00-13 Completion Date be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2.Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Amhitect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or wails. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. sc-2-00 :D Project No. Cup 00-t3 Completion Date 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. F. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (Le., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Nationat Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). 6. The following is required for side yard use for increase in allowable area: a. Provide a reduced site plan (8 ~" x 11") which indicates the non-buildable easement. b. Recorded "Covenant and Agreement for the Maintenance of a Non-Buildable Easement," which is signed by the appropriate property owner(s). c. Sample document is available from the Building and Safety Division. G. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bemardino Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table 5-A H. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Project No. Cuo 00-t 3 Completion Date 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: 1750 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). - OR- a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by tim department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for ali hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 5. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 6. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 7. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X California Code Regulations Title 24. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. sc-2 0 4 Project NO. Cup 00-t 3 Cgrnpletion Date 10. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: X $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of: plans. 12. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. J. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMI'I-rAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMI'I-I'AL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Security Lighting 1. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 2. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. L. Security Hardware I. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are I within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. M. Windows All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted / from frame or track in any manner. N. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for / nighttime visibility. ,SC -2-00 5 Project No. Cup 00-t3 Comoletion Date Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and I / employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. / / SC-2-00 ,,~ .L~ ~,) 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2f091 and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 00-22 Public Review Period Closes: July 26, 2000 Project Applicant: Michael Mords, Development Manager, Legacy Partners Project Location (also see attached map): Located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street-APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. Project Description: Theproposeddevelopmentoffour2-storyofficebuildingstotaling280,000squarefeet on 19.39 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map 15447, Tree Removal Permit 00-13, Pre-Application Review 00-01, and Preliminary Review 00-01. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 26, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By T H E CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~ONGA Staff Report DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP Contract Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS - The proposed development of four 2-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map 15447, Tree Removal Permit 00-13, Pre-Application Review 00-01, and Preliminary Review 00-01. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15447 - LEGACY PARTNERS - The proposed subdivision of 19.39 acres into four parcels, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park Distdct (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Overlay District. APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. Related Files: Development Review 00-22, Tree Removal Permit 00-13, Pre-Application Review 00-01, and Preliminary Review 00-01. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Office Park/Industrial Park (Subarea 6) South - Multi-tenant Industrial/Office Park/Industrial Park (Subarea 6) East - General Dynamics Office Park Master Plan/Industrial Park (Subarea 12) West - Vacant Land/Industrial Park (Subarea 6) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South - Industrial Park East Industrial Park West Industhal Park ITEMS E & I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR00-22 and TPM 15447 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The project site is situated along Haven Avenue, with existing development in the immediate area including an office/industrial park on the north side of Sixth street; The Empire Lakes Corporate Center on the east side of Utica Avenue; the Trademark Office/Industrial Park adjacent to the south. Land on the west side of Haven Avenue remains in agricultural use. The comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street is not a part of this proposed project, neither is the site of Haven Building Materials, an existing non-conforming use consisting of outdoor sales and storage of building supplies and products such as blocks, bricks, sand and masonry related materials. Haven Building Materials is secured with chain-link fencing and therefore, all materials and activities are cleady visible from the site. The project site has been previously graded and gently slopes toward the south. The land was cleared of vineyards approximately ten years ago; however, several eucalyptus trees remain. The site contains no structures and is occasionally disced for weed control. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 280,000 4/1,000 1,120 1,415 ANALYSIS: A. General: The Commission reviewed the proposed project as a Pre-Application Review workshop on January 26, 2000. At the workshop, the applicant was encouraged to provide master planning for the not-a-part portion at the comer of Sixth and Haven, and were provided commentary on other design issues such as screening of roof mounted equipment, the use of two building materials, building setbacks and street orientation, and the use of public art. The master planning is shown on Exhibits "A" and "B." The Commission also discussed the policy regarding the use of two pdmary building materials. The proposed project lacks the typical use of two primary building materials as defined by Planning Commission policy. The Commission felt that given the design theme and quality of the project, the use of the second building material could be limited to the tile on the stand-alone wall elements used at the project entry. The proposed project consists of four 2-story office buildings, each on their own parcel. Phase 1 includes three of the four clustered at the east side of the site odented toward Utica Avenue. The Phase I buildings are connected through decorative hardscape, outdoor employee seating areas, and entry plaza spaces. Phase 2, Building 4, stands alone, and is oriented toward Haven Avenue. B. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, and Coleman) on May 16, 2000. The Committee began with a review of attention to detail given to the project as a result of the Pre-Application workshop. The primary concerns expressed by the Committee were the repetitive design of the project, including building footprint, color, material, and architectural pattern. The Committee adjourned with the intent to visit a similar project in Newport Beach, upon which this design is based. The Committee directed the applicant to analyze the building design elements as discussed and prepare a perspective rendering to more realistically depict the building design and style for future Committee review. The Committee was not convinced at this first meeting that the project meets the intent of the Haven Avenue Overlay Disthct. Following the meeting, Committee member Stewart did have the opportunity to visit the project in Newport Beach, and Committee member McNiel and Coleman reviewed photographs of the same project, which had been PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR00-22 and TPM 15447 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 3 provided by the applicant. Based on viewing the actual site and site photographs, the Committee once again reviewed the proposed color renderings on June 6, 2000. The Committee agreed that, with minor additions, they were more comfortable with the overall project design theme and elements. The Committee then recommended the following: 1. The Committee recommended the addition of the wainscot element, which was used on the Newport Beach project. 2. The Committee expressed concern regarding the material used for the cornice and window sill elements. The architect has indicated that the foam add-ons allow for a greater depth of the cornice/windowsill due to the weight of the matedal (versus concrete precast) and are more easily attached to the building. The finish is EIFS (stucco) in a light texture that matches the building surface. The goal is that there be no perceptible change in color or matedal between the building face and the detail elements. Both recommendations have been added to the revised plans that are included in the staff report for your consideration. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on May 17, 2000. All requirements of the committee are included as conditions of approval. D. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study was prepared for the project. The attached resolution contains mitigation measures for air quality impacts during construction of the project, biological resources related to the preservation and replacement of trees, and signal warrant analysis for traffic- related impacts to Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Development Review 00-22 and Tentative Parcel Map 15447, subject to all conditions of approval. BB:DM\Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Location Exhibit "B" - Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Building Elevations Exhibit"D" - Initial Study Exhibit "E" - Tree Removal Permit Exhibit"F" - Parcel Map Exhibit "G" - Pre-Application Review Minutes dated January 26, 2000 Resolution of Approval for Development Review 00-22 Resolution of Approval for Tentative Par~:el Map 15447 PARCEL2DATA PARCEL3OATA PARCEL 4 DATA VICINITY MAP MASTER S~ ,' SIXTH STREET SITE DATA IIIJH _ ~ P~CEL 2 DATA P~EL 3 DATA P~GEL 4 DATA ~ RANCHO CORPORATE CENTERSITE PLAN IIII ~,w RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA WEST ELEVATION ~:m--m~"-'~Z---:: I~,1 Ii i i III ill- ~' 80UTH ELE~A~I,e NORTH ELEVATION '" ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM c, o,R..c oCu am . (Part I - Initial Study) (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environment31 Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. IN~QMPI. E~TE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED, Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at lhe time of submittal: Cily staff will not be available to per[orrn work required to p~ovide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: File No. PR/PAR 00-01 Project Title: RANCHO CORPORATE CENT~ Na.me & Address of project owner(s): AMIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PT.AN. 8730 WILSNIRE BOULEVARD, . SUITE 300, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 C/o PAUL AMIRr TRUSTEE Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: LEGACY PARTNERS COMMERCIAL, INC. Contact Person & Address: MICHAEL MORRIS, LEGACY PARTNERS 30 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 100, IRVINE, CA 92614 Telephone Number:. ' 949-261-2100 Name & Address of pe~on prepadng this form (if di~orent frem,above): Telephone Number:. ~IITSTO1.WPO-4/96 ~'~ ~ Page1 Information indicated by astedsk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staf~ '1) Provide a full scale (8-1,,'2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site. and indicate the site boundades. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representalive views into the site from the nodh, south, east and west; views ~nlc; and f~m the site from the pdmary access points which serve the site: and representative views of significant features frgm the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): SOUTHEAST.(~UADRANT INTERSECTION OF HAVEN AVENUE AND 6th STREET, ~YCL~TDT~C TNE TWO PARCELS AT THE INTERSECTION. SITE ALSO FRONTS ON UTICA AVENUE AND WINSTON AVENUE 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): APN 210-081-07 and 15 '5) Gross Site Araa (ac/sq. ft.): +19 acres '6) Net Site Area (total site size minu& area ol pubh'c streets & proposed dedicetions): 17.5 acres Oescdbe anypreposed gene~lplan amendmentorzone change which would affectthe projectsite(aMach additionalsheet ifnecessary: None Include a description of all pen~s which w~ be necessa~ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agenc~s ~ o~er to ~1~ implement the project: GRADING PERMIT FROM CITY BUILDING PERMITS FROM CITY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS NEGATIVE DECLARATION Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before Ihe project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs o! significanl features described. In addition. site all sources of infon~nation (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies· biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): THE SITE IS FLAT GRADED AND GENTLY SLOPES TO THE SOUTH. ~HE SITE BAS BEEN VACANT FOR TEN YEARS AND WAS PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED FOR CULTIVATION OF GRAPE VINEYARDS. SEVERAL EUCALYPTUS TREES, THE REMAINDER OF A WINDOW, TRAVERSE THE SITE. THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. OTHER THAN WEEDS AND A PILE OF CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE, THE SITE IS BARREN. THE SOIL IS COMPACTED ALLUVIUM SAND. I O) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site ell sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): SITE IS VACANT. SITE WAS HISTORICALLY UTILIZED FOR CULTIVATION OF GRAPE VINEYARDS. 11) Describe ~ny n~e s~u~es ~nd their ~eve~s tha~ ~W e~ect the sile (airc~ ~dw~y n~e~ etc~)~nd h~w ~hey ~ a~ect praposed uses: ROADWAY NOISE FROM THE FRONTAGE STREETS. THE COMPLETED BUILDINGS WILL BE DESIGNED WITH INSULATION AND GLAZING TO LIMIT EXTERIOR NOISE. __ 12) Descdbe the ptoposed pmject in detail. This should pmvide an adequate descdption of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result Item the prosed project. Indicate if there are preposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessat),: The project consists of four two-story concrete tilt-up office buildings totaling to 280,000 SF. The buildings vary in size from 60,000 to 80,000 SF with footprint/floor plates varying from 30,000 SF to 40,000 SF. Buildings 1,2, and 3 totaling to 220,000 SF are planned as Phase I with construction planned to commence 3ra Quarter 2000 with completion in the 2nd Quarter 2001. Building 4, totaling to 60,000 SF, near Haven Avenue is planned as Phase 2 with construction commencement and completion anticipated in 2002 dependent on market conditions. The project will have over 5:1000 parking, landscaped plazas, in a campus environment. The project has a Mediterranean theme with a warm color palette, abundant landscaping and outside people spaces. Incorporated into the interior building design will be technologically superior building systems and features that appeal to a wide range of corporate tenants. 13) Descrfbe the surrounding propedies, including infom~ation on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial, etc.], intensity of land use (onegamily. aparlment houses, shops, depariment stores, etc.) and scale of development (height. frentage, setback, rear yard. etc.): To the north is a developed business park across 6th Street. To the east across Utica Avenue is a 400,000 SF vacant manufacturing/office building. To the south is a developed business park and a vacant lot planned for an additional building. To the west across Haven Avenue is a vacant site planned for commercial/industrial development. To the north and west is a vacant lot at the coruer of Haven and 6th Street. To the south of that vacant lot abutting the subject site is Haven Building Materials, an operating building supply company, with outside storage and a metal building. 14) Wt~~ th~ pt~p~s~d pr~j~ct chang~ th~ patt~rn~ ~ca~~ ~r charect~r ~f ~h~ surmunding g~n~re~ ama ~f th~ pt~ject? Indicatethe~peofsho~-~rmand~n~nmnoisetobegenemte~ ~cludingsou~eandamount. How ~lllheseno~e ~ve~ affecta~acentprope~esandon*s~euses. Whatmetho~ ofsoundproofingam proposed? SHORT TERM, NORMAL COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE WILL BE GENERATED ON TRE SITE. LONG TERM NOISE RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF AN OFFICE PARK WILL BE EXPERIENCE~, SIMILAR TO THAT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. '1~ ~d~ateproposed~mova~ an~or~p~cement$ofmalum orscen~t~es: SEVERAL EUCALYPTUS TREES, THE REMAINS OF A WINDROW THAT TRAVERSED THE PROPERTY, ARE ON THE PROPERTY AND PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING PARKING LOT AND PERIMETER TREES, AND DECORATIVE TREES IN TRE PLAZA AREAS ARE PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED. Indicateanybodiesofwa~r(includingdomes~ watersupp~ ~to wh~h ~esHed~s: TRE SITE SURFACE DRAINS TO LOCAL STREETS OF UTICA AVENUE, WINSTON AVENUE AND RAVEN AVENUE WHERE RUN OFF IS CONVEYED~:IN UNDERGROUND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS TO WHICH DISCHARGES 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For fu~lher clarification, please contact Ihe Cucamonga County Water District at 987-259 I. a. Residential (gal'day) N/A Peak use (gal/Day) N/A b. CommerciaL, Tnd. (gal~day/ac) 1500 gal/day/ac. Peak use (gal/m#Vac)_3~.~.~.t--~i~.~/R,~LY--/.~.C. 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal __ Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks ara proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For fu~fher clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Counly Water District et 987-2591. a. Residential (gal~day) N/A b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day~ac) 2000gal/day/ac/ TRE DISCHARGE IS EXPECTED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN TRIS FIGURE AS TRE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: ONLY SEWER CONNECTIOt~WILL BE STANDARD OFFICE 20) Number of re$idenlial units! RE~TROOMS, SMALL EMPLOYEE KITCHENS, DRINKING FOUNTAINS, AND JANITOR SINKS. Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: ." INITSTD1.WPD-4~J6 F ~I /~ Page5 : Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): _ 21) Anticipated range of sale prfces and/or renls: Sale Pdce($) $ to $. Rent (per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing wilhin Ihe projecl: Conlact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbetype~fuse(s)~ndmaj~rfuncti~n(s)~fc~mmercia~~industda~~rinstituti~na~uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hour~ of operation: ESTIMATED AT 7AM TO 6pm. SOME TENANTS MAY HAVE A SECOND OR SPLIT SHIFT. SOME TENANTS MAY HAVE SOME EMPLOYEES PRESENT AT OFF HOURS AND WEEKENDS. 28) Number of employee$: Total: ESTIMATED AT 1250 OR MORE Maximum Shift: E~TTMAmED AT l~?K~ Time of Maximum Shift: 8AM - 5PM 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and sala,'y ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classificalion (attach additional sheet ff naeessary): APPROXIMATELY 95-100% ESTIMATED TO BE OFFICE PERSONNEL. WAGE AND SALARY RANGES AND RATE OF HIRE UNKNOWN. 30) Estimation of the number of worke~ to be hired that currently reside in the City: ESTIMATE~ POTENTIALLY 1,250 WORKERS AT PROJECT BUILDOUT. ESTIMATE THAT ANYWHERE FROM 20~40% CURRENTLY RESIDE IN THE CITY. EXPECT THAT OTHERS WILL MOVE TO THE CITY WHEN EMPLOYED HERE. '31) For commercial and industrial uses only. indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedlied through the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct. at (E!°-) f73 E2E3;: 909-396-2000 AUTO EMISSIONS TYPICAL TO BUSINESS PARK~OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AI~L PROJECTS 32) Have the water~ sewer~ f;re~ and ~d c~ntro~ ~gencies serving the preject been c~ntacted t~ detennine their ebi~ity t~ provide adequate sen, ice to the proposed project? If so. please indicate their response. CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT .~WATER/SEWER - YES 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use. storage, or discharge of hazan:fous and/or toxic materials? - Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but am not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fu~ls, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and desc~fbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as weft as the dates of use, if known. NONE 34) Will the proposed project involve the tempora~/ or long-term use, storage or discharge of haza~lous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials lo be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. NO I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequale evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statemonts, and infom~ation prasented are Irue and correct tot ho best of my knowledge and belief. I further unde~tand that additional infon'nation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date:3/13/00 Signature: Title: ACQUISITIONS/DEVELOPMENT MANAGER City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DR 00-22 2. Related Files: PR 00-01/PAR 00-01 3. Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Development Review 00-22 - Leqacy Partners - The proposed development of four two-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15 Tentative Parcel Map 15447 - Leqacy Partners- The proposed subdivision of 19.39 acres into four parcels, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Michael Morris, Development Manager Legacy Partners 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine CA 92614 ' (949)-261-2100 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park 6. Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 6) Industrial Area Specific Plan/Haven Avenue Oveday District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is situated along Haven Avenue, with existing development in the immediate area including an office/industrial park on the north side of Sixth Street; The Empire Lakes Corporate Center on the east side of Utica Avenue; the Trademark Office/Industrial Park adjacent to the south. Land on the west side of Haven Avenue remains in agricultural use. The immediate area at the corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street is not a part of this proposed project, and a portion of this area is the site of Haven Building Materials, an existing non-conforming use consisting of outdoor sales and storage of building supplies and products such as blocks, bricks, sand and masonry related materials. Haven Building Materials is secured with chain-link fencing and therefore; however, all materials and activities are clearly visible from the site. The project site has been previously graded and gently slopes toward the south. The land was cleared of vineyards approximately ten years ago, however, several eucalyptus Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 2 trees remain. The site contains no structures and has been occasionally disced for weed control. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Land Use and Planning (x) Biological Resources ( ) Public Services II ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Utilities and Service Systems il(x) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics Il(x) Water ( ) Hazards Il(x) Air Quality ( ) Noise (x) Cultural Resources (x) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (V') I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Debra Meier, AICP Contract Planner June 26, 2000 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than '1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) established community? Comments: a-d) The proposed project was designed to conform to the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 6 and the Haven Avenue Overlay District. No increase in building density or plan amendment is proposed. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Tnan 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) housing? Comments: a-b) Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. The proposed project is expected to result in approximately 1,250 employees, this project is related to the success of users within the Empire Lakes Corporate Park located nearby. The project proponent expects between 20- 40% of potential employees will reside within the City. Other employees would be /? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 5 likely to locate to the immediate area. The Cities current housing market could adequately provide for the housing market demand provided by this project. c) The site is currently void of any structures. No existing housing is located onsite or within the general vicinity of the site. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnleSS Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an Alquist-Pdolo Special Studies Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 3.0 miles north and west of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 7 miles northerly. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is 14 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 15 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincided with an extended pedod of heavy rains raising the local water table. The site is otherwise located on stable soils. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site is relatively fiat so landsliding or mudflows are not likely to occur. 0 The site is relatively fiat so grading will be minimal; approximately 35,000 cubic yards. Grading will even out the site and create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 6 g/h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga-Delhi. These soils are excessively drained, nearly level to moderately sloping soils formed on alluvial fans. They are relatively stable but are subject to liquefaction when the water table is relatively shallow. Approximately 29,000 cubic yards of soil will be over-excavated and compacted in order to meet current soil stability standards as required by the Uniform Building Code. A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentially Unless Thar~ 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ( 0 (,/) ( ) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ( ( ) ( ) (,/) hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ( ( ) ( ) (,/) of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) ( ) (,/) water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ( ) ( ) (,/) of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ( ) ( ) (v') through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (,/) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (,/) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ) ( ) (,/) groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page ? Comments: a) The project is expected to result in changes in absorption rates and drainage pattern. A drainage study/plan showing how stormwater runoff will be handled both during construction and operation, shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. b) The site is located not located within the 100-year flood plain. c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be emitted from grading the site. Nonetheless, dust emissions could be sufficient to warrant the use of water or other dust palliatives at this site. Soumes of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. NO, and PM10 levels may be exceeded dudng this phase, however with implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts will be reduces to less-than-significant levels. 1. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 8 3, The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. c-d) The proposed office park development project will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenhallyUnless 3~lan 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (,/) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ( ) (v') sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ( ) (,/) nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ) (,X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) (,/) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ) (V') alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ) (,/) Comments: a) A Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis specific to this project was prepared by RKJK and Associates, dated May 2000. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstates 10 (from the south) and 15 (from the east). Local access is provided by north-south arterials Haven Avenue, Utica Street or Milliken; and east-west arterials 6th Street, 8th Street and 4th Street. The intersections in this general area operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours, except for the intersection of Haven Avenue at Trademark Parkway, which operates at Level of Service "F" during the evening peak hour. Therefore, a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection, and will be required as a condition of development (see mitigation listed below). Other on-site improvements and improvements adjacent to the site will be required in conjunction with the proposed development to ensure adequate cimulation within and around the project. Those required improvements include: 1. Prepare and submit a traffic signal warrant study for the intersections of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway, and Sixth Street and Utica Avenue. If either or both signals are warranted they shall be installed and Transportation Department Fee Credits given. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 9 b-c) The proposed office park development will not create hazards or result in inadequate emergency access to the site. e-f) The proposed office park development will not impact cyclists or pedestrians nor create transportation-related hazards. The perimeter of the site will be fully improved with curbs, gutters, sidewalk, streetlights, signalization, and the appropriate turn lanes. g) Located three miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) ( ) (,/) ) habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ( ) (v') ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) A habitat assessment of the site was conducted on August 19 and 23, 1999, by Impact Sciences report dated June 2000. The Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted to identify potential sensitive species and habitats in the area. The site has been cleared of vineyards for approximately ten years. Only marginal natural habitat remains on the site (95% exotic and invasive species), and the property was reviewed and cleared for the presence of Delhi Sands Flower-Loving fly habitat as a result of soil characteristics on-site, which are silty sand and loamy sands described as olive green in color. No sensitive species were detected on- site and it is unlikely any will move on to the site due to the lack of natural habitat. b-c) There are currently mature eucalyptus trees traversing the site. Proposed removal of mature trees will be done included within the project proposal, including five multi-trunk Eucalyptus groups varying in size from 3' to 25' circumference zone. Tree Replacement shall consist of five multi-trunk accent species to be used at project entry, building entry or outdoor seating area. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 10 d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. e) The site, along with other sites in the vicinity, is undeveloped. However, intermittent industrial/office park development along Haven Avenue has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Impact SJgnificanl PotentiallYlmpact Impact Less Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Petentlelly Unless Than Significant Mit~gaedn Significant No Incorporated 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: c) The project site is not located in a Classified or Designated Mineral Resource area by the State Mining and Geology Board as identified by the San Bernardino County General Plan. issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUn~ess Tha~ 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ) ( ) (v') hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ) ( ) (,/) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ) ( ) (z') health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ) ( ) (,/) potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ) ( ) (v') brush, grass, or trees? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 11 Comments: a/c There is no evidence of commercial or industrial uses other than prior vineyard cultivation. No evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes or discolored soils are observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. Some concrete rubble has been noted along the eastern boundary of the site and will be removed with site grubbing and grading activities. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Titan 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-b) The proposed site will not produce any noticeable long-term noise impacts, as the site's proposed office uses are not intrinsically noisy. The temporary increase in noise during construction, or increased roadway noise by additional vehicle tdps, is not considered significant because there are no nearby sensitive receptors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Than 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Other govemmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The site, located on Haven Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, is served by a fire station located near Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, approximately 2 miles from the project site. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. Police protection - The proposed office park will incrementally increase the need for routine police protection services, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 12 Schools - The proposed office park will incrementally increase the need for schools through the potential for increased housing and population growth, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fees established by the school district. Parks - The proposed office park will incrementally increase the need for park and recreation services through the potential for increased housing and population growth, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. Public facilities -The proposed office park will incrementally increase traffic on adjacent streets, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote~[ially Unless Than 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/,) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments.', a-g) The proposed office park will include the construction of approximately 280.000 square feet of office space. The proposed development will extend as necessary existing systems and utilities available in the immediate area. The proposed project will not require major modifications or alterations to the existing utility systems. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Ur~less Tna~ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal'. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Z ,f..z' ,o7' Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources:, Potentially Unless Titan C) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') Comments: a/b) The site lies adjacent to Haven Avenue and Sixth Street which require development to occur in a planned campus-like setting. The site will be landscaped along the streetscape as well as through the site. A total of 18 percent landscape coverage of the net lot area is proposed and 30 percent of the required trees used in the parking lot are 24 inch box as required in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (11-33.6.) Within the Haven Avenue overly portion of the site, 23 percent of the area is landscaped. c) The proposed office park will incrementally add to the creating additional light or glare within the area. Immediately to the north, east and south of the site are similar office/industrial park developments. Issues and ~upporting Information Sources: Potenllally Unless Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (,/') c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (,/) ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ( ) ( ) (,/') which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ( ) ( ) (,/) the potential impact area? Comments: a-e) Although no cultural resources have been observed on-site, grading of the site may expose or unearth historic cultural resources. As the site is relatively small (less than 20 acres) and the adjacent and surrounding areas have been disturbed, the likelihood of unearthing cultural resources is minimal and impacts are considered less than significant. In the event that a historic or cultural resource is found, the contractor will be required to contact the owner of the site and the San Bernardino County Museum for the proper recovery and removal of the artifact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenlially Unless Than 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ) ( ) ( ) (,/') regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a) The proposed office park will incrementally increase the need for park and recreation services through the potential for increased housing and population growth, consistent with the City of Rancho Cucemonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. b) There is no impact associated with affecting existing recreational opportunities as the property surrounding the project area is designated for industrial and office park development. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the ( ) ( ) (,/') ( ) potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than C) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futura projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) A habitat assessment of the site was conducted on August 19 and 23, 1999, by Impact Sciences report dated June 2000. The Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted to identify potential sensitive species and habitats in the area. The site has been cleared of vineyards for approximately ten years. Only marginal natural habitat remains on the site (95% exotic and invasive species), and the property was reviewed and cleared for the presence of Delhi Sands Flower-Loving fly habitat as a result of soil characteristics on-site, which are silty sand and loamy sands described as olive green in color. No sensitive species were detected on- site and it is unlikely any will move on to the site due to the lack of natural habitat. b) The project site is 19.39 acres and grading will be limited to moving approximately 35,000 cubic yards. There are no sensitive receptors nearby that would be significantly affected by noise and fugitive dust associated with construction of the facility. c) The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The site is within an industrial area, which permits this type of office park development. The initial study did not identify any impacts that could not be mitigated through the City's standard conditions of approval. d) The proposed office park development on 19.39-acres would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The site is located in an industrial area along Haven Avenue. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following eadier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS Page 16 the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): · General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) · Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) · Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981 ) · Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis, Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Center, prepared by RKJK & Associates, dated May 2000. · Results of a Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Based Evaluation, prepared by Impact Sciences, June 2000. · Results of Soil characteristics Study, prepared by Petra Geotechnical, June 2000. LEGACY PARTNERS ~]002 Initial Study for GRy of' Rancho C~camonga DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge-that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: ~Date: Pdnt Name and Title: C :~W1N NT~Profiles~-nmune on .00~De~dop/IN STU DY-PT2.Wl3U Tree Removal Permtt Development Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person remove or relocate any woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (30) inches or more (measured twenty-four (24) inches from ground level), without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the City. Location of Subject Site: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 6th STREET AND UTICA AVENUE APN Name, Address, Telephone of Applicant: LEGACY PARTNERS COMMERCIAL, INC. 30 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 100, IRVINE, CA 92614 Name, Address, Telephone of Property Owner (if olher than applicant): AMIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MONEY PURCHASE PENSION FUND, 8730 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 300, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 Reasons for Removal (altach necessary sheet(s): AGE, SIZE, SPECIES AND LOCATION OF TREES MAKES THEM INFEASIBLE TO INCORPORATE INTO THE PROJECT LANDSCAPING AND SITE Proposed Method of Removal: CUTTING Applicant's Signature: ~Sy: //~./~L,--~- Date: 4/10/00 This application shall include a plot plan indicating location of all trees to be removed and retained. The species, number, and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased, then a written statement from a licensed arborist stating the nature of the disease shall be required. [] APPROVED [] DENIED BY: Reasons: Date: Date/Time Receiv~fa ..3 Received By Fees Received Receipt No. o o,- I~...~v.. ' ' ' ' · ' ' ~ · " r"---..-.~ . i . .. ;h~':;..: '"' '"' ':" · .' *~'- ..... ' ' ~ ';': .... ~ ........ ' ~ _ : .... . ..................... .., ~ '.?., .,-.-. -..... ~ .... C ¢..,.' ' '"' ...... · ~ .-.,r ;'"; ...... ' "(~" '~: ..... ' '" SI .. - ' ' .. I~-~r*~ :" , .... ~ ':-- ... ~ ..... .-...j.~ ~.~. x/s~ ~a' ~ -. " " · .-,-~ ' ..... ...., "~ :: ..... ' ........ ' ~*x** .........'". ........ ." ,,....-.....: .,.., :: -,,~ "..' ...... ~ROE~.. " ..... q ' ~ '~' RCEL ......... · '"' ..... SEb. 1 '-' '.'"',.- ,. ,: PA 2 ' :':;'; ................ ' J~S~I~ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15447 II  r .... ~ P~ ' -*=' }~L _z_. ~ ~ ....... ,.. ---- ~ . ,~ MA? oF CUCAMON~ ~'Rurr ~NDS: ' W'LY 1/2 LOT 20 E'LY 1/2 LOT N'L 1/2 LOT 20 ~22~' ~AP~G 8GAl PARCEL ~P NO. 9498 P.M.B. ~02 / 2-3 PARCEL 1 I PARCEL 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 26, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 00-01 - LEGACY PARTNERS- Review of conceptual plans to develop four office buildings, totaling 280,000 square feet on 19 acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Overlay Distdct of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN: 210-081-07 and 15. Michael Morris, Legacy Partners, introduced himself and the project by stating Legacy Partners was formerly Lincoln Property Company, and that the General Dynamics Corporate Center is currently managed by Legacy Partners. Mr. Morris was joined by his associates, Edc Hanson from Legacy Partners and Jim Williams and Julie Yang from Ware and Malcomb, Architects. Mr. Morris commented that there is a "sense of approach" to the project as the drive along Haven Avenue provides a window into the project area and the same effect occurs ddving west on Sixth Street. He also noted that he believes the overall design of the project is considered "contemporary classic." The Commissioners provided positive comment and feedback to the applicant regarding the overall project design and concept with the following specific suggestions and comments. Commissioner Mannerino suggested the applicant avoid the "pill-box" approach to screening the roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Stewart noted" there is a large amount of parking along the rear elevations of the buildings with no apparent building entry. She asked the applicants to explain the entdes that would be used by both employees and customers or clients of the building tenants. Commissioner Macias indicated the need for a pedestrian link between Building 4 and the cluster of Buildings 1, 2, and 3 (i.e. as in a walkway through the parking landscape median). Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be walkways for pedestrian movement from a parked car to the building entry without having to traverse through landscape medians or planters. 7 Commissioner Macias felt the building elevations that face Sixth Street and those rear elevations that face the parking lots should include an appealing facade with access/entry features appropriate to the building design. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with Commissioner Macias. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested providing pul~lic ad within the project at an appropriate focal point. He continued by suggesting the project capitalize on the "campus-like" concept by providing walkways, landscaping, plaza spaces with outdoor furniture, and similar amenities. He stated Commission policy for industrial/office projects calls for the incorporation of a second building material. He noted a vadety of ways this could be accomplished, such as using sandblasted concrete, stone, or tile for example. Chairman McNiel thought sandblasted concrete could be a satisfactory secondary material. He also suggested they consider moving Building 4 up to the streetscape setback line, as well as increasing the building height to 3-stories. He agreed that the Sixth Street elevation and the elevations facing the parking lots are in need of a more appealing access and entry. Commissioner Mannerino suggested they consider the building placement as it relates to episodes of Santa Ana winds because the prevailing direction of these winds is northeast to southwest; therefore, an alternative building arrangement to protect building entries and plazas from severe wind conditions to the extent feasible would be advised. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-07 - A request to review possible street closure of Roberds Street for future additional parking in the Base Line Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street- APN: 202-092-008. John Melcher, Architect, AIA, was present along with the owners of the property, Syed Iftikhar and Lora Iftikhar. Mr. Melcher gave an overview of the letter of justification. He stated that the reason for the Pre-Application Review was an action brought by Code Enforcement and that the main issue is that the building does not have enough parking for the current use. He said a previous Conditional Use Permit allowed the owner to use half of the building for a warehouse and the other for a wholesale use. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, summarized staff recommendations as to the closure of Roberds Street and the general direction given by staff to ensure that the project would include contact with the adjacent property owners. She strongly recommended the creation of a "village center" feel with landscaping, parking, and pedestrian walkways. She offered the following areas for the Commission's consideration: 1) Master Planning - The Master Plan should encompass the entire block between Base Line Road, Amethyst Avenue, and the abandoned Southem Pacific Railway right-of-way and it should be developed in a way that is cohesive with the site. Support for the Master Plan should be sought by all affected property owners in this block. 2) Pedestrian Space - The area encompasses an odd shaped layout with no definable pedestrian walkways. Part of the Master Plan should encompass walkways and landscaping for pedestrian use. PC Adjourned Minutes -2: January 26, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 00-22, LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6) AND HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-081-07 AND 210-081-15. A. Recitals. 1. Legacy Partners filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 00-22, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on July 26, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located near the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street, with a street frontage on Haven Avenue of approximately 330 feet and a frontage on Sixth Street of approximately 630 feet and is presently unimproved; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is an existing two- and three-story office complex. The property to the south consists of single-story multi-tenant industrial park complex, the property to the east is the General Dynamics Master Plan office park, and the property to the west is undeveloped land; and c. The proposed application is for four 2-story office buildings consisting of 280,000 square feet of space; and d. Five multi-trunk Eucalyptus trees are on-site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 2 b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin,q Division 1 ) Decorative pavement shall extend into handicap parking spaces near building entries and at the west end of Buildings I and 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 3 2) All transformers located within the parking lot shall be screened with either shrubbery and/or decorative walls. 3) Tree Removal Permit 00-13 is hereby approved, subject to replacement measures as identified in the Initial Study, and listed as Environmental Mitigation in this resolution. Enqineednq Division 1) No median breaks will be allowed on Haven Avenue or Sixth Street. Existing medians on Sixth Street, from Haven Avenue to Utica Avenue shall be landscaped. The developer is eligible to submit for a reimbursement agreement for offsite improvements, including the north half of the median along the project frontage, from development as it occurs. The Sixth Street median island tree is Lagerstroemia Indica (20 feet on center). 2) Prepare and submit traffic signal warrant studies for the intersections of Haven Avenue at Trademark Parkway and Sixth Street at Utica Avenue. If either or both signals are warranted, they shall be installed and Transportation Department Fee Credits will be given. 3) The Winston Avenue public street transition to private on-site is conceptually accepted as shown on the site plan. The signing, striping, and transition construction details must be approved by the City Engineer. Provide the public turn-around access easement as shown on the site plan. 4) The City has capital improvement street overlay for Sixth Street scheduled to begin September 2000. The developer shall coordinate the improvements with the City project. 5) Provide reciprocal access easement from Haven Avenue for the "Not A Part" area. 6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of overhead utility lines (except for 66ky or larger electrical lines) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit times the length of the project frontage. 7) Provide a swale along the south property line or obtain an off-site drainage acceptance letter. Environmental Mitiqation Air Quality 1) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-22 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 4 include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 3) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Transportation 1) Prepare and submit a traffic signal warrant study for the intersections of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway and Sixth Street at Utica Avenue. If either or both signals are warranted, they shall be installed and Transportation Department Fee Credits given. Biological Resources 1 ) Tree Replacement shall consist of five multi-trunk accent species to be used at project entry, building entry, or outdoor seating area. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 00-22 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covedng all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program Development Review 00-22 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiting no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An M MP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department sha II require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required pedod of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. I:\FINAL\CEQA'~M MP Fon'n-rev,wpd MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Development Review 00-22 Applicant: LeRacY Partners Initial Study Prepared by: Debra MeierI AICP Date: July 26, 2000 The construction contractor shall selectthe construction CP/BO C/A A/C 4 equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or CP/BO C/A A/C 4 diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that CP/BO C/A A/C 4 construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Prepare and submit a traffic signal warrant study for the CE C/D C/D 3 intersections of Haven Avenue at Trademark Parkway and Sixth Street at Utica Avenue. If either or both signals are warranted, they shall be installed and Transportation Department Fee Credits given. ~Boogca Resources~.~ : - ~ ,:~- -~¥ ~ . !~, Tree Replacement shall consist of five multi-trunk CP C/A accent species to be used at project entry, b~ilding I entry, or outdoor seating area. I I I Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible ................ P~er ' ' M~o~.rl~g~Fr.e~l~nc~ .... son. ~, ,. CDP - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee e - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO * Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 00-22 SUBJECT: Rancho Corporate Center APPLICANT: Legacy Partners LOCATION: SEC Sixth Street and Haven Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements ComolefionDate 4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its I agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2.Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6.Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall SC -2-00 1 Project No. DR00-22 Comoletion Dat~ be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 7. Revised site plans and building elevations in,corporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 9. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 10. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 11. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 13. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 14. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate DevelopmentJDesign Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior to the issuance of building permits. SC -2-00 Project NO. DR00-22 ComDletion Date 5. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2.For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2.All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses, 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one pement. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 7. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for / commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. G. Trip Reduction 1. Category 5 telephone cable or fiber optic cable shall be provided for office buildings and ! single-family developments of 500 or more units. SC -2-00 3 2. Shower facility accessible to both men and women shall be provided for persons walking or bicycling to work for each project which meets the following thresholds: Commercial 250,000 square feet Industrial 325,000 square feet Office 125,000 square feet Hotels and Motels 250 rooms H. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2.A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 4.Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1- gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 8. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on / the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. SC -2-00 4 Project No. DR00-22 Completion Date I. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. J. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost'of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. K. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'IT #, CUP #, DR ft, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. SC -2-00 Project No. DR00-22 Completion Dpt9 tM. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday I through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). I 6. The following is required for side yard use for increase in allowable area: / a. Provide a reduced site plan (8 ~" x 11") which indicates the non-buildable easement. b. Recorded "Covenant and Agreement for the Maintenance of a Non-Buildable Easement," which is signed by the appropriate property owner(s). c. Sample document is available from the Building and Safety Division. N. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances I / considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino / I Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. -- 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC Table 5oA. __/___ 4. Provide draft stops in attics in line with common walls. / 5. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." / 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. I O. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. SC -2-00 Project NO. DRO0*22 ComDJetion Date 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Varies from 51 to 71 total feet on Sixth Street 33 total feet on Utica Street 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. Also for acceptance of drainage from APN: 210-081-13,14. 5. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 6. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. Q. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C, Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail Island Haven Avenue X X C X X Sixth Street X X C X X a Utica X X X X X X · Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. SC -2-00 Project No. DR00-22 Completion Date b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Off[ce in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and intemonnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3.Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. R. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Sixth Street Median. 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4.Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. SC -2-00 8 Pro|ect No. DR00-22 Comoletion Date S. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. T. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. U, General Requirements and Approvals 1. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: V. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: 8000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) ! (Table). -OR- a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. SC -2-00 9 Project No. DR00-22 C~omgletion Date 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Other As applicable for any Iow rise occupancy (3 or more stories). 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 11. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 12. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 13. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 14. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: X $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. X .$677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 15. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. SC -2-00 10 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: W. Security Lighting 1.All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. X. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. Alt roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. Y. Windows 1. Security glazing is recommended on store front windows to resist window smashes and impede entry to burglars. Z. Building Numbering 1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 3.All developments shall submit a 8 ~" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant developments to the Police Department. AA. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15447, SUBDIVIDING 19.39 ACRES INTO 4 PARCELS, LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-081-07 AND 210-081-15. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15447, submitted by legacy Partners, applicants, for the purpose of subdividing into 4 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15 located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan, and; 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan, and; 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. 2. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15447 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 2 upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map 15447 is hereby approved subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Enqineerin,q Division 1) No median breaks will be allowed on Haven Avenue or Sixth Street. Existing medians on Sixth Street, from Haven Avenue to Utica Avenue shall be landscaped. The developer is eligible to submit for a reimbursement agreement for offsite improvements, including the north half of the median along the project frontage, from development as it occurs. The Sixth Street median island tree is Lagerstremia Indica (20 feet on center). 2) Prepare and submit traffic signal warrant studies for the intersection of Haven Avenue at Trademark Parkway and Sixth Street at Utica Avenue. If either or both signals are warranted, they shall be installed and Transportation Depar{ment Fee Credits will be given. 3) The Winston Avenue public street transition to pdvate on-site is conceptually accepted as shown on the site plan. The signing, sthping, and transition construction details must be approved by the City Engineer. Provide the ~ublic turn-around access easement as shown on the site plan. 4) The City has capital ~mprovement street overlay for Sixth Street scheduled to begin September 2000. Utility trenches will not be allowed after the overlay. The developer shall coordinate the improvements with the City project. 5) Provide reciprocal access easement from Haven Avenue for the "Not A Part" area. 6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of overhead utility lines (except for 66kv or larger electrical lines) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid to the City pdor to issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit times the length of the project frontage. 7) Provide a swale along the south property line or obtain an off-site drainage acceptance letter. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15447 - LEGACY PARTNERS July 26, 2000 Page 3 BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Tentative Parcel Map 15447 SUBJECT: Rancho Corporate Center APPLICANT: Legacy Partners LOCATION: NEC Haven Avenue and Sixth Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Dale 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B, Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. SC -2-00 Project No. TPM 15447 Oomoletion Date 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. D. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcal) shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior to the issuance of building permits.  I~PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Varies from 51 to 71 total feet on Sixth Street 33 total feet on Utica Street 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently wi{h the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. Also for acceptance of drainage from APN: 210-081-13, 14. 5.Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. F. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: SC -2-00 .. Project NO. TPM 15447 CornDletion Date Curb & A,C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail island Haven Avenue X X c X X Sixth Street X X c X X a Utica X X X X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction Dr reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Putl boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required, SC -2-00 E 3 Project No. TPM t 5447 Com~31et~or~ Date Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Sixth Street median. 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. H. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. I. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. J. General Requirements and Approvals Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The / developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a SC -2-00 E' ,¢ ..Z' Project No. TPM 15447 Comoletion Oate fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: 8000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Iii-A, 5, (b) (Table). -OR- a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Other As applicable for any Iow rise occupancy (3 or more stories) 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 11. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 12. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 13. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. Project NO. TPM 15447 Comoletion Date 14.Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: X $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. X $677 for New Commercial and industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 15. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Security Lighting 1.All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. M. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. N. Windows 1. Security glazing is recommended on store front windows to resist window smashes and impede entry to burglars. O, Building Numbering 1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 3. All developments shall submit a 8 ¼" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant developments to the Police Department. P, Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. SC-2 0 £4.Z' 6 Project No. TPM 15447 ComDlelJon Date 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. I / THE CITY OF I~ANC~O CUCAMONGA SlaffRe rt DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Mike Smith, Planning Aide SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-11 - PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS - The development of a wireless communication facility consisting of a 60-foot stealth co-location "monopalm" and two cabinets housing transceiver equipment on 500 square feet of leased area on a 5.64-acre parcel of land in the Sunrize Shopping Center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 8647 Base Line Road - APN: 207-022-14. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed the application and found that the wireless communication facility is within 500 feet of a residential district. The Development Code requires such facilities to be located a minimum of 500-feet from any residential area. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the wireless facility application cannot be considered without a Vadance request to allow the facility to be located closer to the adjacent residences. The applicant agreed and will submit a Variance application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 00-11 to the August 9, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, in order to advertise the Variance. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:MS:mlg ITEM F THE CITY OF II I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA StaffRel rt DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kid A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-14 - PACI. FIC BELL WlRELES,~ - The installation of a 60-foot high "monopalm" wireless telecommunications facility in the Terra Vista Shopping Center in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 7629 Haven Avenue - APN: 1076-481-31. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed the proposed application and found that the wireless communication facility is within 500 feet of a residential district. The Development Code requires such facilities to be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential area. The applicant has decided to apply for a Variance to allow the facility to be located closer to the adjacent residences. In addition, the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposal at the July 6, 2000, DRC meeting and recommended that the project be redesigned and brought back for further Committee review. The Committee indicated that exceeding the.40-foot height limit of the base district was inappropriate along a Special Boulevard, near residences, and near a major intersection. The Committee further noted that there are no other Palm trees in this shopping center; hence, a "Monopalm" was also inconsistent with the landscape theme. The Committee stated that it may not be possible to co-locate because of design issues associated with two sets of antennas on a single pole; however, the Committee indicated that the applicant may bring back alternative designs that would be complimentary to the area. Staff met with the applicant on July 18, 2000, and the applicant proposed a flag pole type structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 00-14 to a Planning Commission meeting to be determined. The continuance would allow the applicant an opportunity to submit the Variance application and propose alternative designs allowing a Major Wireless Communications facility within 500 feet of a residential zone and along a Special Boulevard. This Conditional Use Permit and the related Variance would be re-advertised and new notices will be sent to surrounding property owners. Respectfully submitted, City Planner ITEM G THE CiTY OF I~AN Cfi 0 CUCAHONGA DA'rE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission F'RO~ Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Development Code Chapter 17.30, to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution" as permitted uses on parcels of 35 acres or larger, subject to the approval of a' Master Plan, within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: At the April 26, 2000, meeting, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" as permitted uses within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6). The issue is in response to a request by the applicant, Charles Joseph and Associates, who is interested in constructing warehouse distribution buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet on the south side of 6th Street between the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Haven Avenue (see Exhibit "C"). "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" are defined as follows: Medium Manufacturinq: "Activities typically include, but are not limited to: manufacturing, compounding of materials, processing, assembly, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent large container truck traffic or rail traffic, or the transport of heavy, bulky items ..... " [TEN H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES July 26, 2000 Page 2 Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution: "Activities typically include, but are not limited to: wholesale, storage and warehousing services. Included are multi-tenant or speculative buildings with over 50, 000 square feet of warehouse space ..... " ANALYSIS: The Industrial. Area Specific Plan establishes a comprehensive plan for the development of the industrial area. The Specific Plan is divided into Subareas based upon five major land use categories which range in intensity from lightest to heaviest as follows: Industrial Park, General Industrial, Mixed Use, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. Each Subarea has distinct land use regulations and development standards. Subarea 6 is designated as Industrial Park and has a Haven Avenue Overlay District to encourage office uses within 300 feet of Haven Avenue. The proposed amendment would include a 16-acre parcel fronting Haven Avenue, which is subject to the Haven Avenue Oveday. This amendment would not impact the requirements of the Overlay District. "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" are not allowed in any of the five Industrial Park Subareas 6, 7, 12, 16, and 17. They are permitted uses within the General Industrial, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial, and Heavy Industrial Subareas 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, and conditionally permitted uses in Subareas 1, 2, and 3 (see Exhibit "A"). Subarea 6 lies generally along Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Arrow Route. Portions of Subarea 5 (General Industrial), where the previously mentioned "Medium" uses are a permitted use, surround the subject property to the north and west. The applicant proposes to include the referenced "Medium" uses on property 35-acres or larger subject to a Master Plan. The intent of a Master Plan is to provide for integrated development at the earliest possible time in the review process. Through the Master Plan process, there are opportunities to coordinate the efforts of single or multiple property owners and discourage piecemeal development. The applicant has prepared a Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "G"), which is being reviewed as a separate application. Requirements of a Master Plan for property 35-acres or larger would limit the possibility of this type of development occurring throughout Subarea 6. Master Plan approval will ensure comprehensive quality development while allowing the property full use of a unique development opportunity. Further, approval of the amendment will not reduce or impact the existing requirements of the Haven Avenue Overlay. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendment is not defined as a project by the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378 and is therefore exempt from environmental review per CEQA Section 15061b.1 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners in Subarea 6 and within 300 feet thereof. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES July 26, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this amendment by the City Council through adoption of the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:KC\ma Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Subarea Map . Exhibit "B"- Subarea 6 Map Exhibit "C"- Location Map Exhibit "D"- Proposed Summary of Land Use Types Exhibit "E"- Letter from Applicant Exhibit "F" - Planning Commission Minutes dated April 26, 2000 Exhibit "G"- Conceptual Master Plan - Cabot Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council ~ GENEHAL INDUSTRIAL --~ ~ CITY OF 2117188 9~07~66 10/03/90 10/17/90 16- 6 6/17/97 City of Rancho Cucamonga Section 17.30.080 FIGURE 17.30.080.-I-I **Deletion of Center Street, South of 6th Street. EXHIBIT "B" ~?.~-78 ~ e/9o Location Map N J----J parcels ~ Str~'t CenMines s 0 480 960 Feet .Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.30.030 Table 17.30.030 - Use Regulations for Industrial Districts SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA ..AND USE IP Gi Gl Gl Gl Gl IP IP Gl MI/HI Gl Gl IP Gl Gl HI IP IP MU/OS USE TYPES 5UBAREAS HO 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MANUFACTURING Custom PIP P PIP P PIP P P ;P P P lC P Light pip P;P !P P P P P p ;p p P lC P Medium C C C P H C P P P P P P Heavy p Minimum Impact Heavy p p OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, DESIGN & RESEARCH ~:lministrative& Office P P P P P P P C P C C P P :=rofessio~al/DesigrtSewices P P P P P P P C P C C P P :~esearcflServices p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p rWHOLESALE STORAGE, & DISTRIBUTION Public Storage C C P C C P C C C C I P Light P P P P P P P P P P P P P P I P P P Medium C P P C P'M P P P P P PIP Heavy C i P C I P ~,, MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIUTIES es P P P P P P P P P P P P Processing Facilities C C C C C C C C Ell Scrap Operation C CNIC Administtative CivicServices p p p p p p p p p p p p p Conventio~ Centers C C I C Cultural P C C P C C U,~ Day CareFacility C C C C C C lc C C C C C C lc C C Extensive Impact Utility Facilities C C C C C C C FtoodCo*tlrol/UtilityCo~'ridor P P P P, P P P P P P P P P P i p p p p Public Assembty C C C C C C C C C C C C C Public Safety&UtilitySemices C C C C C C C C C C C 'C C C C C C C ~eligio~sAssembty C C C C C C C C;C C C C:C 5cflools C C CIC C C C C C C clc C C C:C NOTES: IP - Industrial Park P - Permitted Use HO - Haven Avenue Oveday District C - Conditionally Permitted Use Gl - General Industrial -- - Non-Marked Uses not permitted MI/HI - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial ~ - Adult Entertainment Zoning Permit Required HI - Heavy Industrial MU/OS - Mixed Use/Open Space M- Master Plan Approval 35 acres minimum EXHIBIT "D" 17.30-7 ~][ ~7 6/99 Charles PusUC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES June 21, 2000 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Amendment to Industrial Specific Plan-Subarea 6 to allow Medium Industrial Uses Chairman and Planning Commission: Our clientl Cabot Industrial Trust is interested in development of properties on the south side of Sixth Street, west of Haven Avenue. Currently, Subarea 6 zoning does not allow medium industrial uses in the area. The companies who would lease the proposed buildings would require the "Medium" use designation in buildings larger than 50,000 square feet. A formal application was made on March 28, 2000, to amend the Specific Plan to allow such uses. Enclosed please find a prelimina;y site plan we are considering for the property. The proposed amendment would include the 16-acre parcel fronting Haven Avenue, which is subject to the Haven Avenue Overlay. This amendment would not impact the requirements of the Overlay District. In response to conversation with Planning staff, we are suggesting a revision to the development standards to allow Medium Manufacturing, Medium Wholesale and Storage and Distribution to be permitted subject to a Master Plan for an area in excess of 35 acres. Several property owners to the south of our project site have contacted us regarding proposed development of these properties and expressed a concern that Center Street not be connected through the property. Their concern is that truck traffic from the proposed project, as well as the existing industrial users to the north of Sixth Street would negatively impact the primarily office development that currently extends north from Fourth Street. We are requesting deletion of Center Street, south of 6t~ Street to be responsive to these concerns. In order for us to proceed in our planning and discussions with potential companies who would occupy the facilities, we respectfully ask for your consideration and support of the foregoing. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Enclosures Office 909-481-1822 800-240,1822 Fax 909e481e1824 City Center · 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 395 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA · 91730 A CALIFORNIA CORpOKATION EXHIBIT "E" Mr. Adss re'l~ied there had been an ov'e[sight on exactly what,vas needed and they~b, ad just recently ~ discovered ffl~normity of the task and~ disruptive it wou~ to many other p~.~. ',[Vlotion: Moved't~,,y Macias, seconded by M'a.nnerino, to continue'l~odification to Conditional Use I~rmit 99'10 t° M _~(~.0' 2000~the f°ll°wing v°te:~ ~ AYES; MACIAS, M~NNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY ~ ~ NOES.~,, NONE ~ .~ ~ . ~ ii!~ aN~ MNcONiNe:fel' that the re'ho ~p~ in th sky because of fib'~er tic technology.' NEW BUSINESS E. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOClATF~ - A request to consider initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution' as conditionally permitted uses in Subarea 6. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated a letter had been received from Riverside Commercial Investors in support of the request. Chairman McNiel asked how many acres in the City are currently available for the type of use being sought. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded staff had prepared an exhibit of the vacant land but had not calculated the exact acreage. He indicated it is in the 100s of acres. Chairman McNiel noted the conceptual plan does not indicate any building intrusion into the Haven Overlay District. Mr. Coury responded that was correct. He said the applicant had initially plotted buildings going into the Overlay District but that had been changed. Chairman McNiel observed the warehouse buildings shown on the plan are currently not allowed in the subarea. Mr. Coury confirmed that was tree. Commissioner Mannerino asked if efforts would be made to coordinate the proposed change with the General Plan Update Task Force. He thogght there may be some changes proposed in the revised Land Use plan in this area of town. Mr. Coleman responded that the preferred Land Use Plan submitted by the General Plan Update consultant had been reviewed by the Task Force and no changes were recommended in this area. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- ~r ~ April 26, 2000 EXHIBIT "F" Charles Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was requesting text changes. He said he represents Cabot Industrial Trust from Boston and they are seeking to build a high quality, high tech facility. He commented he had been on the City Council when the Industrial Area Specific Plan was adopted. He did not believe. they thought they would see any warehouses larger than 50,000 square feet. He thought the motive was to limit the potential of smokestack industries in the corridor. He stated that Scripto Tokai, Lowes, and GA'IX are in excess of the square footage. He said they excluded the area in the Haven Avenue Overlay District and if any buildings intrude, they would be an office product. Chairman McNiel asked why this particular site was chosen when there is so much available land which is zoned for this use. Mr. Buquet replied it was chosen because of the proximity to other projects under Cabot's control. He said that Sparkletts would occupy 660,000 square feet to the west. He stated they wish to be in an industrial park area rather than a heavy industrial area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He noted there are very few smokestack industries in town even in the Heavy Industrial area. Commissioner Mannerino said he saw nothing wrong with allowing the application to move for~vard. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to direct staff to process an amendment to Subarea 6 of the Industria! Area Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel stated he didn't disagree with allowing staff to process the amendment, so long as it was understood that this action did not imply acceptance, it merely allows staff to prepare an analysis. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS F. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated there was no new information. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes .5- ¥~ ~ April 26, 2000 A MASTER PLANNED CORPORATE PARK CABOT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT lIPA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, TO INCLUDE "MEDIUM MANUFACTURING" AND "MEDIUM WHOLESALE, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTION" AS PERMITTED USES ON PROPERTY OF 35 ACRES OR LARGER SUBJECT TO A MASTER PLAN, WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. Charies Joseph and Associates has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiated this amendment through minute action. 3. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on th,e application and concluded said heating on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 26, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property within the city; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment will allow refinement of the list of allowed uses in Subarea 6. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public headng, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Industrial Area Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for development, within Subarea 6, in a manner consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES July 26, 2000 Page 2 b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of Subarea 6; and e. The' proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Resolution is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 153061b.1 and 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-02, amending Table 17.30.030 (Exhibit "D") as attached. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE City of RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY' Larry McNeil, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby ~ertify 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 07/2G/2000 09:07 7147570511 BIC~E:L I..I],~ PAGE: ~2 BICKEL UNDERWOOD ~ CALIFORNIA CORPORATION July 26, 2000 Mr. Brant LeCount Associate Planner Ci~y of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civk; Center Drive Rancho Cucamonge, CA g1729 Re: Development Review 00-t8 - Union Bank Dear Bra~t: This is s request that the Public Headn§ for the above-m~erencod project (Scheduled for July 26'~} be postponed to the following hearing on Augusi 9~ for the ~llowin9 reasons: The progress of the Lowe's project, more specifically their parking area, has forced-us to create an alternate parking configuration thai salvages recta of lite recently com;x~eted woFg. Pe~ yOur request, we are having the traffic engineer evaluate the new plan end w~il submit their findings with our final package. In addition, there are ,= number of medifioaUons to the building and (resulting from the DRC and technical review) that we flit should be reflected lo the 'offiCial' .approved documents. These include the extencled trellis, berm and landscaping adjustments, a tower element on the north elevation, and removal of the raised median. Olher comments from the st~,ff report have been inc, orporated into the drawings as w~ti. Thank you for your affempt st continuing to expedite our project through approvala. Our hope is this postponement will ultimately save time and confusion through plancheck. If you have any comments or questions regarding this request, please confac~ me as sc, c.~ as possible. Si ly, · . ~'ilme. s S. Bio,el, Jr. - AIA// ~ President Jim Ponf,,ralli. Union Bank Gayle I-larl3ell, Jone~ Lang LaSalle .Iohn Bazzant, Catellus .t600 lllacu S~'a==r. S[~?s 220. Neweoa? BBAC., CA 92660 P.ONE 949.7'57 - 0411 ]=AX 949. 757 - the city of I1~111 l~ancho Cucamonsa DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-18 UNION BANK- The development of a 6,000 square foot bank on 1.2 acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant land and the Rancho San Antonio Medical Building; Financial, Restaurants, Residential, Community Commemial, Hospital and Related Facilities, and Office uses, Terra Vista Community Plan South -Lowe's Home Improvement Store (under construction); Industrial Park (Subarea 7), Industrial Area Specific Plan East - Vacant land and the Masi Plaza and the Quakes Stadium; Industrial Park (Subarea 7), Industrial Area Specific Plan West * Vacant land planned for Farmer Boys Restaurant and Lowe,s Home lmprovement Store parking area; Industrial Park (Subarea 7), Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Commercial South - General Industrial East Industrial Park West Industrial Park I tern J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-18 - UNION BANK July 26, 2000 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The site is located at the main entrance to the Catellus Master Plan area, which was approved by the Planning Commission in April of 1999; however, the approved Master Plan was left "blank" in this area due to uncertainty of ultimate land use. It is northeast of the Lowe's Home Improvement store now under construction. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type of Square Parkinq Spaces Space Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Bank 6,000 1/250 24 30 ANALYSIS: A. General: The site will be graded so that it sets approximately 3 to 4 feet below the level of Foothill Boulevard. The building design incorporates the basic amhitectural features that were established in the Lowe's building. The bank is proposed to have a drive-thru lane, which will wrap around the east and north sides of the building, with ingress from the south. The building will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard. The drive-thru lane is proposed to be screened by a berm along the street frontage, a porte-cochere on the east side of the building and a large member trellis on the north side. The project represents a modification to the Catellus Master Plan, which did not define building pads or circulation in this area. An on-site traffic study was prepared which indicates that the proposed location of the east-west driveway spine will not lead to circulation conflicts with main access from Foothill Boulevard. The main access point, which aligns with future Mayten Street to the north, will be the only signalized access from Foothill Boulevard. The Master Plan submitted with the application is a conceptual illustration only and is not part of this approval. B. Desi.qn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Mannerino, Tostoy, Coleman) reviewed the project on June 20, 2000, and recommend approval with conditions. Refer to the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. C. Technical Review Committee: The Grading and Technical Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: The Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II, were prepared. Staff has determined that the project will not result in substantial impact to the environment. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-18 - UNION BANK July 26, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 00-18 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map/Master Plan Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Elevations Exhibit "F" Initial Study Exhibit "G" Design Review Action Agenda - June 20, 2000 Resolution of Approval with Conditions FOOTHILL BOULEVARD I~-- Signalized T.~,~..~,~..,,~ .,, Intersection ~ ,~.^,-..c eo,*,~.e RANCHO CUCAMON(."~A '"""^""':' '"" I~*CA '~.g~."" *' ? CORPORATE PARK FOOTHILL BOULEVARD I ~i .... BANK Preliminaw Plant nfl Legend NOTES: I PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN I '"" ~ ~ [ L:I'=L-I' ELEVATIONS · ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM C, o,.on oO camo g.p,on.,ngo i. on (Part I - Initial Study) (909) 477°2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETEAPPLICATIONSWILLNOTBEPROCESSFD Pleasenotethatitistheresponsibilityoftheapplicanttoensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff wili not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: ProjectTitle: Union Bank of California - Rancho Cucamonga Name&Addmssofproje~owne~s): Union Bank (Jim Pontarelli - Assist. V.P.) 530 "B" Street, Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101-4410 .Name&Addres$of~vel~erorpmject~onsor Catellus Development Corp. 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ContactPe~on&Address: Bickel Underwood (Jim B~ckel) 3600 Birch Street, Suite 220, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone Number:. 949-757-041 1 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): SAME Telephone Number Infon~nation indicated by astedsk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless othem, ise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1'2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site. and indicate the site boundaffes. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the no~th, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the pdmary access points which serve--the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) project Location (describe): Pad Parcel at the Southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Mayten Street at the "Lowe's Center" in Rancho Cucamonga, CA 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 229-011-25, 31 , & 32 '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 1 .14 Acres/49,529 sq. ft. '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): N / A 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessao,: None Includeadesc~tionofallpermi~ which willbenecessa~fremtheCi~ofRanchoCucamongaandotherg°vemmental agencies~o~erto~plementtheproject: Development review Grading Building tNITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 ' ~.~',/(~ Page2 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features desc#bed. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): flat lot, sloping gradually from north to south. There are a few small shrubs scattered throughout the vineyard. No animals were present at the time of the site evaluation. Along the southern boundary of the project is a dirt road qraded for construction, (Future Millennium Court). THere are no existinq structures on this site. The only scenic aspect is that of the San Gabriel Mountains to the North. 10) Descdbe the known cultural and/or histodcal aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): No known cultural or historical aspects 11) Descdbeanyn~ses~urcesandthe~eve~thatn~wa~ctthesite(aircratt~readwayn~ise~etc~)andh~wtheywll~a~ct pmposed uses: Normal traffic along Fo~h~]] Rn,~vmrd ~n~ ~]]~n Avenue are adjacent to the site and are the current noise source for the site. INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 ' ~// Page 3 12) Descdbe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate descttption of the site in terrns of ultimate use which will result from the prosed p~oject. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: New 6~000 square foot bank buildinq for public use. The buildinq is single story with a plaster exterior in an earl~; California motif. The buildinq has a drive-thru and m~ltiple ATM locations. 1~ Desc~be ~e surr~unding pmpe~ies~ ~c~uding ~ali~n ~n p~n~ and anima~ and any cu~tu~ h~a~ ~r scen~ a~ec~. ~dica~ ~e lype of ~nd use ~siden~ comme~ia~ e~.), ~ns~ of ~nd use ~ne-~mily, apa~ment houses, ~$, depa~ment s~s, e~) a~ sca~ of ~velopment ~e~h~ ~ntage, se~ac~ mar ya~ etc.): ~orth of the project site is the continuation of the abandoned grape vineyard to Foothill Boulevard. Across Foothill Boulevard is vacant land. To the east the site is bordered by the Auto Court in the Masi Center and Quake Stadium. South of the property is GATX Buildinq under construction, 443,000 square foot industrial building. TO the West is the abandoned grape vineyard. 14) ~thep~p~sedp~ectchangethepattem~sca~e~rcha~cter~fthesurr~un~nggene~a~a~thep~ect? NO, the proposed project is keeping with the Industrial Specific Plan and the approved Catellus Master Plan. INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ' ~/~ Page4 ~dicate~etypeofsho~and~-~no~e~begene~cludingsou~eandamounL Howwill~esenoise~ve~ a~ctadjacentpmpe~iesandon-siteuse&Whatme~o~ofsoundpmofingamp~posed? The only noise generation will come from cars in the drive-thru teller line. Location, configuration and berming will mitigate this. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: None 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: None 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) 1 , 705 gal/day Peak use (gal/mia/ac) 19) Indicate preposed method of sewage disposaL __ Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See AttachmentA forusage estimates). Forfurthercladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County WaterDistrictat 987-2591. a. Residential (gaYday) b. Commeroial/Ind. (gal'day/ac) 1 , 705 gal/day RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Numberofresidentialunits: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: INITSTD1 .VVPD - 4/96 ' ~/~ Page5 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sate units): 21) Anticipated range of sale pdces and/or rents: Sate Pdce(s) $. to Rent (per month) $. to $. 22) Specify numberofbedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who wilt be residing within the project: Contact the apprepdate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERClAL~ [NDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbetype~fuse(s)andmaj~rfuncti~n(s)~fc~mmercia~~indushfa~~rinstituti~na~uses: Commercial Bank 26) Total floor area of commercial, indushfal, or institutional uses by type: 6,000 sq. ft. INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ' ~-~' Page6 27) Indicate hours of operetion: M - Th 9-5 Fri 9-6 Sat 9-1 28) Number of employees: Total: I 1 Maximum Shift: 8 hrs/day 40 hrs/wk Time of Maximum Shift: 8: 4 5 a. m t,o 5: 4 5 p. m. 29) Pmvide breakd~wn ~f anticipatedj~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~~ as an indicati~n ~f the rete of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): This is proprietary information 30) Estimation of the nurnberofworkers to be hired that currently reside in the City: To be determined '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. 'Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): None ALL PROJECTS 32) Havethewater~sewer~~re~andfi~~dc~ntr~~agencie$$ervingthepr~jectbeenc~ntactedt~determinetheirabilityt~pr~vide adequate se/vice to the proposed preject? If so, please indicate their response. CCWD has reviewed the Master Plan regardin~ provision of sewer and water. With the development of the Master Plan, the first phase sewer and water infrastructure is being installed additionally. The off-site Improvement Plan for the Master Plan addresses drainage. INITSTDI.WPD - 4~6 ' ~ Page7 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic mateffals? Examples of hazardous and/ortoxic materials include, but ara not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesb~ides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. NO known use or discharqe of hazardous and/or toxic materials. 34) IA411 the proposed project involve the temporaq/ or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such mate#als to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. None. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belie~ I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. INtTS'TD1 .WPD - 4196 ' J/~ Page8 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 00-18 2. Related Files: Development Review 99-11, Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, and Tentative Pamel Map 15295- Catellus. 3. Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Development Review 00-18 - Union Bank of California. New 6,000 square foot bank for public use. The proposed structure is single story with a plaster exterior in an early California motif. The bank will have a drive-thru and multiple ATM locations. The 1.14-acre site is within the larger Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, a 140-acre commercial and industrial complex in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan. The Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park is located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Union Bank of California 530 B Street Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101-4410 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park 6. Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 7) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. The site is currently an abandoned grape vineyard. North of the site is the continuation of the abandoned grape vineyard to Foothill Boulevard. Across Foothill Boulevard is vacant land. The site is bordered on the east by vacant land, and further to the east by Masi Plaza automotive services. South of the property is the 443,000 square foot GATX Building (currently under construction); to the west, is an abandoned grape vineyard and the Lowe's home improvement center under construction. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None /7 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Cimulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (,.") Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (v') Aesthetics (v') Water (v') Noise ( ) Cultural Resources (,/) Air Quality (v') Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: ~"' ~-~ ~-- Brent Le Count Associate Planner June 27, 2000 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~,y u.~, ~ 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (/) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) (,") policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) (,/) vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) (v') established community? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 3 Comments: a-d) The project site is part of the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park and was previously analyzed under the Initial Study prepared for Tentative Tract Map 15295, and included a detailed look at the subdivision of the 140-acre area into 13 individual parcels. The area is designated Industrial Park and General Industrial and is zoned Subarea 7 and Subarea 8, respectively, and is located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. The proposed bank would be consistent with existing and permitted land uses in Subarea 7. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 2. POPULATION AND HOUS~IG. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') housing? Comments: a-b) Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. Operation of the bank will include 11 full-time employees. The addition of these employees will not create a demand for additional housing as they will likely reside within the City or surrounding communities. c) Approximately 1.14 acres are proposed for development. The bank will be constructed in an area designated Industrial Park (Subarea 7). There are no residential structures within the vicinity. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnl~ 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (/) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentially Unless e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (v) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ('/) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (v~) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ('~) Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 2 miles northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 6 miles northwest. These faults are both capable of producing a Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquake, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto Fault, capable of producing up to M,~ 7.5 earthquakes, is 9 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 12.5 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincided with an extended period of heavy rains raising the local water table. Soils type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga-Delhi. These soils are relatively stable but subject to liquefaction when the water table is relatively shallow. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site is relatively flat so grading will be minimal. Grading will even out the site and create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage. f-h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga Soboba association. These soils are excessively drained, readily level to moderately sloping soils formed on alluvial fans. Runoff is very slow, and hazard of erosion is slight. Included with this soil in mapping are areas of Tujunga gravely loamy sand in scattered tracts 10 to 20 acres in size. Also included are small areas of Delhi fine sand. The project site is east and outside of the Delhi Sands Special Study Area. Therefore, the site does not contain significant amounts of Delhi sand or appropriate habitat for the Delhi Sand Flower- Loving Fly. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Tllan 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ( ) ( ) (,,') ( ) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ( ) ( ) ( ) of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ( ) ( ) (,/) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ( ) ( ) (,/) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ( ) ( ) (v') groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. No other improvements beyond the master plan of drainage are necessary to accommodate the project. The impact is not considered significant. b) The site is not located within the 100-year flood plain as indicated on Figure III-G/2 "Flood Hazards" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR. c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. The applicant will provide a drainage study showing how storm water runoff will be conveyed, prior to issuance of a grading permit. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area as the site is not used for groundwater discharge. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Then 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) ( ) (,") ( ) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super- Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be emitted from grading the site. However, the site is too small (1.14 acres) to generate significant PM~o contamination that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Nonetheless, dust emissions could be sufficient to warrant the use of water or other dust palliatives at this site. c-d) The proposed project is to construct a 6,000 square foot bank for public use on 1.14 acres of vacant land. Adequate parking and landscaping will be provided in accordance with the City Development Code. The bank will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ( ) ( ) (v') sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ( ) ( ) (,") nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ("') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ("') f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ( ) ( ) (v') alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P~-,,~y Un~= ~ g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) Comments: a) The project site is part of the 140-acre Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park. An Initial Study was prepared for Tentative Tract Map 15295 and included a review of the subdivision of 140 acres of land into 13 parcels in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) and General Industrial (Subarea 8). Transtech Engineers, Inc. prepared a Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis (CMP/TIA) study, as part of the review, to determine whether the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park would increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use. The CMP/TIA concluded that the project would result in excessive future traffic congestion. The report recommended certain roadway improvements to accommodate the project generated traffic. Recommendations were incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) adopted for the master plan. implementation of the MMP will maintain traffic impacts to less than significant. The master plan for the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park showed a main east-west drive aisle leading from the Lowe's site to parcels to the east. This east- west drive aisle/spine was approved much further south than is specified for the subject project. This was intended to provide sufficient vehicle stacking distance on the main north-south drive aisle (east of Union Bank) between the point at which the main east-west drive aisle intersects the north-south drive aisle and Foothill Boulevard. An on-site traffic analysis was prepared for the project (RKJK and Associates, May 9, 2000) to address this issue. The findings of the report indicate that the distance between Foothill Boulevard and the main east-west drive aisle intersection is sufficient to provide adequate vehicle stacking on the north-south drive aisle located east of Union Bank. The report recommended that the drive-thru entry point for Union Bank be relocated westerly to avoid an awkwardly tight "U" turn movement for those entering the site off Foothill Boulevard via the north-south drive aisle. The project has been redesigned in light of this recommendation to the satisfaction of RKJK and Associates. Through redesign of the project in conformance with the traffic report, on-site traffic impacts are not considered significant. b-d) The site is a rectangular parcel with an entry to the site on both Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Street. There is an entry setbacl~ designed so that visitors to the site will not be backed up on either streets. The proposed project includes on-site parking and drive through ATM. d) Located approximately 6 miles northeast of Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18- Union Bank Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ( ) ('/') eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) (¢') eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) ( ) (~') vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The site is an abandoned vineyard and is currently vacant. No natural habitat exists on-site, and the property is not within the Ontario Recovery Unit as indicated in Figure 6 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF) habitat. On-site vegetation is sparse and consists of non- native species. It is unlikely that any DSF will move onto the site due to the lack of natural habitat. b-c) The site is an abandoned grape vineyard with no native vegetation on-site. d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. e) Intermittent industrial development in the area has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( ) plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") inefficient manner? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless ~ C) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The project site is located on the Day Creek alluvial fan, an area classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-2). An MRZ-2 Zone contains deposits of known value and marketability. However, the State Geologist has determined that due to urbanization, the site is not in a Designated Area of available resources. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P,.~.~ial,y u.r.~ ~ 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ( ) ( ) (,./) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) (~') response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) (v') health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing soumes of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a/c/d) During a site visit, no evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes, or discolored soils were observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. Based on the fact that the site is an abandoned vineyard, pesticides were probably used in the past. However, the project site is being developed as a commemial use where people will not likely be exposed to soil. Therefore, this is no impact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 10 b) The project will not interfere with the flow of traffic on Foothill Boulevard or Milliken Avenue. Project plans will be reviewed and approved by City departments to determine adequate access for emergency vehicles. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (,/') ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Comments: a-b) The project would increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the development would add people and traffic to the area. Noise will be consistent with existing levels, which includes traffic on Foothill Boulevard and surrounding commercial use. There are no sensitive receptors in the area and impacts to noise were not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The site is located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, and is served by a fire station located on the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site. Standard Conditions of Approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. The addition of a 6,000 square foot bank is not considered significant. Police protection - Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the commercial bank will not change current facility operating hours and will not have a Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 11 · substantial increase in the area to be patrolled, as the project site is relatively small, slightly larger than one acre. Schools - The proposed bank building will not generate a substantial number of new job opportunities or induce people to move to the project area. Therefore, construction activities will not adversely impact local schools. Parks - Proposed construction activities will not generate a substantial number of new job opportunities or induce people to move to the project area, Operation of the bank will require 11 full-time employees who will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. Therefore, construction of a commemial bank will not adversely impact local parks or recreational opportunities. Public facilities - The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities and will be consistent will the City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) b) Communication systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) (,/) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (,/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (v') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (,~) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Comments: a-g) The project will use existing gas, electrical, and communication systems. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler. Currently municipal solid waste from the City is taken to San Bernardino, Riverside, or Orange County landfills for disposal; depending on the hauler. The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due to the increased runoff from new hardscape proposed on the currently vacant site. Storm drain improvements will be necessary to accommodate the project. This does not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. The impact is not considered significant since it can be mitigated by providing proper storm water drainage per the City Engineer. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) Comments: a) The project site is located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, which are not considered scenic corridors by the City or the County of San Bernardino. b) The proposed project is part of the larger Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park and is consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan for Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The proposed design and exterior elements of the bank will be consistent with design standards set forth in the Master Plan. c) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans, which require review for consistency with City standards. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~.~,~y 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) b) Disturb archaeological resoumes? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") the potential impact area? Comments: a-e) The site is on an alluvial fan, an environment not generally associated with fossils. As the site is relatively small, and has been previously disturbed, the likelihood of Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 13 affecting historical or cultural resources is minimal and impacts are not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: .o,~,~y u.~., ~ ir~orp<)rated 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ) ( ) (v') regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ) ( ) (./) Comments: a) An increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks ~s not likely, as the proposed bank will require a total of 11 full-time employees. A majority of these employees will likely reside within the City or surrounding communities. b) The proposed project will not affect existing recreational opportunity as the site is located on Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Park development area. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: .o~.y u.,.~ ~. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the ( ) ( ) ( ) (-/) potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number er 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) Short term: Does the project have the potential ( ) ( ) (./) ( ) to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Tna. c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have () () () (v') environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The project site is a former vineyard. The vines have been removed and the site has been disced for weed abatement and graded for the placement of a disused driveway. There is no habitat suitable for rare or endangered species and there are no locally protected species on-site. The site has no wetland and is cut off by development to the north, east, and west, so it cannot serve as a wildlife corridor. b) The site is small, slightly larger than 1-acre, and would not generate significant amounts of criteria air pollutants during site grading. No short-term impacts will result from the proposed project. c) The Initial Study for the Catellus Master Plan did not identify any impacts that could not be mitigated through the City's standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures identified in the Catellus Master Plan. d) Development of a 6,000 square foot bank would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The initial study did not identify any impacts that would have a potentially significant affect to the environment. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v')City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981 ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-18 - Union Bank Page 15 (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (,") Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981 ) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2109f and 21092 of the Pubfic Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 00-18 Public Review Period CIoses: July26,2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Union Bank of California Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Project Description: The development of a 6,000 square foot bank on 1.2 acres of land in the Indust~al Park District (Suba rea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [-I The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 26, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:30 p.m. Brent Le Count June 20, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-18- UNION BANK- The development of a 6,000 square foot bank on 1.2 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue. APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Desi.qn Parameters: The site is located at the main entrance to the Catellus Master Plan area, which was approved by the Planning Commission in April of 1999; however, the approved Master Plan was left "blank" in this area due to uncertainty of ultimate land use. It is northeast of the Lowe's Home Improvement store now under construction. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent. The site will be graded so that it sets approximately 3 to 4 feet below the level of Foothill Boulevard. The building design incorporates the basic architectural features that were established by the Lowe's building. The bank is proposed to have a drive-thru lane, which will wrap around the east and north sides of the building, with ingress from the south. The building and drive-thru lane will be visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard. Master Plan: The project represents a modification to the Catellus Master Plan, which did not define building pads or circulation in this area. An on-site traffic study was prepared which indicates that the proposed location of the east-west driveway spine will not lead to circulation conflicts with main access from Foothill Boulevard. The main access point, which aligns with future Mayten Street to the north, will be the only signalized access from FoothillBoulevard. Master Plan (Sheet A0) is a conceptual illustration only and is not part of this application; therefore, no comments will be made. Staff Comments:The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Provide a porte-cochere matching that on the east elevation, or a major trellis, over the drive thru lane on the north side of the building to minimizethe presence of the lane relative to Foothill Boulevard. This will also add articulation and visual interest to the north elevation, most visually prominent from Foothill Boulevard. Provide decorative wainscoting on this elevation as well. 2. Eliminate or smooth out the awkward curve in the main east-west driveway spine west of the site to avoid potential head-on collisions. 3. Mayten Street Entrance: Median island should be minimum width of 10 feet. Provide minimum 20 feet of enhanced paving at entrance throat, outside public right-of-way, as transition from Foothill Boulevard. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. The backsides of the parapet walls should be finished with comice treatment to convey a sense of quality. Decorative parapets should have returns to provide a sense of depth and avoid a movie-set appearance. 2. Provide Iow decorative walls and landscaped berms on the east and north sides of the drive- thru lane to screen cars from public view. Examples include the Texaco station at Foothill Boulevard and Elm Street, and the Carl's Jr. at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-18 - UNION BANK June 20, 2000 Page 2 3. Provide planter area against the building between columns on west elevation, north of the main entry. 4. Provide decorative driveway paving at the driveway entrance to Union Bank parking area. 5. Extend landscape finger planters to the full length of parking stalls (i.e. 18 feet). 6. Extend enhanced paving to include both handicap parking stalls at main entry. 7. Provide additional trees to shade northerly row of parking spaces. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. The Planning Commission Drive-thru Design Policy requires drive-thru businesses to be located at least 300 feet away from any intersection (such as Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Street) and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street. In this case, the Union Bank and Farmer Boy's restaurant will be 300 feet apart. Union Bank is located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Street. The policy can be waived when a project is being developed within a shopping center or master plan. Other examples of drive- thrus approved at intersections include the Mobil car wash, Jack-in-the-Box and Cad's Jr., which are all located at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive, about one half block to the east. 2. All roof and ground mounted equipment and utilities shall be fully screened. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and retum for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannedno, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments with the following revisions. The applicant agreed to all of the items and the following: 1. The Committee is open to provision of a trellis along the north side of the building over the drive-thru lane instead of a porte-cochere. The trellis members should be substantial with heavy and decorative footings. 2. The median is the driveway entrance from Foothill Boulevard, at Mayten Street and may require modification or elimination subject to review and approval of the Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 00-18, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT BANK ON 1.2 ACRE OF LAND IN SUBAREA 7 (INDUSTRIAL PARK) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. A. Recitals. 1. Union Bank has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 00-18, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 26, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue, with a street frontage of 273 feet and a lot depth of 186 feet, and is presently vacant and abandoned vineyards; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with a medical- building, the property to the south consists of vacant land with the Lowe's Home Improvement store under construction to the southwest. The property to the east is vacant with land further to the east developed with the Masi Plaza, and the property to the west is being developed as parking for the Lowe's Home Improvement store and a future restaurant; and c. The project is part of an approved Master Plan for which a Congestion Management Program/Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared to determine whether increases in vehicle trips or traffic congestion will be in excess of projections for the adopted land use. The master plan developer will be required to install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City ordinance. This will reduce traffic related impacts to a less than significant level; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-18 - UNION BANK July 26, 2000 Page 2 d. Storm drain improvements necessary to accommodate the project are not in excess of that provided by the master plan of storm drainage; and e. The project, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, complies with all minimum City development standards; and f. The project is consistent with the Industrial Park designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, in that it will function as a transition between more intense industrial development to the south and office and retail development to the north. g. The proposed use is consistent with General Plan objective to provide commercial facilities to meet the service needs of the community, which ara conveniently accessible; and h. The proposed design incorporates many architectural and landscape design elements consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan objective to provide compatible building elevations; and i. The proposed design includes a drive-thru lane that is incorporated into the building design with a large porte-cochere and heavy member trellis and is screened from Foothill Boulevard by berms. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a.' That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the pro_j.9_~t~tt~ere is no evidence that the proposed project PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-18 - UNION BANK July 26, 2000 Page 3 will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resoumes or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1 -d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: 1) Eliminate or smooth out the awkward curve in the main east-west driveway spine west of the site to avoid potential head-on collisions. 2) The backsides of the parapet walls shall be finished with cornice treatment to convey a sense of quality. Decorative parapets shall have returns to provide a sense of depth and avoid a movie-set appearance. 3) Provide planter area against the building between columns on west elevation, north of the main entry. 4) Provide decorative driveway paving at the driveway entrance to Union Bank parking area. 5) Provide additional trees to shade northerly row of parking spaces. 6) All roof and ground mounted equipment and utilities shall be fully screened. Surround trash enclosure and Edison box with dense shrub planting. En ineerin Division: 1 ) The revised master plan included in the project submittal is not part of this approval. 2) Tentative Parcel Map 15295 shall record pdor to the issuance of building permits, or comply with all applicable conditions of said tentative map. 3) No additional building permits will be issued until all of the public improvement plans for Tentative Parcel Map 15295 have been signed by the City Engineer. All improvements shall be completed pdor to any additional occupancy releases. 4) The center portion of Milliken Avenue shall be completed between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, per Drawing 1705. This will include median curbs, pavement on both sides of the median and ultimate intersection improvements for Millennium Court, including right-turn lanes. Extend the existing fourth northbound lane on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard to Millennium Court and add a 300-foot right-turn lane for the Foothill Boulevard intersection. This development shall not receive Transportation Development Fee credit for the backbone system since a City project PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-18 - UNION BANK July 26, 2000 Page 4 completed the applicable portion of this segment. Additional conditions are as follows: a) Median landscaping shall be installed from Foothill Boulevard to Millennium Court with this development. b) Sidewalks and all drive approaches (with right-turn lanes) on the project side of Milliken Avenue shall be installed from Foothill Boulevard to Millennium Court with this development. Sidewalk easements allowing the Milliken Avenue sidewalk to meander shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5) The existing storm drain in Milliken Avenue shall be extended concurrent with the street improvements. All stub outs for future development shall be provided at that time. 6) Foothill Boulevard frontage improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, a bus bay just east of Milliken Avenue ECR, all drive approaches (with right-turn lanes), and street trees shall be completed from Milliken Avenue to the existing terminus west of Masi Drive with this development. Sidewalk on the west side of Milliken Avenue, all off-site street trees, and the Activity Center may be deferred until development of the adjacent properties. A "street type" driveway will be required for the project driveway opposite Mayten Street. If the developer chooses to defer the decision on a driveway between Mayten Street and Masi Drive (including Caltrans permission thereof) until development of the north half of Parcel 7 (Parcel Map 15295), curb and gutter shall be installed in lieu of a drive approach and right-turn lane. 7) Replace the secondary emergency access from Millennium Court to Foothill Boulevard with a useable drive aisle connecting to the drive approach that aligns with Mayten Street. 8) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Street. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of the Transportation Development Fee in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 9) A contribution in lieu of construction for the median island on Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits or final Parcel Map approval, whichever occurs first. The amount of the contribution shall be one half the cost of the median (currently estimated at $60.00 per linear foot) times the length of the project frontage. 10) Construct Millennium Court full width and length, including streetlights, with this development. Off-site street trees, sidewalk and drive approaches may be deferred until development of the adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-18 - UNION BANK July 26, 2000 Page 5 11) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Millennium Court. Existing traffic signals at Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue/Arrow Route shall be modified as needed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12) All drive approaches shall conform to Standard Drawing 101, Type C. Driveways with right-turn lanes shall conform to Standard Drawing 19. 13) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Provide additional public right-of-way as needed. Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. 14) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent starting from one-foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 15) The Congestion Management Program/Traffc Impact Analysis !CMP/TIA) study for the project master p an (DR 99-11 ) identified traffic ~mpacts at six (6) locations which will result in an unacceptable level of service unless mitigated. The TIA also determined the amount of the overall project's fair share contribution to these mitigations. A cash payment in lieu of construction as contribution for the designated future projects shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits or final parcel map approval, whichever occurs first. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of July, 2000 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT if: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-18 SUBJECT: NEW BANK APPLICANT: UNION BANK LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Cornoletiot~Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its __/ / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all .__/ i Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or _.._/ L approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which ___/ /___ include site plans, amhitectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. sc -2-00 J~) 1 Project No. DR O0-18 Comoletion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all ! ! Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code ! / and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /_._j submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ._~ / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development ! / Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and ..__/ /~ approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be /___/ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. D. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is not part of this proposal. Future development for (each building ._~ ! pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: / /---- a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). /~ b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to ___/ / include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. ___/ / d. Roll-up doors. _._/ i e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. ~/ ! f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. /___/ g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and ! /~ designed to be hidden from view. 3. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. /_~/ 4. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash /___/ and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 5. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only." /_.j SC -2-00 2 Project No. DR ~0-18 Comoletion Date 6. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an __/ ! exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, __/ I closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified hem!n, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 7. Textured pavement shall be provided across cimulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. .__/ ! They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the amhitectural program. It shall include the ___j ! plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 9. Any outdoor vending machines/ATMs shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not ___/ ! extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or .__/ ! projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be amhitecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commemial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main ! ! building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space ! i abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / ! conta~in a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / /.__ provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses, 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / / entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or / / more parking stalls. Designate two pement or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more ! /___ parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 7. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily / /.__ residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the Pro~ect NO. DR 00-18 ComDletion Dat~ required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 pement of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number, 8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for _._/ / commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. if covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home .~/ landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier /___/ in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3, A minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects shall be specimen size trees - 24- inch box or larger. / / 4. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three .~/ /___ parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 5. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. I-~ 6. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than /__~/ 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or .__/ / greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1- gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. fi. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering .~/_~/ sidewalks. (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard. 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on ~ / the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, ~ / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Pro~ect No. DR 00-18 Cornolefion Date 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and __/ ! approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19,16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. H. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this / ! approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application end approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and / ! approval prior to issuance of building permits. I. Other Agencies 1, The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and ! / location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: ! ! a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. ! ! Amhitect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. ! ! 4, Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation / / coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. K, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /__~ marked with the project file number (DR 00-18). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. $ Project NO. DR 00-18 COmoletion Date 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to ___/ / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. /---J 4. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). / /___ L. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances ~ / considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. ~ / 3. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." / / 4. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. ___/ / 5. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. I /.~ 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed./.___/ M. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City _._/ / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. / / 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. _~ /.. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2.Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 65-78 total feet on Foothill Boulevard. ~ /.__ 66-80 total feet on Milliken Avenue. /.__/ 33 total feet on Millennium Court. /..._j 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. / / 4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. SC -2-00 6 Pro~ect No. DR 00-18 Completion Date 5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or ___/ /.~ by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 6. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated _._/ / or noted on the final map. 7. A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the ./ I CC&Rs. 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on / / the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall ! ! be dedicated to the City. O. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, i / landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ! / Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Str~t Street Comm Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr, Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail Island Foothill Boulevard x x c e x x f Milliken Avenue x x c e x x x f Millennium Court x x x x x x f Notes: (al Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (bi Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilineer per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (el Driveway right-turn lane per Standard 119. (fi Post R26 or R26(s) signs as required by the City Engineer. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety / / lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being per/ormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / / construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, / I and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or ! ! reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Project No. DR 00-18 Completion Date Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City .~/ ! Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / / adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are reqbired. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall /__/ be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. /*~/ 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in /_.__/ accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with ___/ / adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 6. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill Boulevard. / Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Milliken Avenue Median. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared i._~/ cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting ___/ ! Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. ! ! 5. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective __.../ /_~ Beautification Master Plan Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement. Q, Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, / / gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required, 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. /._._j 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the ___/ ! Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of sc 8 Project No. DR (X)-18 Completion Date compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. R. General Requirements and Approvals 1. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance /.~_/ of building permits, whichever occurs first, for.' all shaded drive approaches. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for ___/__/ all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Meilo Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The __j ! developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. 2,000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) (Table). ___/ ! a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire departmen~ ___/ / personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shal ___/ / be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel aftel construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, i i flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required / / hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for ail hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. /__j 6. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. L_._/ 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. .__J I 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, __/ / 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of pumhase shall .__/ ! be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. SC -2-O0 (_,,//~FOC>, 9 Project NO. DR 00-18 Comoletion Date 10. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: /----/ a. $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, /_~/ UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMI']-rAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: T. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. /.__/ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. .~/ / Security Hardware 1. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal ~ /.__ gates, or alarmed. V. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. I_~/ 2. Security glazing is recommended on store front windows to resist window smashes and ~ / impede entry to burglars. W. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. -__/ / 2. All developments shall submit a 8 Y2" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant developments to the Police Department. / L X. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and /_._/ employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and Jives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. .__./ I