No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/03/10 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MARCH 10, 1999 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. Stewad __ Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 24, 1999 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are pubfic 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. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and LemonAvenues-APN: 201-272-17 and 18. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. V. OLD BUSINESS C. DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 TRACT 15727- PHASES 3,4,5,6,7 AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. - A design review application to amend the development standards for Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of previously approved Amended Tentative Tract 15727 consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and authorize the use of the Development Code optional standards, on 82 acres located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel- APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Development/Design Review 98-21, and 98-16. VI. NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 FOR TRACT 15727- PHASES 4,5,7 AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - A review of the precise site plan and building elevations for 154 single family units in phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on 82 acres of land located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel- APN: 210-02-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. related Files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Development/Design Review 98-23, 97-12, and 98-16. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-05 - qUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORES - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a service station and mini-market in the Community Commercial Page 2 district (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. G. APPEAL OFA SIGN REQUESTWITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 85 - FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Towne Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 APN: 1077-421-75. H. COUNTY REFERRAL CR99-01 - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT (Ref. County Application No. GPA/CW1-849N). To amend the County General Plan Text to revise goals and policies related to land use and growth management within the city sphere of influence. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. 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. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS THE VICTORIA ARBORS, FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES, (AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO.) AND PRE- APPLICATION REVIEW 99-02 (OVERLAND COMPANY) THE WORKSHOP WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 23 IN LIEU OF MARCH 24, 1999. I, Gall Sanchez, P/anning 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 March 4, 1999, at/east 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 3 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: Proposed General Plan and Development Distdct regulations will allow the development of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre of land. Presently 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre are authorized. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq' North - Vacant/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) South - Highland Avenue, future freeway and single family residential/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) within the Victoda Planned Community East Flood Control Channel and single family residential development/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) West Single family residential development/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) C. General Plan Desiqnations; Project Site ~ Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) North Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) South - Future Freeway and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) East - Open Space (Flood Control Channel) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) ITEMS A g B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -GPA 99-01 & DDA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 10, 1999 Page 2 D. Site Characteristics: The site abuts an improved flood control channel to the east, existing Low-Medium single family residential developments to the west and vacant Low -Medium land to the north. On the south, the site is next to the future Route 30 Freeway right-of-way and Low-Medium single family developments beyond. The site is presently vacant and near identified Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Shrub and Coastal Sage Shrub habitats that may extend into the site. There are no large trees on the site and most of the vegetation is of medium to large native shrubs. The site slopes to the south at 4.3 percent and is subdivided into two parcels of 9.61 and 8.24 acres, respectively. Both parcels are owned by the San Bemardino Flood Control District. The future freeway is expected to be about 5 meters (16 feet) above the present grade at the present Lemon Avenue intersection. ANALYSIS: A. General: In 1998, a joint City Council/Planning Commission Task Force reviewed the land use relationship of many vacant multi-family zoned properties within the City. The Task Force made pdority recommendations to the City Council regarding the scheduling of potential land use amendments for each location. At one location, at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues, the Task Force recommended that the City consider rezoning the properties when possible. Before 1988, the multiple family districts, Medium-High and Medium, on the south side of Lemon Avenue extended from the Lucky's shopping center on Haven east to the Deer Creek Channel. In 1988, a Land Use Amendment was approved changing a portion of the Medium District between Lemon and Highland Avenues to the west side of Lemon Avenue (as it tums south) to Low-Medium. This change allowed the development of a single family residential tract between the west side of Lemon Avenue and the existing apartments along the north side of the future Route 30 Freeway. As part of the processing of Tract 13890 in May 1988, the parcels along the east side of Lemon Avenue were included in a master plan concept with the tract map. This exhibit showed how the area to the east could also be developed with the same Low-Medium single family standards. The land use amendments did not, however, include the Medium Residential parcels along the Deer Creek Channel. If the area along the east side of Lemon Avenue were to develop as a multi-family project, as presently zoned, the single family tract (Tract 13890) would be "sandwiched" between two multi-family developments. With the changing of the two parcels, the Low-Medium, single family development will extend eventually, from properties along Banyan Avenue south to both sides of Lemon Avenue. Staff concurs with the Multi-Family task Force that this land use arrangement is preferable to the existing pattem. Presently, the site and all the surrounding land have a Master Plan Oveday District to coordinate development planning. B. ADoroDriateness of the I~xi~tinq Medium Residential Desiqnations: Residential is the predominate designation in the area generally north of Highland Avenue. With recent land use changes, only the existing multi-family projects along the south side of Lemon Avenue are within the Medium-High Residential Distdct in this neighborhood. Retention of the Medium Residential District would not provide a continuation of the multi-family character east along Lemon Avenue due to the existing single family development of Tract 13890. The site could remain, however, as a potential multi-family site with Lemon Avenue forming a buffer between the existing single family neighborhood and a future multi-family project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 99-01 & DDA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 10, 1999 Page 3 C. Appropriateness of the Proposed Low-Medium Residential Desiqnation: With a few exceptions, the majority of the residential land north of Lemon Avenue is zoned single-family. Adoption of Low-Medium Residential for these applications would be appropriate with this trend and with recent land use changes in the immediate area. The two parcels, together, of this application are of sufficient size and configuration to design a high-quality project, as evidence by the Master Plan Site Plan illustrated for Tract 13890. D Housinq: The only housing issue for these applications is the reduction in the number of potential residential units at build out and the affordability of the futura units. The less intense land use density would result in a reduction of future units of between 71 and 107 units. This represents only. 18 percent of the anticipated 58,974 total units estimated for the City's build out (Housing Element, page 111-39). This loss, however and that of other General Plan Amendments, was more than made up for by the adoption of General Plan Amendment 95- 03A (Gdffin Industries), which added 339 single family units (Low-Medium Residential District) to the anticipated build out. Because of the higher unit density, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) neighborhoods ara generally more affordable than other lower-density, single-family districts. By dropping just one density designation, the resultant single family development should not be much less affordable than any other owner-occupied, multi-family units developed in the same area. E. Environmental Assessment: Parts I and II of the Initial Study have been completed. Staff has determined that no significant impacts would result from reducing the residential unit density on the subject properties. This amendment proposal simply reduces the potential residential unit development within similar residential land use categories. It is anticipated that most impacts generally expected from futura residential development will be equal to or less than those expected under the existing category. The original environmental analysis for the existing land use category was included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Environmental issues will need to be analyzed when formal development proposals are applied for in the future. When specific development projects are proposed, existing environmental review requirements will be initiated to ensure adequate analysis of the impacts. Any impacts noted will be mitigated through the City's development review process. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based upon the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following facts for findings regarding these applications: A. The properties are suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and development district designation in terms of access and size with similarly designated parcels; as evidenced by the applicant generated conceptual master plans for General Plan Amendment 88-02A, Development District Amendment 88-01, and Tract 13890. B. The proposed amendments would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Initial Environmental Study that indicate that no significant impacts would be expected because of this land use change. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 99-01 & DDA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 10, 1999 Page 4 C. The proposed amendments ara in conformance with the General Plan and the Development Code because of the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for single-family residential development. P~: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices wera mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. J~~: Staff racommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 99-01 and Development District Amendment 99-01 with Master Plan Overlay raquirement by the adoption of the Resolutions of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Maps Exhibit "B" - Development District Maps Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Master Plan, Tract 13890 (GPA 88-02A; DDA 88-01) Exhibit "D" - Environmental Initial Study, Part II Resolution- Recommendation of Approval for GPA 99-01 Resolution - Recommendation of Approval for DDA 99-01 :": Chaffey ::: College RESIDE IAL/OFFICE ~ VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC ~ COMMERCIAL ~ LOW 2-4DU's/AC ~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ~ LOW'MEDIUM 4o8DU's/AC [--i--'} NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. ~ MEDIUM 8-14 DU's/AC ~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24DU's/AC ~ OFFICE ~m= HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC ® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED  Project ....... CITY OF R AMONGA Title: ~D us~ H4P PLANNIH~DJ~I~ON Exhibit: A Date: L LM®~ LM L V.P.C. T.V.P.C. P o,e ...... A? CITY OF R"LANNI~I~IS1ON AMONGA Exhibit: N Date' ~/'°/'/~ i~ Project: CITY OF R AMONGA Title: c,~:~ru~tL PLANNI~I~ON Exhibit: ~ Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: General Plan Amendment 99-01; Development Distdct Amendment 99-01 2. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 88-02A; Development Distdct Amendment 88-01 3. Description of Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON(,~A- An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. DEVELOPMENT 01STRICT AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designations: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site consists of two contiguous vacant lots on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Lemon Avenue, and west of the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel. On the west side there is a single family development, on the north side the land is vacant, the east side is bordered by the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, and on the south is Highland Avenue with single family residences beyond. 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: Alan Warren, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None tt ~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page ? 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 (x) Transportation/Circulation (x) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (x) Biological Resources (x) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards (x) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (x) Noise (x) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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: ~ Alan V~arren Associate Planner Februa~ 1, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 3 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. I 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) The project does not propose any development improvement. The request is to change the General and Development District land use designations from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and community facility to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The General Plan and Development District Amendments are the appropriate applications to change the land use designations. The approval process, if granted, will not cause conflict with the General Plan and zoning. b) The site is near sensitive Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Shrub and Coastal Sage Shrub habitats. The land use designation changes will not impact the natural environment, as no development is being proposed. The General Plan and Development Code currently designate the site for residential uses and the proposal will continue the residential zoning but at a reduced unit density. c) Much of the land surrounding the subject properties is already designated for Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) uses. Changing the subject properties to Low-Medium Residential would be consistent with the surrounding area. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 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) 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) 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 5 c) Discharge into surfaco water or other alteration of surfaco 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) ( ) 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 lend use change is being requested without an accompanying development project. The land use change will not in itself cause any impacts to the water supplies. The future development of the site will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and any development will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and rooftops, Tentative Tract Maps usually include conditions of approval requiring cortain storm drain system and ground surfaco conveyanco improvements that will handle the increased flows. The impact is not considered significant. b) The site is owned by the San Bemardino County Flood Control District and is adjacont to an existing flood control channel. The flood control facility is fully improved with a concrete lined channel. The Generel Plan indicates that the Flood Control land use designation is within the confines of the channel and therefore no flood hazard is expected to affect adjacont properties. f & g) Because of potential improvements anticipated after the land use change listed above, it is expected that some reduction in rainwater percolation to the ground water may result. The future residential development of the site would be in conformance with similarly developed residential land in the City and therefore the impact is not considered significant. /t Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page ~ 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) The land use change is being requested without an accompanying development project. The land use change will not cause any impacts to the air quality. The future development of any vacant land in the city will add to the vehicle trips and, as a result, add to potential air quality degradation whatever the land use designation. The subject property is currently zoned Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) which could result in 142 to 250 units. The revised designation, Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), could result in development of between 71 and 142 units. It is anticipated that any development under the Low- Medium Residential designation would experience fewer traffic impacts; therefore, air quality impacts would be less than if developed under the current designation. Furthermore, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed land use change retains the residential potential, but at a less intensive level. No increase in air quality impacts would be expected from the existing development potential. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 7 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting aitemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The development of any vacant land in the city will add to the vehicle trips and add to potential traffic congestion whatever the land use designation. The subject property is currently zoned Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) which could result in 142 to 250 units. The revised designation, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) could result in development of between 71 and 142 units. It is anticipated that any development under the Low-Medium Residential designation would exhibit traffic impacts less than if developed under the current designation. 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., heritage 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, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a & c) The site is near sensitive Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Shrub and Coastal Sage Shrub habitats. The land use designation changes will not impact the natural environment as no development is being proposed. The General Plan and Development Code currently designates the site for residential uses and the proposal will continue the residential zoning but at a reduced unit density. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 8 Future development proposals in the area should evaluate their impacts on the habitat. Mitigation measures may be required if the impacts to the habitat are considered significant. It is recommended that a habitat study be included as a part of an environmental assessment before any authorization for development. 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) 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) 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 9 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will add new sources of noise such as automobiles because it entails adding new homes to vacant land when developed. The increase in noise levels however is not excessive and not expected to exceed City adopted noise level limits. The impact is not considered significant. 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 & c) The eventual development of the site will increase the demand on public services since it will entail adding new homes on vacant land. Tract Map conditions of approval usually require the developer to participate in the funding of special districts for the necessary construction and maintenance of fire protection and pay appropriate school fees. Therefore, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 10 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,b, &d) A housing project at the site will produce a need for water supplies, waste disposal, gas and electric service since new homes will be built. Typical Tentative Tract Map conditions of approval require the developer to provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewer system, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV. The cost of these improvements are borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. The unit density reduction should result in service need reductions below what would be expected under the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) designation. e) A housing project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and any improvement project will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and rooftops. Tentative Tract Map conditions of approval usually require certain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The cost of these improvements are borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 11 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 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) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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) Any housing project will increase the demand on parks in the area because it involves adding new homes. Developers will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant. 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 anima;, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (×) .Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 17 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 bdef, 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 adveme: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, 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 Ddve (check all that apply): (x) General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Environmental Assessment Part II Initial Study for General Plan Amendment 99-01 and Development District Amendment 99-01 (February 1, 1999) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 13 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 clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: Aian Warren, ^sso¢ia[e F'ianner I:~FINAL~PLNGCOMM~ENVDOC~GPA99-01 .wpd Project: ~r FA, ff~[-o( ~ DP^ ~t~-o I ,:~ ~.~ CITY OF R AMONGA Title: PLAN~I~ON Exhibit: Date: Chaffey "":':':'!~iii College RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC COMMERCIAL ~ LOW 2-4DU's/AC ~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LOW-MEDIUM 4-eDU's/AC ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. ~ MEDIUM 8-14 DU's/AC ~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ~ MEDIUM'HIGH 14-24DU's/AC ~ OFFICE HIGH 24-30 DU°s/AC ® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED · . Project· Title: ~-~u~ uS CITY ,OF R AMONGA ~.,~'~,~,, _. ,_.. K~I-"~ P LANNII~.~D~[~I~I 0 N Exhibit: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 201-272-17 and 18. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has authorized the filing of an application for General Plan Amendment No. 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as 'the application." 2. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 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 March 10, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two parcels of land totaling approximately 17.85 acres, basically a rectilinear configuration, located near the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues and is presently vacant. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are vacant. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family residential project. The property to the east is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant with a concrete flood control channel. The property to the south, on the south side of Highland Avenue, is designated as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family residential project; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. '-GPA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 2 d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detdmentalto the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng 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. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area as evidenced by the Conceptual Master Plan for a single family residential development exhibited in the previous Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 application; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by the adoption of this land use amendment application. 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 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'~tle 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 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-l-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 recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 99-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Map for the subject properties to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: 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 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY, FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 201-272-17 and 18. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has authorized the filing of an application for Development District Amendment No. 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as '~he application." 2. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recommended approval of the associated General Plan Amendment No. 99-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues. 3. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on March 10, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two parcels of land totaling approximately 17.85 acres, basically a rectilinear configuration, located near the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues and is presently vacant. Said properties are currently within the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per) District with a Master Plan Overlay designation; and b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are vacant. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family residential project. The property to the east is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant with a concrete flood control channel. The property to the south, on PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' DDA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 2 the south side of Highland Avenue, is designated as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoda Planned Community and is developed with a single family residential project; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development upon the enactment of General Plan Amendment 99-01; and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng 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 subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area as evidenced by the Conceptual Master plan for a single family residential development exhibited in the previous Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 application; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is ~n conformance with the General Plan by the adoption of General Plan Amendment 99-01; and 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten 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 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 T'~le 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 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 substantial evidence contained in the 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-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. · DDA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment 99-01 to change the Land Use Map for the subject properties to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan Overlay as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FI'EST: 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 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L LM L V.P.C. LM · T.VJ'.C. CITY OF FI AMONGA Title: ~~o~b) P LA NN I ~.~,iD.i.f/I~ 0, Exhibit CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planncr.~ SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 Please find the attached reduced floor plans and building elevations for.the above mentioned project. Thc plans were not included in your packet that due to the fact that the developer was not able to produce the reduced set of plans on-time. The building elevations are identical to those that were reviewed and recommended for approval by thc Design Review Committee on February 16, 1999. TALMEDGE AT H A W T H 0 R N E S RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA ~..,,. GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES ~ ~ .... ~ ...... ....... -- . ._ 98259 ~-"' -'::='- -- =~2. ' I! ~'~ --_ 98259 THE HAWTHORNES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA GRIFFIN INDUSTRI~ '-~.o --,-r.~---~-:'=--~-~ ~==~-,~ .IL · z ..... , ......... 'I.-'--~'~.~.~¢ " '"' ............. " :,=-...--, ..... ,-:-. ::::::::::::::::::::::: -~ ~ZG%x,.:%~ , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 FOR TRACTS 15727-3.4.5.6.7. AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. INC - The review of precise site plan (plotting) for 154 single family lots of Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential Distr~ct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on 82 acres of land, located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related flies: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Design Reviews 98-21, 99-07, and 98-16. DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 FOR TRACTS 15727-4, 5, 7, AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. INC - Approval of building elevations for 154 single family lots of Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on 82 acres of land, located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Development Reviews 98-23 and 97-12 and 98-16. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Backqround: On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission approved the building elevations and detailed Site Plan for Phases 1 and 2. The Elevations for Phase 1 consisted of 2 one-story floor plans and I two-story floor plan. The plans for Phase 2 consisted of 2 two- story and 1 one-story floor plan. The Floor Plans and Elevations as approved could be used in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8, subject to Design Review and Planning Commission approval. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 98-23 that permitted the project to be developed under the Optional Development Standards. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the plotting for Phases 3 and 6 only. However, the remaining Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 had to be reviewed and approved at a separate public headng because two additional model homes were introduced and additional time was needed to analyze the project. ITEMS C & D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-23 & DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND. INC. March 10, 1999 Page 2 On February 16, 1999, the Design Review Committee considered and recommended approval, subject to minor modifications, of the precise Site Plan (plotting) and building Elevations. B. Description: The developer is proposing to use in Phases 4 and 7, the plans approved for Phase 1 (2 one-story and I two-story), and in Phases 5 and 8 the plans approved for Phase 2 (2 two-story and 1 one-story). Additionally, the developer is proposing to introduce two new two-story floor plans; one for Phases 4 and 7 and one for Phases 5 and 8. The new two-story building size for Phases 5 and 8 is 2,685 square feet in size, plus a 525 square-foot garage. The building size for Phases 4 and 7 is 2,058 square feet in size plus a 393 square-foot garage. The pdme motivation for this new request is to increase the rear yard area for the residential development and to provide additional floor plan options for their buyers. As part of this application, Griffin Industries is also requesting approval of the precise Site Plan for the plotting of the residential units in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 as required under Development Review 98-23 (Optional Development Standards). ANALYSIS: A. General: On February 16, 1999, the project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, and Henderson) and was determined that the precise Site Plan (plotting), Floor Plan, and proposed building Elevations, subject to minor modifications, were appropriate and satisfied the 360-degree architecture policy. B. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report for this project was certified by the City Council on November 20, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve DevelopmentJDesign Review 98-23 and Development/Design Review 99-07 including the precise Site plan (plotting) through the adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SMS/mlg Attachments:Exhibit "A" - Precise Site Plan, Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 Exhibit "B" - Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit "C" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated February 16, 1999 Resolution of Approval with Conditions I ~ COURT SECOHD FLOOR ~ FLOOR BEDROOM LIVh'qG PORCH SECOND FLOOR Fll~r FLOOR BEDROOM ~. BEDROOM 2 ... ~.~R ~ _ I: '-FI .' ~ =----.---, _11 Lu mit " ~' ITl m E11~~" I~I.E~ATION B ELEVATION A ~ ~ In I --'-~ ~ ~ I:~'-~t .ch '~ ~ SI~COND I:LOOR Flllgr F~OR BI~DROOM W I BAI'I I ROOM OI'TION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Salvador M. Salazar February 16, 1999 DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIE,C;. The approval of the building elevations and precise site plan (plotting) for 154 single family units for Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Tract 15727. ~: Since the initial approval of Tract 15727, the developer, Griffin Industries, has presented vadous design review applications for three product types and gate features for a private community. On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission approved the building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 1 and 2. The elevations for Phase 1 consisted of 2 one-story floor plans and 1 two- story floor plan. The plans for Phase 2 consisted of 2 two-story and 1 one-story floor plan. The floor plans and elevations were permitted to be used in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 subject to Design Review and Planning Commission approval. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission approved DR 98-23 which permitted the project to be developed under the Optional Development Standards. Concurrently, the Planning Commission approved DR 98-21, which approved four new model homes for Phases 3 and 6. Desi n Parameters: The developer is proposing to use in Phases 4 and 7, the plans approved for Phase 1 (2 one-story and 1 two-story), and in Phases 5 and 8 to use the plans approved for Phase 2 (2 two-story and 1 one-story). Additionally, the developer is proposing to introduce two new two-story floor plans; one for Phases 4 and 7 and one for Phases 5 and 8. The prime motivation for this new request is to increase the rear yard area for the residential development and to provide additional floor plan options for their buyer~. As part of this application, Griffin Industries is requesting approval of the precise site plan for the plotting of the residential units in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 as required under DR 98-23 (Optional Development Standards). 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. .Corner lots. The developer is proposing to place the new two-story floor plan in some of the comer lots, staff is not in support of that part of the project as one-story massing is preferred on corner lots. 2. .Options for corner lots (rear patio and window shutters). The developer is proposing to provide window shutters and patio covers only for corner lots; however, staff is recommending that all options be provided for all models. Entire patio should be concrete. 3. Windows for rear elevations. As part of the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report, the developer is required to minimize the window area in the second floor for all units that are abutting the industrial area on the east side of the property. The windows that are facing the industrial area must be dual pane. The developer is required to modify the window size for those elevations. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES February 16, 1999 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Distribution of new two-story plan. Staff is recommending that the new two-story plan be evenly distributed throughout the site and not be in close proximity of each other. 2. Percentaqe of new two-story plan. Although the two-story plans represent approximately 32 percent of all homes within Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8, staff is recommending that the percentage be about the same as the other three model plans. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All policy issues from DR 97-44, DR 97-12, and DR 98-16 shall apply to the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to all recommended modifications to the project. All changes to the development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to Planning Commission review. Desiqn Review Committee Action~ Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: Major Issues: Comer lots: The developer agreed to minimize the number of two-story plans from the corner lots. Options for Corner lots: The developer'agreed to provide options for all homes on comer lots and for other homes at strategic locations throughout the project site. The total number of homes with all options as standard feature will be 40 percent (20 homes). The remaining 60 percent will be made optional standards to be selected by the potential buyers. Additionally, the developer agreed to extend the depth of the patio from 8 to 10 feet and to concrete the entire patio area. Windows for rear elevations: The developer agreed to modify the window elevations for those homes. Secondary Issues: Distribution of the new two-story plan: The developer agreed to evenly distribute the two-story plan throughout the site. Percentaqe of the new two-story plan: The developer agreed to reduce the number of two-story homes to represent approximately 25 percent (50 homes) of the 254 homes for Phases 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW NO. 98-23 FOR TRACTS 15727-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8, PRECISE SITE PLAN (PLO'l-rING), AND APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW NO. 99-07 BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 154 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF PHASES 4, 5, 7, AND 8, FOR LAND LOCATED BETWEEN FOURTH AND SIXTH STREETS, ADJACENT TO THE CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33. A. Recitals. 1. Gdffin Industries, Inc./Comerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Development/Design Review 98-23 and Development Design Review 99-07, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development/Design Review requests are referred to as "the application." 2. On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Design Review 97-12 approving 101 single family house products for Phases 1 and 2. 3. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Design Review 98-23, amending the development standards for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. However, the precise Site Plan for Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 was required to be reviewed and approved separately. 4. On February 16, 1999, the Design Review Committee considered and recommended approval, subject to minor mod~cations, of the precise Site Plan (plotting), Floor Plan and Building Elevations. 5. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 99-07 approving typical single family house products (Elevations and Floor Plans), and the precise Site Plan (plotting) under Optional Development Standards as permitted under Design Review 98-23 for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8. 6. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 2 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-referenced meeting on March 10, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. The proposed design, together with the conditions of approval, is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed design, 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; and e. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for this project by the City Council on November 20, 1996. 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 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: Planning Division 1) This approval pertains to the plotting of the building pads under the Optional Development Standards for the Amended Tentative Tract 15727, single family house products, and the previously approved Conceptual Landscaping Plan, and Master Plan of walls and fences. Any changes to the Tract grading concept or the type of house product will require a new Design Review application. Additionally, development requirements of this approval include the following: a) House plan products and yard setbacks (front, side, and rear) shall be as indicated on the approved Conceptual Site Plan file copy. b) Two pdvate parks shall be provided on Amended Tentative Tract 15727 Lots 225, 226, and 336. Park plans, with the following recreational amenities, shall be submitted for approval by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits for any Optional Development Standard phases as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 3 i) A multi-purpose court for use in basketball, volley ball, and roller hockey in the larger park. ii) A gazebo shelter at least 20 feet in diameter for gatherings of at least 50 people in the larger park. The shelter shall be of the same quality and architectural design of the project's guard house. c) A par jogging course, as proposed by the applicant, shall be provided along the sidewalk area on both sides of Golden Oak Road. A par jogging course plan, with construction details of the exercise stations, signing, etc., shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner, pdor to the issuance of building permits for any Optional Development Standard phases. d) Each and every house in Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be provided with the Metlund Hot Water Demand alternative energy conservation system. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the system shall be included with the plan check construction drawings submitted to the Building and Safety Division. 2) In order to ensure strength and longevity for all architectural treatments when stucco over foam is used, the specifications for this treatment shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval, pdor to installation. 3) Perimeter lots that have drainage easements along side property lines are to have special landscaping, irrigation, and garden walls as shown on the previously approved Conceptual Landscape Plan. 4) Wall graffiti deterrent shall be incorporated in the perimeter Tract wall. Vine plantings along the inside wall base are provided with spaces through the wall to allow growth up the outside of the wall. These plantings shall be provided with a drip irrigation system from each lot backing up to the perimeter walls. 5) Lot slopes of 5 feet in height shall receive planting and irrigation as required by Rancho Cucamonga Code Section 17.08.040.J. 6) The planting along the west side of Golden Oak Road, opposite the p.ark site, shall be planted with self sustaining plantings because of the significant off-site slope immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way. Tree planting is preferred if the applicant can obtain permission to improve the slope on the neighboring property. These plantings shall be provided with a temporary establishment irrigation system, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 4 7) The plantings behind the sidewalk along Golden Oak Road may be adjusted with smaller tree and shrub species, ground covers and hard scape, subject to City Planner and City Engineer approval, to accommodate the limitations of narrow planter areas. 8) The plan shall contain a minimum of 40 percent decorative hard scape, including the sidewalks, or shall comply with adopted City Council policy at the time of plan approval. 9) An interim slope maintenance program shall be developed for the phasing of the Golden Oak Road landscape areas. The program shall include provisions for erosion and weed control subject to the City Engineer and City Planner approval. 10) The Master Plan of Walls (and fences) calls for slump block with cobblestone columns/pilasters facing Fourth Street; slump block along the remaining project perimeter and along side street property lines, and interior lot line wood fences. The Wall Plan is approved as submitted subject to the following conditions: a) The battened column/pilasters along Fourth Street shall be provided at every other property line and at each "step back" realignment of the wall. The wall shall step back only at the junction of property lines. b) The column/pilaster shall extend beyond the exterior wall face (Fourth Street and wrap around side property lines) by at least 3 inches. c) The wall cap shall extend beyond the wall face by at least 2 inches. d) All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist of a decorative exterior matedal or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master Plan of Walls). e) Provide minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on comer side yards and sidewalk. f) Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint, or water seal. g) Retaining walls along Golden Oak Road shall have cobblestone elements at each end to tie in with the cobblestone hard scape theme. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. -.DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 5 11) To further enhance the histodc theme, cobblestone bases shall be provided with mail box stands throughout the project. 12) All slopes 5 to 1 or greater and between 5 feet and 8 feet in vertical height shall have a permanent irrigation system and be landscaped with the following: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate ground cover with the density of 12 inches on center. 13) Install the landscaping and irrigation system for all slopes including terraced slopes with retaining and/or decorative wall, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and prior to City's acceptance of the grading for the tract. 14) Decorative paving in expansive driveways with side-on garages shall include various patterns/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 15) Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other forms of stone/masonry may be manufactured products. 16) Phasing (Final Tracts): An Eight-Phase Development Plan is approved as submitted, subject to coordination of public improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. The park development schedule shall be as approved by the City Council approval that requires the neighborhood park to be completed when 30 percent of the units are occupied or 70 percent of the building permits issued. 17) The architectural elevations shall include the following: a) Double fascias shall be provided along all eaves and eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around. b) Secondary accent material in the gables or gable frieze bands shall be provided on all side street elevations. c) Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds without shutters or other decorative details shall be painted an alternate complementary color (from the approved colors/materials schedules). d) Shutters shall be provided on all major second story windows that side-on or back-on to streets and on all first major story windows that side-on to a street. This applies only to those models that have front elevation shutters. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. .DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 6 e) The perimeter walls along Golden Oak Road are to be located outside of the landscape easement. f) The new materials/color samples are approved for all phases of the project, subject to providing detailed production sequence sheets for City Planner's review and approval, prior to building permit issuance. 18) Driveways shall not exceed 7 % percent slope. 19) Use Iow maintenance and native plant materials for the slopes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. 20) The westerly tract/retaining wall shall be built with a darker color split face block below the light colored slump stone block, subject to City Planner approval. 21) Two monument signs are approved for each corner of Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road, subject to City Planner and City Engineer approval. The sign face shall comply with Sign Ordinance height and size requirements. The sign face shall be concrete with painted recessed letters. The City Engineer and City Planner may consider and approve alternative sign face material only if maintenance cost concerns can be sufficiently resolved. Otherwise, only concrete may be used for the sign faces. 22) As part of the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report, the developer is required to minimize the window area in the second floor for all units that are abutting the industrial area on the east side of the property. In addition, all windows that are facing the industrial area must be dual pane. The developer is required to modify the window size, and location for those elevations. 22) The following design guidelines apply to the new two-story plan only: a) A minimum of 20 homes (inclusive of comer lot homes) on Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 shall have all options (patio covers, entire patio shall be concrete, shutters, etc.). En,clineerino Division 1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future under grounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid to the City, prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 7 2) The traffic signal at Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be operational, prior to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be operational, pdor to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of the park, whichever occurs first. 3) The Park at the southeast comer of Sixth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be installed, pdor to occupancy of the 103rd unit (30 percent) or prior to building permit issuance for 239th unit (70 percent), whichever occurs first. 4) Revisions to landscape easements shall be recorded, prior to the issuance of building permits for the affected Lots: 1 and 30 in Tract 15727-3; Lots 30 and 36 in Tract 15727-6. 5) All sidewalks shall remain as shown on currently approved Street Improvement Plans for Tentative Tract 15727-1, 2, and 3 (Drawing Nos. 1628 and 1629). Interior local streets shall have property line adjacent sidewalks on all future phases. Sidewalk along Golden Oak Road shall remain 4 % feet from the curb line so as not to reduce the planting area for trees in the odginal approval. 6) The precise Grading Plan for Tentative Tract 15727-2 shall be revised to reflect the proposed pdvate park on former Lots 51 and 52. If under sidewalk drains will be relocated, the Golden Oak Road street improvement plans (Drawing No. 1628) shall be revised as well. 7) Process a parcel merger to legally combine Lots 51 and 52 of Tentative Tract 15727-2. 8) Pdor to the issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract 15727-3, Drawing No. 1629 shall be revised to reflect approach relocations. 9) The precise Grading Plan for Tentative Tract ~15727-3 shall demonstrate that overflows, in the event of sump catch basin blockage at the west end of Glenaire Court, will not breach the right-of-way and enter Lot 30 east of the storm drain easement along the west property line. If the drive approach for Lot 30 requires a special design to accommodate overflows, this also needs to be detailed on the Street Improvement Plans (Drawing No. 1629). 10) Revise the Fourth Street Improvement Plans (Drawing No. 1628) to show the drive approach for City maintenance vehicles just east of Cucamonga Creek Channel. Any private Landscaping or wall Plans, which give the construction details south of the perimeter wall for the overflow area, shall be approved by the City Engineer for maintenance vehicle access to the manhole. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 8 11) Any ddve approach relocations for Tentative Tract 15272-4 shall be shown on Drawing No. 1645, prior to building permit issuance for that phase. 12) Any drive approach relocations for Tentative Tract 15272-5 shall be shown on Drawing No. 1646, prior to building permit issuance for that phase. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: 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 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: . Design Review 99-07 for Tracts 15727-3, 4~ 5~ 6, 7~ and 8 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: . Comerpoint LLC (Griffin Industdes~ Inc. LOCATION: _ Fourth Street and Cucamon,cja Flood Control Channel ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT ~HALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE F CONDITIONS. OLLOWING General Requirements Coml~leflon 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 altemafive, ~ ~' 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. 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 Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall beCome the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the Distdct in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. B. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not .__/ / issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. SC - 1/19,~9 1 project No. DP, 99-0? Completion D~te C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include ____/__ site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, 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 compiled with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct 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 pdor to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __ consistency pdor 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. 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. 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 satisfac'don of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the / adopted Street Naming Policy pdor to approval of the final map. 10. Ail building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of ail lots for City Planner and C~ 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. 12. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days pdor to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's padmeter. 13. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support pest for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y=-inch lag belts, to withstand high winds. Projec~ NO., DR 99-07 .Comp etlon Date 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. Building Deeign 1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, / /.__ detailing and increased delineetion of surface treatment subJect to City Planner review and ' - approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2~ 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 probe~es 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 shal~ be included in building plans. E. 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 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. f. 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. f. 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. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and in'igations 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. 5. Front yard and Comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development __/ /. Code. 6. 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. 7. 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. ~ projec~ No. DR 99-0? ComDleSotl Date 8.All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment, if located in public maintenance areas, the design sbeil be coordinated with the Engineering Division. g. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscepe as defined in Chapter lg.16 of the Rancho Cucemonga Municipal Code. F. 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 appiicetion and approval by the Planning division phor to installation of any signs. G. Environmental 1. ^ final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 2. 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 guarentee acceptable to the City Planning in the amount of $10,000, 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 for[~it In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identifiJ the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. H. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contactthe 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 ioc. ation of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SA~.ISIrY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE UVlTH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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 issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies 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 Completion D~t~ include, but are not limited to: City Baaufification Fea, Park Fae, Drainaga Fee, Tmnspo~tion Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / pdor to issuance of building permits. ~ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE wrrH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all intedor 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 center//ne): 50-60 total feet on_ Fourth Street ~ /, 44 .tota feet on Sixth Street .__/ / 3. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. ~ /.__ 4. Vehicular access dghts shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for / / approved openings: Fourth & Sixth Streets. -- p ~ 5. dvate drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or / / noted on the final map. -- 6. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the / / final map. -- 7. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall / / be dedicated to the City. -- ,, 8. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along dght tum lanes, to provide a minimum of .__/ / 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the dght turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 9. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests / / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the -- developer shall, at least 120 days pdor to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Secudty for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City pdor to commencement of the appraisal ~ Pm~t No. DR 99-07 Completion J. Street Improvements 1. AJI public improvements (interior straets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but ara 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 8, A.C. Side- D~ive Street Street Cumm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail island Trail Fourth Street X X c X X e f Sixth Street X X, b g 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 par Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Class II Bike Land in street. (f) Bus bay per Standard 119, west of entry monument on Fourth Street. (g) Sixth Street sidewalk along park trontage shall be curb adjacent. 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 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 sthping, 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 futura traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on beth 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 comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Project No..DR. 99-0? CornDletJon Date 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. ..__/.__/,, 4. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all pdvate streets shall be provided for review / / and approval by the City Engineer. Pdor to any work being performed on the pdvate streets, fees -- ' shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits require. 5. 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. ~ 6. 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. K. 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 pdor 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: Fourth Street and "A" Street, south of the north property lines for Lots 196 and 227 and Lots A, B, C, D, E, and F. 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. ~ L. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pdor 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. 2. A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers / / is required for work within their rights-of-way. ,, 3. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured /.~_/ fTom the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 4. Pdvate storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage / / in a sump catch basin on the private street. ~ ~ Projec~ No. DR 99-0'/ Completion Date M. 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 CCVVD 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 go 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. /. N. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Southem Califomia Edison and the City of Ontario. 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. 3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be cempieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDmONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Feciiities District requirements shall apply to this project. __ / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. /__ __ a. 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. __ 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. AIl 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 pdor 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 all hydrants and installed prior to final __/ / inspection. -- SC - 1/1 g/~9 9 MASTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION March 9, 1999 Ms. Rebecca Van Buren Hand Delivered on 3/10/99 Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISON The City of Rancho Cucamonga I0500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Re: Design Review 99-05 Dear Ms. Van Buren: .Our firm has been retained by Better Living, Inc., the parent corporation for the Quickset Organization to review and coordinate the development of their property located at 12167 Arrow Route in Rancho Cucanlonga. Please refer to the attached authorization letter dated March 5, 1999. We respectfully request that thc discussion of Design Review Case t/99-05 before the Planning Commission scheduled for March 10, 1999, be continued to thc next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. We wish to thoroughly review tile background of tile project; as well as to conduct additional due diligence on thc subject property prior to thc scheduled hearing on DRC #99- 05. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Brace McDonald President cc: Jim Williams, Ware & Malcomb, via fax Karl Stockbridgc, for Better Living, via fax Ken Cohen, Collette & Erikson, via fax file, city correspondence Users/taylor~Quickset03~09~99 '-~?.~_~ ~ 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 215, Newport Beach. CA 92660-3028 · Phone: 949-724-8886 · Fax: 949-724-8887 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-05 - ~ - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. .Surroundin¢l Land Use and Zoninq' North - Vacant; General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan South- Vacant;GenerallndustrialDistrict(Subarea14)ofthelndustrialAreaSpecificPlan East Alcohol processing plant; Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan West Vacant (utility easement); General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - B. General Plan Des clnation,~: Project Site - Heavy Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East Heavy Industrial West Utility Corridor C. Site Characteristics: The site was previously occupied by AMPAC, a concrete pipe manufacturer. The site presently contains a landscaped front setback along Arrow Route and a 6-foot high screen wall and, in the far south end of the site, a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space. Quikset is proposing to retain the existing batch plant and expand the facility to include development of crane ways, a dip tank, offices, and an approximate 120,000 square foot manufacturing building. The site is bounded by the ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 2 Edison easement to the west, Metrolink tracks to the south, and an alcohol processing plant to the east. There are mature Pepper trees along the east property line that will be saved. The proposed development is consistent with the standards for the Heavy Industrial District. D. Parkin,q Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Foota(~e Ratio Required Provided Existing Office 6,500 1/250 26 Existing Batch Plant 21,560 1/500 43 New Office 11,520 1/250 47 New Manufacturing 120,000 1/500 240 Total 356 455 ANALYSIS: A. General: Quikset manufactures pre-cast concrete products, including modular classrooms and administrative offices. Quikset is proposing an office complex to house its corporate office and to serve as a model site for its pre-fabricated buildings. The office complex consists of three buildings at the front of the site (Buildings B, C, and D). The buildings demonstrate their modular products and are set in a landscaped courtyard theme. Walls are constructed of exposed aggregate concrete with a metal canopy on all four sides. Quikset is relocating its pre-cast concrete and plastics facilities from Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Riverside to the Rancho Cucamonga site. The master plan of development is in three phases. In the first phase, scheduled to begin upon approval; Quikset would use the existing batch plant and office, and construct five new craneways. The second phase, scheduled later this summer, involves constructing the 3-building office complex, courtyard, and parking at the front portion of the site. The final phase involves constructing a new 120,000 square foot manufacturing building and parking, anticipated in the year 2001. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on February 16, 1999. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) recommended approval of the project as contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "1"). C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study and a Phase One Environmental Assessment of the subject site by Centec Engineering dated November 30, 1998, staff found no significant environmental impacts related to the development of this project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 99-05 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Overall Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Northern Portion Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Southern Portion Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Office Complex Elevations Exhibit "E" - Craneway Elevations Exhibit "F" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "G" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "H" - Grading Plan Exhibit "1" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated February 16, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions O, o o o 0 0 '0 0 0 [ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 o o DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren February 16, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-05 - QUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. Desian Parameters: The site was previously occupied by AMPAC, a concrete pipe manufacturer. The site presently contains a landscaped front setback along Arrow Route and a 6-foot high screen wall and, in the far south end of the site, a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space. Quikset is proposing to retain the existing batch plant and expand the facility to include development of crane ways, a dip tank, offices, and an approximate 120,000 square foot manufacturing building. The site is bounded by the Edison easement to the west, Metrolink tracks to the south, and an alcohol processing plant to the east. There are mature Pepper trees along the east property line that will be saved. The proposed development is consistent with the standards for the Heavy Industrial District. Quikset manufactures precast concrete products, including modular classrooms and administrative offices. Quikset is proposing an office complex to house its corporate office and to serve as a model site for its pre-fabricated buildings. The office complex consists of three buildings at the front of the site (Buildings B, C, and D). The buildings demonstrate their modular products and are set in a landscaped courtyard theme. Walls are constructed of exposed aggregate concrete with a metal canopy on all four sides. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Provide standing seam metal hip roof on modulars as illustrated by the attached photographs from the Quickset marketing brochure. Planning Commission policy has been to require modular buildings to be designed to appear as permanent structures (which these are). 2. The applicant submitted an Alternate "B" which has been appended to the original submittal In Alternate "B," the modular units are shorter and are modified to eliminate roof-mounted equipment and to provide an overhead trellis in the courtyard and greater landscape treatment around modular units. Staff recommends Alternate "B." 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 existing "AMPAC" sign and pipe section should be removed. 2. The planting of a second tree type along the west property line may be considered. 3. The east property line has mature Pepper trees which should be preserved in place. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-05 - QUICKSET February 16, 1999 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to using the metal hip roof design. Attachments: Photographs DesiRn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The approved elevations have metal canopies on four sides. The canopy treatment was preferred over the metal hip roof design by both the Committee and the applicant. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to adding trees along the southern property line to screen outdoor operations from the Metrolink and using the same color scheme for the modular lunch room as shown for the office complex. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 99-05 2. Related Files: Not applicable 3. Description of Project: A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: C. Michael Dobey The Quikset Organization 666 Baker Street, Suite 350 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial 6. Zoning: Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site was previously occupied by AMPAC, a concrete pipe manufacturer. The site presently contains a landscaped front setback along Arrow Route and a 6-foot high screen wall and, in the far south end of the site, a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space. Quikset is proposing to retain the existing batch plant and expand the facility to include development of crane ways, a dip tank, offices, and an approximate 120,000 square foot manufacturing building. The site is bounded by the Edison easement to the west (vacant land), Metrolink tracks to the south with vacant land beyond, an alcohol processing plant to the east, and vacant land to the north. 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: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Air Quality Management District - permit for operating equipment and batch plant Regional Water Quality Control Board - storm water permit Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 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 (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics ( ) Water (X) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (X) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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: Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner Februa~ 10, 1999 Initial Study for DR 99-05 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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. 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) The proposed use is a permitted use within the Heavy Industrial Area of the Industrial Specific Plan. 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 4 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) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. The General Plan states structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure. A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. This impact is not considered to 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) Initial Study for DR 99-05 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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) 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) igni~ant Mitigation Im=ecl Im~ac~ $. 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: b) The use of the existing batch plant and some operating equipment proposed on the site is subject to permit requirements by the Air Quality Management District. This impact is not considered to be significant. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 6 b) Hazards to safety from design featuras (e.9., sharp curves or dan9erous intersections) or incompatible uses {e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) { ) (×) ( ) c) Inadequate emer9ency access or a¢~ss 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 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) The master plan includes separating the facility's truck traffic from passenger vehicle traffic by re-establishing a driveway on the western frontage on Arrow Route for truck traffic and utilizing the existing primary entrance driveway on Arrow Route as the access to the site for all other vehicles (employees, visitors, etc.). In order to facilitate westbound traffic, the applicant will be required to modify the stdping plan for Arrow Route to provide a left-turn pocket to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This impact is not considered to be significant. 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., heritage 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, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for DR 99-05 City of Rancho Cucamonga Comments: a) The subject site is outside of the project areas identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maps as potential soil classifications which may support the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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) 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) The subject site is a heavy industrial facility where petroleum and plastics may be used. Use of hazardous substances requires special permits from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prevention Distdct to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. This impact is not considered to be significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga -DR 99-05 Page 8 I '10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) t t. 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) 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga -DR 99-05 Page 9 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () (x) () c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments; b) The proposed use involves extedor storage of raw materials and finished concrete products, exposed overhead crane systems, and truck loading areas, which will be visible from the elevated 1-15 Freeway to the west. The project design includes a row of trees for screening along the west property line; therefore, impact is considered less than significant. '14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 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) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the poten'dal impact area? ( ) (X) 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 10 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 pedods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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 bdef, 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) EARLIER ANALYSES Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eadier 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 the earlier analysis. The following eadier 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): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga --DR 99-05 Page 11 (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ~802011.5, certified January 4, 1989) (X)Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (X) Other: Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Centec Engineering dated November 30, 1998 for the subject property 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 clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Date: Pdnt Name and Title: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-05, THE REVIEW OF A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONCRETE AND PLASTICS PRODUCTS MANUFACTURER FOR A TOTAL OF 161,400 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDINGS ON A 40-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 15) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 12167 ARROW ROUTE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 229-121-15. A. Recitals. 1. The Quikset Organization has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 99-05, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as '1he application." 2. On the lOth day of March 1999, 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on March 10, 1999, 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 Arrow Route with a street frontage of 520 feet and a lot depth of 1200+ feet, and is presently developed with a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space; and b. The property to the north, south, and west of the subject site is vacant, and to the east is a heavy industrial alcohol processing plant; c. The proposed project is a request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 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 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 2 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 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 Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten 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 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 753.5c 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 substantial evidence contained in the 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-l-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(~ Division 1) The approved elevations of Buildings B, C and D include exposed aggregate concrete panel walls and canopy as presented to the Planning Commission on March 10, 1999. 2) Buildings B, C, and D, shall only be constructed in conjunction with the overhead trellis and the landscaped courtyard which surrounds the buildings. Building permits for these units shall not be finaled until landscape and trellis improvements in the courtyard are completed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 3 3) Additional trees shall be planted along the southern boundary to provide screening of the outdoor operations from the passenger rail line. Trees and irrigation shall be shown on landscape and irrigation plans submitted for review, pdor to issuance of building permits for the crane ways. 4) The color scheme for the modular lunch room shall match the color scheme of the office complex (Buildings B, C, and D). 5) The existing "AMPAC" sign and pipe section shall be removed, pdor to final of building permits for the crane ways. 6) The existing Pepper trees along the east line shall be preserved in- place and protected dudng construction. Enoineedno Division 1) The developer shall widen Arrow Route, north side, to provide left turn pocket for westbound traffic. 2) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of street improvements, prior to issuance of building permits. 3) Pdor to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and construction permit shall be obtained from the City's engineering office in addition to any other permit required. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: 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 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-05- QUIKSET March10,1999 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 99-05 SUBJECT: Plastic Products Manufacturer APPLICANT: Quikset LOCATION: 12167 Arrow Route ALL OF THE FOLLOWlNG CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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. 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 Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3. 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. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. sc - ~/~99 1 Pn~ NO. DR 99-05 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, amhitectural elevations, extedor 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. 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 pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and appliceble Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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. 5. Trash receptacle(s) am required and shall meet City standards. The final design, Iocetions, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be Ioceted 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. 7. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. D. Building Design 1. Ail 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 mil-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. E. 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 landscepe islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). sc - ~/~ses 2 3. All parking spaces shall be double stdped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be stdped per City standards. 4. Plans for any secudty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. For residential development, pdvate gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commemial 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. 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. 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 pdor to the issuance of building permits or pdor 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 arbodst's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3.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. 4. AIl pdvate slobes 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 fo be installed by the developer pdor to occupancy. 5. 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, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 6. 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. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / / Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucemonga Municipal Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. 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 Cede, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Cede 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. 3. 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. H. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Cede for the property line clearances considering / /__ use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covedng at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. I. 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. Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT TH E ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WiTH d. HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Utilities 1. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the /.~/ Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), 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 distdct within 90 days pdor to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 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. / / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire /.__/ department personnel pdor to water plan approval. X 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 pdor 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 pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __/ / if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Distdct 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 all hydrants and insta ed prior to final / / inspection. ~ -- 6. 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. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of / ! sprinkler system. 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 22. / / X Other: on-site fire access lanes shall be provided to meet RCFPD/UFC requirement. / / 9. 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. 10. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire / / Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho / / Cucamonga Fire Protection Disb'ict pdor to Building and Safety permit issuance. ** A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. **Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (spdnklere, 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 1994 UBC, UFC, / / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. L. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. 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 enttyways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 2. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / / N.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. O. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox POx sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enfomamant can access these devices. sc - ~ 6 Project No. DR 99-05 .Comp at]on Date P. 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. 03-8-1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Vineyard Shell 10500 Civic Center Dr. 8919 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga C A 91729 Rancho Cucamonga 91730 Attn: Donald Granger Planning Commission Dear Sirs. I am writing to request a continuance for item ' F" on the March 10 th planning commission meeting regarding sign permit 98-30. We are not prepared to appear by 3-10-99 due to business related issues. We need some time to prepare for this meeting. Please reschedule this item on the 4-28-99 planning commission meeting. Your understanding in granting this continuance will be greatly appreciated. Si. rely Art and Diana Flores RECEIVED City o! Rancho Cucamonga P;anning Division CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Donald Granger, Planning Technician SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORE.~ - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a service station and mini-market in the Community Commercial district (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. ABSTRACT: The applicant is seeking approval to install a third pdcing sign at the northwest tower elevation. The applicant contends that the installation of the third price sign is necessary for both public visibility and sales volume. BACKGROUND: On July 27, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 93-46 for the construction of a gas station and mini-market Subsequently, in March of 1996, the Planning Division approved a sign package for the Vineyard Shell that included two monument signs for the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages (Exhibit "D") and one Shell logo sign on the northwest tower elevation. ANALYSIS: Presently, the applicant has installed a third price sign adjacent to the wall logo sign on the northwest tower elevation, as shown 'in Exhibit "E." The Sign Ordinance states that '~he monument sign shall be designed to include the identification of the station and gasoline pdces. No other price signs are allowed." Approval of the third wall price sign would be inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance. Staff has made field visits to ail service stations in the City and found them to have gasoline pricing signs on monument signs only. Therefore, approval of the appeal would set a precedent for the City and would lead to more requests by other service stations. The two existing monument signs for the station are located 19% feet behind the curb face, just behind the right-of-way on Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Staff finds no justification for a visibility or business identification hardship. To further increase the visibility, the applicant could request to switch the pdcing sign cabinet with the shell logo sign cabinet so that the pricing sign is closer to the property line, as shown in Exhibit "F." Another option that the applicant could explore is to relocate the monument signs closer to the building. Based upon the above analysis, staff concluded that the Vineyard Shell has adequate business identification and advertising opportunity. Staff also finds no unique circumstances about the request that would justify any action for approval. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -SP 98-30 - FLORES March 10, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's decision and deny the appeal by minute action. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:DG£~fs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appeal Request Letter Exhibit "B" - City Planner Denial Letter Dated January 11, 1999 Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Existing Monument Sign Elevation Exhibit "E" - Proposed Wall Sign Elevation Exhibit "F" - Suggested Placement Change to Price Sign Cabinet Exhibit "G" - Excerpt from Sign Ordinance VINEYARD SHELL 8919 FOOTHILL BL. RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91730 (909)483-0100 The City of Rancho Cucamonga /- 7/~ '~ ~ 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga 91729 SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT. 98-30 To the Planning Division: Dear Sirs: I am whting this letter to appeal your decision about the price sign at my service station, on Foothill and Vineyard. The reason that this sign was needed was due to the many customer complaints about the lack of visibility of the prices o_~E.n the existing monument signs. Due to the set back the signs are too far on the property and many customers complain that they could not see that this was a servic--T~ station, and the prices were not visible to them until they had already passed the station. On Vineyard Ave.traveling south or north bound it is impossible to see the monument sign unless you are walking. Traveling east on Foothill the trees obstruct the view of the price sign. Since we installed the price sign on the comer customers are able to see the prices and we have seen a tremendous increase in business and positive comments about finally being able to see the prices. It is required by law to post the prices in a vis/Ne location. We invested 2.5 Million in this business due to the rigid requirments imposed by the City of R.C. We need to maintain a certain amount of business to meet our financial obligations . If your decision is to remove our sign it will adversely affect our business. We would be willing to remove the prices from the monument signs or if you have any other sugesstions please let us know. Sincerely Ar{ Flores, ,Jh}l ~ l ~ .- T H E C I T Y 0 F NC HO C UC A HO NC A January 11, 1999 Mr. Art Flores Vineyard Shell 3762 Henderson Place Claremont, CA 91711 SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 Dear Mr. Flores: Thank you for submitting the above-described sign permit application for a proposed third gasoline price sign. As a result of reviewing your proposed sign with the current Sign Ordinance, staff has made the following findings and determination: 1. Service stations are permitted one wall sign and one monument sign per street frontage up to a maximum of three signs, which could be a combination of wall and monument signs. However, only monument signs are allowed to include the gasoline prices. No other price signs are allowed. 2. The site already has two monument signs with gasoline prices, one each at Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 3. The proposed gasoline price sign placed at the northwest (tower) elevation is a wall sign which is not allowed. However, the shell Iago wall sign is acceptable in its present location. Based on the above analysis and findings, your sign permit application is denied. The gasoline price wall sign shall be removed within 21 calendar days from the date of this letter. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for appeal, and be accompanied by the $62 appeal fee. For your information the City now has a provision to allow the identification of subtenants within a service station. The sign standards are one wall sign per subtenant up to a maximum of two per station and a maximum of 12 square feet per sign. Therefore, you could submit a separate sign permit application requesting a wall sign for your other business, Church's Fried Chicken. If you have any questions, please contact Donald Granger, Planning Technician, at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:DG/jfs cc: Brian Jackson, Code Enforcement Officer .~_.,~/%~,,~,,~1~'"~_% ~ Jack Lam. AICE City Monogor Counc~lmombor Jomax, V Cu~¢Jtalo 105COC~,.,icCenterDnve · PO Bo,'807 · r3. CA91729 . (gCg),477.2700 * FAX(gCO) 477.28.'19 Existing Monument Sign Elevation Possible Alternative Monument Cabinet Design Gas 109 9/10 Shell · ~ Prices119 9/10 Logo Here 129 9/10' Here ' b~, _.4.?,__.1. r i . i n -mi nd ~ Z nes - ~g signs may be permitted in the commercial and subject to'"~e prov'~on~ ~ :ones CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT REMARKS tenants mom I~an Uu'ee). Ihe City PlenAer e. COi~f shall be a g'Nnlmum of I -inch h heath end legible from 20 $igflS are allowed. beighL 22 Revised 8/g7 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PRINCIPAL REGISTER Thc Mark shown in this certificate has been registered in the United States Patent and 'l)'ademxtrk O.O~tce to the named registrant. The records of the United Stales Patent and Trademark Office show that an applica~,;~n for registration of the Mark shown in this Certificate wa*filed in the Office, that the application was examined and determined to be in compliance with the requirements of the law and walt the regu_~_.t~ns prescrCbed b~v the Commissioner of Patents and Tradetnarks, anti tirol the Applicant is etttitled to registration of the Mark under the Trademark Act of J946~ as Amende& A copy of the Mark attdpertinent data from the application are a part of this cet'tific, xte. ' This registration shall rentain in force for TEN (JO) years, unless terminated ,earlier as provided by la w, and gubject to compliance with the pro visions of Section ~' of the Trade~nark Act of 1946, ax Amende& "". "i '' : '" Maint m: R~q ire · . .~ , ena e u ments ' ',.. ~" · Section 8: This reg/sWation w/Il be cancelled after six (6) yea~s by thc Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, UNLESS, before the end of the sixth year foli'owlng the date of reg~tration shown on this certificate, the registrant files in lhe Lr.S. Patent and Trademark Office an affidavit of continued use required by Sectioa 8 of the Tradenutrk Act- of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1058, as Amended. It is recommended that the Registrant contact the Patent and Trademark Office approximately five yenws after the date shown On this reglstral:ion to determine the requirements and fees for filing a Section 8 affidavit that are in effect at that time_ Currently a fee and a specin=cn showing how the mark ia u,cd in commerce are required for each international class of goods and/or services identified in thc certificate of regis~'atioa and both must be enclosed with the aflSdavit. Section 9: This reg/stration will expire by law after ten (I0) years, UNLESS, before the endoftlwtenthyearfollowingthedateofregistration shown on this certiftcate, the registrant files in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office an application for renewal of the registration ~ required by Section 9 of the Trademark Act o£ 1946, 15 U.$.C. § 1059, as Amended. It is recommended that the Regis £rant contact the Patent and Trademark Office approximately nine yca~ arc r the date shown ou this registration to determine the requirementq and fee~ for filing a Section 9 application for renewal that are in effect at that time. Cun:ently a fee and a specimen showing how the mark ia u~ed ia commerce are require/J for each international class of goods and/or services ideat~fied in the certificate of registration and both must be enclosed with the application rot renewal. F'. 03 Int. Cl.: 35 Prior U.S. Cts.: 10.{), 101 and 102 ". ' ' United States Patent ---' ~ - '_ _ !_ l~eg. NO. 2,oss,s0s SIilRVICE MARK PRINCIPAL REGISTER FuucoLand FUNGo, INC. (MINNESOTA CORPORATION) OWNER OF U.S. REG. NOS. L708,86~, 1,896,591 10120 WF_~T 76TH MINN~POLis, MN 55~ AND O~ERs. ~IE MARK lS LINED FOR. THE COLORS FOR; R~AIL ~ORE SERVIC~ IN THE .Y~LLOw, OR~G~ OR~N, BLUE AND RED FIELD OP COMP~ PR~RAM VIDEO GAME CARTRIDO~ IN CLASS 35 (U.S. CLS. SER. NO. 1~, I01 AND 102). FIRST U~E l~lg-[~ IN COMMER~ CAtheRINE ~IS~ KREBS, EXAMINING 1~19-1990, A~ORNEy TOTAL P.03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA __ STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUEST WITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 85 - FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Town Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 - APN: 1077-421-75. ABSTRACT: The applicant is seeking approval to install a multicolored wall sign. The applicant contends that the multicolored sign is trademarked and is necessary for public recognition and business identification. BACKGROUND: Funcoland is a retailer of games within the Terra Vista Town Center shopping complex. The store is located west of the Ross department store as shown in Exhibit "E." Funcoland has a leased space of 1,669 square feet and began operating the business in the Fall of 1998. Prompted by Lewis Operating Corp., Funcoland submitted a sign application on January 11, 1999, for a non-permitted sign. At that time, the Planning Commission was reviewing the revised Uniform Sign Program for Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square, which was then approved on January 13, 1999. Staff reviewed Funcoland's sign application as shown in Exhibit =D" with the newly approved USP and denied it based on non-compliance with the sign criteria. The applicant appealed the action in a timely manner. ANALYSIS: Under the Uniform Sign Program, Funcoland is permitted to have one wall sign per building elevation, with a maximum letter height of 18 inches, maximum length at 75 percent of the leased store width, and only one color for the sign face. The current Funcoland wall sign is in compliance with all provisions of the Uniform Sign Program with the exception of the multicolored letters. The Uniform Sign Program states that only color is allowed for the sign face. The applicant contends that the multicolored sign is a trademarked logo and is necessary for public recognition. According to the City Attorney, the City cannot require alteration of a registered trademark, but the City retains the power to prohibit the display of the registered trademark. The City can also require that the registered trademark be reduced in size. The applicant notes in their letter that Payless Shoe Source has yellow letters and an orange letter "o" in the words 'Shoe" and "Source." Although the Uniform Sign Program requires that the sign face for in-line tenants be one color from the approved choices, it does permit flexibility for colors within trademarks/Iogos. A careful examination of the Payless Shoe Souce sign illustrates that the orange "o" is actually a dot, which is the trademark/logo for Payless Shoe Source. Accordingly, the Payless Shoe Source lettering and logo is consistent with guidelines in the Uniform Sign Program. ITEM G APPEAL NO. 85/FUNCOLAND March 10, 1999 Page 2 The Uniform Sign Program would permit the applicant to propose a wall sign design that includes a separate Funcoland logo box having multicolors. One possible alternative wall sign design could include a reduced, separate logo box containing the multicolored letters for Funcoland placed adjacent to the wall sign utilizing one color from the approved list in the Uniform Sign Program. This design would allow the applicant to retain the multicolors that are necessary for public recognition, and still be in compliance with the Uniform Sign Program. Approval of the multicolored Funcoland wall sign would be inconsistent with the Uniform Sign Progam and set a precedent that would lead to other requests to deviate from the program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold, by minute action, the City Planner's decision and deny the appeal. Brad Buller CityPlanner BB:NF/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - ^ppeal Request Letter from Outdoor Advertising & Lighting, Sign Permit Applicant Exhibit "B" - Appeal Request Letter from Funcoland dated January 11, 1999 Exhibit "C" - City Planner denial letter dated January 19, 1999 Exhibit "D" - Proposed Wall Sign Elevation Exhibit "E" - Photo of Funcoland Wall Sign Exhibit "F"- Site Plan Exhibit "G" - Excerpt from Uniform Sign Program c o L a n d Bring Home The Fun" via Fecloral Express - Monkey a.m. dolivo~ ..... ~' ~~0 Janua~ 29, 1999 ~t I 0 8~d Mr. Donald Grainger Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: FuncoLand ~325 Terra Vista Town Center, Rancho Cucamonga, CA Signage Appeal Dear Donald: Thank you for the time you spent speaking with me last night regarding our exterior signage at our above-reference FuncoLand location. Thank you for also veri~ing for me that we could leave up our multi-colored sign until the appeal process is completed. The sign installer OAL (Outdoor Advedising & Lighting, Inc.) was supposed to go down to your office yesterday to pay the $62 appeal fee. Since I have been unable to confirm that this fee was actually paid, I am sending you a check in the amount of $62 to file for the appeal. As you are aware, we received a le~er dated Janua~ 19, 1999 from Brad Butler regarding the denial of our sign permit for our multi-colored exterior signage. I am enclosing the only copy of the sign application I have. I am so~ the copy is so poor. It appears that the sign application number is USP ~85. Our multi-colored sign which includes the colors of yellow, orange, green, blue, and red is our corporate standard sign. I am enclosing a copy of our Cedificate of Registration with the Patent and Trademark Office. We are a publicly held company traded on Nasdaq. We currently have 312 FuncoLand locations throughout the count~ and plan to reach 400 stores within the ne~ 18 months. Our multi-colored sign is a logo that the public recognizes and looks for. It is of utmost impodance to our company that we obtain approval to keep this multi-colored sign in Terra Vista Town Center through all means of .lj=..,,~e~r..l~.~_.~' t.X..~/, Wcbsitc: www. funcoland.com appeal necessary. Our company does not have a large advertising budget so our signage is an imPortant advertising tool for us. The letter from Brad Buller indicates approved colors for signage as red, blue, yellow, green, and white. The only color in our sign not on the approved signage colors is orange. The Payless Shoe Source which is located next to our FuncoLand store has their corporate standard signage which includes the color orange. (Please see enclosed photograph.) We, too, request to be allowed to use our corporate standard signage. Please pass this letter and information on to the Planning Commission Secretary so that we may start the appeal process. Either a representative of OAL (the installer) or Steve Berryman from US Signs will be available to attend the necessary meetings. If someone from Funco, Inc. needs to attend as well, please let me know. Please keep me informed of the scheduling. Again I appreciate your assistance and hope that we can work together to resolve the issue. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (612) 946- 7206. Sincerely, Funco, Inc. Karen J. S~uira~ Real Estate Administrator kjms/ Enclosures cc: Jan Jasper, Lewis Homes Richard Reinhardt, Lewis Homes Steve Berryman, US Signs T H E C I T 0 F NC HO C UC A HO NC A January 19, 1999 Funcoland 10730 Foothill Boulevard. Suite 140 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: PROPOSED WALL SIGN FOR FUNCOLAND Gentlemen: As a result of comparing your sign application with the revised Uniform Sign Program as approved by the Planning Commission on January 13. 1999, staff has made the following findings and determination: 1. The sign criteria that applies to Funcoland are: one wall sign per building elevation, maximum letter height of 18 inches for upper or lower cases, maximum sign length is 75 percent al' the leased store width, and only one color is allowed for the sign face. The approved colors to choose from are: red, blue, white, green, and yellow. 2. The sign dimensions of 10 feet, 6 inches in length with 18-inch high letters is acceptable and within the limits of the approved criteria. 3. The multicolor sign face of your sign does not comply with the approved sign criteria. - 4. The existing Funcoland sign was installed without a sign permit and building and electrical permits. Based on the above findings, your sign application is denied. The sign shall be removed within 14 calendar days frcm the date of this letter. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reasons for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. A solution to the non-conformity of your sign request would be to select one of the approved colors and replace the sign face of the individual letters with the color you selected. We strongly encourage you to comply with the approved sign criteda for Terra Vista Town Center and resubmit a sign application as soon as possible. If you have any questions. please feel free to call me Nancy Fang at (~9'}'477-275~' Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:NF/jjfs cc: Richard Reinhardt, Lewis Operating Corp. Richard Alcom. Code Enforcement Supervisor ~ "~-.--"'~-~T Mayor Williorn J, Aloxanclor ~/,~....~.../r~ CouncilmernDer Paul Biane Mayor Pro. Tern Diane Williams ~..'?,~.~. ;.~' Councilmernber Boio Dutton Jack LOrn. AICD Cily Uanagor ~.~ CouncilmernDer James V Curatalo 105C0 C~,,'~C Cen~'er Drive · P.O. Eox 807 · I~cncno CuC/~. CA 91729 · (q~9) 477-27C0 * FAX fl 18" 12 3/4"110'-6" 3 3/4" 20" 14 1/4"111'-8" 4 i/2" t SIGN ELEVATION 24" 17" I 14'-0" 5" " 21 3/8"117'-6" 6 1/4" I o ¢' 1 3360"r 25 1/2" I 21'-0", 7 1/2" SIDE VIEW :~EATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR FUNCOLAND ~ NOTES: ' ~ LOC~TION VARIOUS C~TY ~ FACES: 'F" & 'E # 2037 YELLOW, "O" # 2283 RED, 'U" & "A" s~eN m US 14129 UA'rE: 10-29--9_~7 # 21~19 ORANGE, ALL WITH 6500 WI-ITE NEON - 'Ns" VIVID ;s~c~R MD SCALE GREEN VINYL OVER W','-ITE ACRYLIC, GREEN NEON - 'C" & :COU~T REPRESENT,~T~VE~ STEVEN BERRYMAN co,~-~=,o~r~ oo~,,,,¢~r-., 'D" # 2051 BLUE, BLUE NEON - .050 ALUM. BACK - .040 DK, ~os.,.~*,,,,~.~,~ BRONZE ALUM RETURN - GOLD TRIM - 120 .VOLT SERVICE lENTS APPROVAL DATE: ~*~,,,= r~m 30 M.A. TRANSFORMER NDLDRDS APPROVAL FSHOMEhKARENSXPHOTOSkLA\0325E.JPG (local) - Microsoft Intemet Explorer Page I of 1 1/29/99 1:46:24 PM Funcoland Store Location B. Ea/LSho~l_T~lm~, at l~ndlords discretion, shall be allowed signage on one (1) monument sign along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Pad, and two (2) wall- mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. As an option, each tenant may have three (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building facto A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. C. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: 1. Two line signs shall not exceed 18" including the space between the lines in total height and no individual line shall be more than 14" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter. 2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 18" in height including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 18" in height. 4. The length of sign shall not exceed 75% of Shop frontage, or 20 feet (20'), whichever is less. Per sign sq. fi. shall not exceed 30. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension. D. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or reg~onally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements, subject to City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. E. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) face, and four (4) trim cap. F. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. G. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. H. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All non Restaurant/Theater Shop Tenants sh~ll be limited to one of the following Plexiglas colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Page 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, FROM: Brad Bulier, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT - SPH~P,F_. O1' INFLUENCE (REF. COUNTY APPLICATION NO. GPA/CWl-849N) Attached for your review is a memo regarding the General Plan Amendment recently proposed by the County. The memo outlines some important aspects of this issue. Additional information will be given atthe March 10, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. ~uller City Planner BB:LH:Is Attachment ITEM H CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager ] ~ Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commi.~ ~on.. FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director j I BY: Lam/Henderson AICP, Principal Planner -- ~ SUBJECT: COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMEN[ ~IENT - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (REF. COUNTY APPLICATION. NO. GPA/CW1-849N) BACKGROUND: The City received notice from the County on March 1, 1999, that they are proposing a General Plan Amendment, that will in staffs opinion, further weaken adopted polices relative to the encouraging of annexations to cities. The Notice indicates the matter is scheduled for County Planning Commission hearing on March 18, 1999, and subsequent Board headng on April 13, 1999. A copy of the Notice, proposed amendmentJs, and Initial Study is attached for reference. Because of the short pedod for City response the matter has been agendized for discussion by the City Planning Commission on March 10, 1999, and City Council on April 7, 1999. In addition, a copy of the referenced materials has been forwarded to the City Attorney for legal analysis. ANALYSIS: In summary, staff believes the City should oppose the Amendment for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendments to adopted County General Plan policies appears to be following a pattern to back away from a previously established program of cooperation with cities to assure that urban development occurs whenever possible within cities. 2. The proposed revisions will lead to the creation of inadequately served county islands that will be problematic for the future residents, cities and the county in terms of providing quality and efficient government services. 3. The revisions are making the existing General Plan Policies less specific and therefore, may lead to legal challenges with regards to compliance with State mandated referral provisions of the existing law. MEMO GP POLICIES AMENDMENT March 3, 1999 Page 2 CONCLUSION: This memorandum reflects staff's initial reading of the County application. A thorough analysis of the law and the circumstances surrounding annexations and response by the County to City comments on applicable development requests will be provided at the previously mentioned Planning Commission and City Council meeting dates. Council and Commission Members may wish to contact their respective associates in other cities to open a dialog concerning these issues. LH:mlg cc: Joe O'Neil, City Engineer Brad Buller, City Planner Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager Dennis Michael, Fire Chief Attachments SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT NOTICE Date: February 25, 1999 VICINITY MAP COMMUNITY: COUNTYWIDE N/A APPLICANT: LAND USE SERVICES DEPT. FILE/INDEX: GPA/CW1-849N The proposal affects sphere of PROPOSAL: General Plan Text Amendment to revise influence areas surrounding all goals and policies related to land use and growth management in city spheres R ~i~nlS~%B~'nardin° County of influence LOCATION: Sphere of Influence Areas, Countywide ~R 0 1 1999 Proposed Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration City oi RanchO Cucamonga Planning Divis'~on A'I'rENTION REVIEWING AGENCIES: The General Plan Amendment described above is proposed by the San Bemardino County Land Use Services Department-Planning Division. You are invited to review the enclosed project information and submit wdtten comments and recommendations. The Initial Study/Environmental Checklist supporting the proposed Negative Declaration is available for review in the Land Use Services Department, at the address given below. At this time, it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will consider this proposal at its meeting on March 18, 1999 and make a recommendation for action by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on April 13, 1999. Notices will be mailed ten (10) days in advance of each hearing. For full consideration, your written comments should be received by this department no later than March 16, 1999. Please refer to the proposal description indicated at the top of this notice in your comments, and send them to the address or fax number provided below. No reply is necessary if you have no comments. If you have any questions, please contact the project planner, Terri Rahhal at (909) 387-4124. San Bemardino County Land Use Services Department,Planning Division Phone: (909) 387-4124 385 N. Arrowhead Ave. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 Fax: (909) 387-3223 If you want to be notified of the project decision print your name legibly on this form and mail it to the address given above, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. COMMENTS (attach additional pages, as needed) SIGNATURE DATE AGENCY IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE pROPOSAL IN COURT. YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRI3TEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT. OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ,. OORRESPO"DE.CE DEL,VEREO TO'"E .EAR,. BODY AT. OR PR,O TO. DUE TO TIME CO.S "'S February 25, 1999 GPA/CWI-849N SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS AFFECTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANNING AREAS APPLICANT: San Bemardino County Land Use Services Department COMMUNITY: Countywide PROPOSAL: General Plan text amendment to revise goals and policies related to land use and growth management within city spheres of influence SOURCE DOCUMENT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN adopted July 1989 and revised November 1991 (as amended through February 1999) The General Plan text amendments presented in this proposal are based on the current San Bemardino County General Plan document cited above. A brief project summary is provided below, followed by the full text of each goal or policy affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Each item is identified by a General Plan goal or policy number (i.e. Goal D-60, Policy LU-9) and the beginning page number where that item can be found in the current General Plan text (i.e.p. II-D6-45). Proposed revisions are shown as ~tr!k~-cut te~ tc be dc!crc'~ and double underlined text to be added. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed General Plan text amendment would revise several goals and policies related to encouragement of annexation, land use planning and growth management for unincorporated lands within city spheres of influence. It addresses and clarifies the County's approach toward coordinating planning functions and development proposal review with cities. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to clarify the land use planning authority and development approval discretion of the County Board of Supervisors in all unincorporated areas of San Bemardino County. GPA Sumrnary ?-/25/99 /~ i SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Land Use/Growth Management Goals, Policies and Action,-: · Goal D-60 encourages annexation of urbanized areas in city spheres of influence. This 'goal is revised to clarify the exception stated in it. The portion of Land Use Policy LU-9 that implements Goal D-60 is also amended, accordingly. · Goal D-61 is revised to eliminate repetition of Goal D-60, and to emphasize the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors in determining appropriate compatibility with city development standards and public facilities. · Land Use Policy LU-9 defines the County's approach to planning and growth management in city spheres of influence, it is amended as follows, to assert the County's authority and responsibility for land use planning in all unincorporated areas: · A blanket requirement of Conditional Use Permit applications in sphere of influence areas is deleted, leaving standard County procedures in place to determine the appropriate review process. · The discretion of the County Board of Supervisors in land use planning and land development decisions for all unincorporated lands is clarified. · Instead of "reflecting" city plans for sphere of influence areas in County land use designations, the amended text requires consideration of city plans in the County review process. · Land Use Policy LU-10 addresses the need for coordinated planning efforts and cooperation with other agencies that have jurisdiction over lands within the County. It is amended as follows, to cladfy the County's responsibilities: · Language that might be interpreted as a requirement to incorporate policies of other agencies in the County General Plan has been deleted. One action item related to consultation with State and Federal agencies is deleted because another item addresses this issue more thoroughly. · Requirements related to participation in SANBAG to address growth management issues are deleted because they are not consistent with the current functions of SANBAG. · Land Use Policy LU-11 details incentives that should be implemented to promote urban infill. One action item related to compatibility with city policies is deleted because the same issue is addressed adequately in Policy LU-9. GPA Summary 2/25/99 /~" ii West Valley Foothills Planning Area Policies: Two policies requiring adoption of city standards or use of "similar" standards are amended to implement County requirements in a manner compatible with city standards: · Noise: A policy requiring site planning standards similar to those of adjacent communities to reduce potential noise impacts is revised to refer to noise abatement performance standards of the County Development Code. · Hillside Development: A policy requiring adoption of the hillside development standards of adjacent communities is deleted, leaving the discretion to implement County standards and determine compatibility with adjacent communities to the County Board of Supervisors. East Loma Linda/West Redlands Planning Area Policies: The proposed General Plan Amendment includes deletion of the following two policies related to public services in the East Loma Linda/West Redlands Planning area: · Service Requirements: A policy requiring all new development in the Loma Linda and Redlands spheres of influence to comply with the service requirements of the sphere city. is deleted. This leaves the authority for determining such requirements with the County Board of Supervisors, consistent with all other unincorporated areas of San Bemardino County. · Service Commitments: A policy requiring necessary service commitments prior to approval of development is also deleted. Without the city service requirement referenced above, there is no need for a specific planning area policy on service commitments. Appropriate public service commitments are already required of new development proposals in all unincorporated areas of San Bemardino County. GPA Summary 2/25/99 ~ ~" iii SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROVVTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Goals Goal D-60 (p. I1-D6-45) ................. r~- -' - - ....... ...... , The Board of Supervisors will maintain land use and growth management controls on all properties in the unincorporated areas of the County. It will consider support of annexation to cities, of properties within designated city spheres of influence, where it is deemed appropriate, based on overall County goals in its sole discretion. Support of such annexation applications at LAFCO, however, will be in the sole discretion of appointed LAFCO members. Goal D-61 (p. I1-D6-45) ...... ,- - ,- .... , ........~.".-':e'-'r-~.go: Encourage implementation of compatible development standards and public facilities~of influence areas where feasible, as determined by the Boar--d-~'r Supervisors in its sole discretion MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-9 (p. II-D6-45) !~_,Jg ,,,;+h;,, *l-,,-,;,..,,.~,.,,.,,,.,,~ ,-.,-,h .... '"'~ !P.'~L'-'2.qCO, .-,,,a ~-, ....... ~-iti ........... Ih, bott Because cities assume jurisdiction over territory upon annexation, and becausn spheres of influence identify areas that may be annexed to cities, the County will consider coordination of its land use plans within city spheres of influence with tho affected cities. Nevertheless, while areas remain unincorporated, the County responsible for land use planning and orderly development within these areas. U.-.t!! ?et '-~'-',o ~, .... ~- .... ,~,,,,t,,d The County ,,,:n ..... :-.. it, 2'_'ther!ty to ma refer development applications to affected ~ities for comment, and may ~ to-e..~:ff~.¢~ incorporate city development policies and standards whenever it deems appropriate. 2/25/99 /~ 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-9 (continued) Ir. ~_dd!t!cr., tho fc!!'c;':!~G r ............... . ................... ~ ......................... Therefore, the County shall apply the following policies and standards within city spheres of influence: a. Adc;t Consider implementing joint regulations/plans vc~e~.¢~s~ through the adoption of oveday districts, specific plans, zoning studies, infrastructure support plans and other appropriate mechanisms. ~, b. ~ Serv ce connect OhS may be required for projects that are less than one = mile awa~ from sewer main lines, where the connection is available n a timely and economically feasible manner, as determined b~/ the authorized Cou_.~_.n~ revi6wln C' ..... · r~;:=l-I~, -r-r. -r- ....... ~ ............ '~ .....· .............. - ....... ~, c. ~ Review and consider requests for city annexation/incorporation of urban = designated and sphere of influence lands based on community interest, city ability and commitment to develop and provide services, and overall County. goals. Support before LAFCO for such requests, however, shall be at the sol, discretion of appointed LAFCO members. e, d. P. eceGr.!ze ""'~ ;~'"' .... * Consider implementation of growth control limits = adopted by cities as they apply to spheres, unless the Board of Supervisors determines that the limits would materially impair achievement of County economic development or housing goals. f,, e. ~ Consider Joint Power Agreements (JPAs) with cities to allow for city or = County-~-~'~6'~-ment fees to be collected and distributed accordingly.?whem~ 2/25/99 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPA/CWl-849N LAND USE/GROVVTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-9 (continued) Consider the nature and intensity of development in adjoining inco~orated area~ and review the City's pre-zoning, general plan designations and infrastructure plans when establishin9 improvement levels and land use designations within n sphere of influence. ~ Designate Sphere of lnfluence areas -- *,- t ~-~ Uc~ M=;= as ~ Planning ............ Areas and ~ consider special ci~ standards in these areas to the e~ent they ' are inco~orated ~adopted as described in sub-policy (a), above. MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-10 (p. II-D6-46) Because the County wants to minimize land use conflicts between the County and other agencies that have jurisdictional control over lands located within the County, and because the County wants to cooperate and coordinate with adjacent municipalities and other regional agencies to address regional problems such as traffic congestion, air pollution, water quality, waste management and job/housing imbalance, the following policies/actions shall be implemented: a. Review the master plans and/or general plans of al,uJaese affected agencies and consider those plans in the implementation of !.-.cer~e.-_~tc '-.-.~, ~nd "!! ~?!!c!~c th"t .... r-,- ............ ,-,-.-,- ....... ~U the County General Plan. ~ b~ Develop a procedure to assure that the Count, the ink.orated cities, and the various special distills refer major planning and land use proposals to all affe~ed jurisdi~ions for review, comment and recommendation. 2/25/g9 ~ 3 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCWl-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES -Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-10 (continued) d.c. Establish a "Review Area" around each state, military, or other Federal jurisdiction, = and review development proposals or proposed General Plan amendments and revisions within the established Review Area with the appropriate agency. e.d. Work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other public agencies to = eliminate conflicts between public and private lands by reducing the checkerboard pattern of public/private ownership. f.. e.Work with BLM and the Forest Service to ensure that large blocks of public land = are not further subdivided or classified as Govemment Small Tracts, and to ensure that disposal of public lands shall be based on definite proposals for development consistent with the County General Plan. ej.f. Work with BLM, the Forest Service and other public agencies to facilitate public/private land exchange to eliminate the need to cross public lands to reach privately owned lands. Such land shall, when exchanged, be subject to all the policies and standards of the "Resource Conservation" (RC) District. However, if such land is determined by the ~'"~ ....... .... o .......... n~,,~o~,,,, ef the County Transportation/Flood Control Department or by FEMA to be subject to severe flooding, it shall be subject to the policies and standards of the "Floodway" (FW)' District. A General Plan Amendment is required to determine the apprepdate land use designation for exchanged lands. h, g Work with ~M=aRd..ethe~-.~ State and Federal land management agencies in the designation and protection of wildemess and restricted natural areas in the approval and management of recreation events and sites.;= ..... __~ ...... ~""" i, h. Work with Indian tdbes and State and Federal agencies in the development of = plans forlandwithintheirjudsdictions. j, i. Permit development adjacent to prisons and similar detention facilities only when = compatible with the secudty needs of the facility and public safety is assured, and: i) Work closely with State and local officials responsible for administering these facilities when considering land use proposals on adjacent lands. ii) Discourage high density residential uses on adjacent or nearby parcels. 2/25199 //'~'--' 4 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCWl-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES. Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions .Policy LU-10 (continued) ~ ~ontinue working toward a consensus management issues wi-th surrounding counties through SCAG a~ m,, k_. Continue to work on spe.ciflc projects to improve traffic flow, such as the Foothill Freeway (State Highway 30) extension project., MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions .Policy LU-11 (p. II-D6-47) Because urban infilling promotes more efficient use of existing infrastructure and decreases the need to construct extension of services, the following incentive actions to encourage urban infill shall be implemented: a. Designate urban infill areas on the Infrastructure Overlay Maps as the highest intensity Improvement Levels (i.e. ILs 1 and 2) except where prohibited by other regulations and policies. b. Recommend Land Use Map changes to reflect higher intensity and compatible uses in urban infill a~'eas, except where prohibited by other regulations and policies. c. Reduce processing times for "urban projects" (commercial, industrial and residential of 4 or more dwelling units per acre) that fall within either Improvement Levels 1 or 2 that will use underutilized infrastructure capacities as determined by the ~ Director of Land Use Services. 2/25/99 /~///..~ 5 ,SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-11 (continued) d. Direct the Department of Economic and Community Development to provide information to prospective firms, in order to recruit industrial and commercial development to Urban Infill areas (ILs 1 or 2 with urban land use designations of industrial and commercial), and to promote use of grants for upgrading infrastructure in these areas. e. Direct all County Departments to prioritize capital improvements and public works to upgrade urban infill areas, including supporting creation of improvement districts, except where prohibited by other regulations and policies. WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA Policies/Actions Man-made Hazards Noise Policies (p. III-B1-23) · Establish siting and construction standards to mitigate noise hazards from major traffic corridors. · Require the submittal of an acoustical analysis on all new residential projects that will be adversely impacted by existing or expected future noise generated by major transportation corridors. imCac, ts. Implement noise standards per County Development Code Sec. 87.0905. · Reduce interior residential noise levels from outside sources to acceptable levels· · Locate noise sensitive land use away from high noise areas. 2/25199 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA - Policies/Actions Man-made Resources Land Use/Growth Management (p. III-BI-26) (select policies concerning hillside development) .... i~ ......... i-- ................ i- ....... r ....... ~ .............. j ....... ~ ................. · Require a slope analysis for all residential projects located within the foothills. · Discourage residential development on land with slopes greater than 30 percent, ridge saddles, canyon mouths and areas remote from existing access. · Allow up to a 100 percent transfer of residential density from these areas depending on the holding capacity of the area to be developed. · Retaining these areas in open space will be necessary in order to obtain density bonus consideration. · Limit residential development on slopes greater than 30% to a density of two (2) dwelling units per acre or less. · Establish the following grading requirements for areas having a slope of f~teen percent or greater: - Minimize grading for roads, home foundations, pools and drainage facilities. - Utilize contour grading techniques in order to compliment and blend into the existing natural terrain. - Conceal graded slopes by landscaping and structures. - Finished slopes generally should not exceed a 2:1 ratio unless to blend with natural terrain. · Require a preliminary grading plan for all residential projects, including minor subdivisions, that are located within the foothills. · Require building foundations to conform with the natural slope on building sites, where the slope is fifteen percent (15%) or greater. · Apply strict adherence to all hillside and fire safety development standards. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS EAST LOMA LINDA/VVEST REDLANDS -Policies/Actions Man-Made Resources Land Use/Growth Management Policies (p. III-B2-29) · Permit residential development where services are readily available. Limit residential development along Interstate 10 and ~'~ .... State Highway 30. Limit residential development in high hazard areas. · Small neighborhood convenience commercial centers should be developed along major access routes compatible with the policies of adjacent cities. · Restdct neighborhood centers to a minimum of one mile of each other or another commercial area. ........... 7'7 ................... -~ ................... r-r-' · Actively pursue all available funding for sidewalk improvements, including County Capital Improvement Programs, State and Federal grant funds Commu.-.!t'/ _r'e;'_~!c;me.".t'"- such as Community Development Block Grants for public improvements. MA~ 05 '99 (WED) 09:05 PAGE, 2/23 ~ BERHARDINO COUNTY INrrlN. STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This form and the descriptive information in the application package oorstitute the co, tents of Initial Study pursuant to County Guidelines under Oniinance 3040 and Secl~n 15063 of the S~a~e I. PROJECT' DESCRIFT'ION: USGS Quad: Countywide COMMUNITY: COUNTYWIDE T,R,Sectlon: Countywide APPLICANT: I.~ID USE SERVICES DEPT. FILE/INDEX: GPNCWl-B49N Thomas Bros: Countywide in dty spheres of influence OLUD: Various Improvement Level: Various PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: The project is a proposed amendment m the text =f the San Bemmdino County General Plan. It ma~ a~ ~ I ~nni~ ~ un~ ~$ in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ areas. The amendment also ecldreas~ t~e County's general approach towa~ ctx~lnating land The purpose of the General Plan amendment is to clarify the CounV8 Ired uae Planning authority and development approval discretion in sphere of Influence areas, as treated In the General Plan PROJECT SCOPE County Genenml Plan. affecting countywide ~, p~:Rid~-,s and action s~m ~te,:J ~ annexation, land use and grovdh management In unln~31x)mted areas wllhtn city spheres of plans and development standards In sphere areas, using the environmental review process pmsc~bed by CEQA to identify potenlial impacls and detem~ne aploe3prtate mi~gation. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factom checke~ below wou~ be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by ~ checklist on lhe following pages. [] Aesthetics ["] Agricullure Resources F"I Air Quality [] Hazards & I-b~rdo~ Materials [] Hydrology ! Water Qual~ [] Land Use/Planning [] Mineral Resourc~ r-I Noise [] Population I Housing [] PuMic Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic [] U~ltles ! Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance D""~ ~-RMINATION: (To be Completed by the Lead Agency) [] DT~E~ ploposed p~oject COULD NOT Ilave a sl~nJflca~l effect mi Ihe ~ and a NEGATIVE ECLARATION will be prepared. ~_~,_.._,~rfl euecx.m.m~s case IDeCaL~e rev~cms in ~ pro~ have been made bv oread ~ h~ e~ m pmpenen[ A MrrI6ATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be tared. _ o~ a..___ _ _...~ [] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on lbo environmBnt, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT k re~luired. mitigated" impact on the envirmment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ~cument pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation ~~ba~dO~ .on b'le. earlier arlaly~, as de~lll:x~d ~ attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL r~.~'u~ ~ rs required, but It muar armly'ze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] Although the proposed project ~ have · significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects Ca) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION N~E~ to app#~able stalldard$, and (b) have beert evoidm:l or mitfgategl pursuant to that earlier EIR o~ I=~ATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation proposed project, nothing fudher is required, measures t~at are impose~ upon the 2 ///? GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT SUMMARY cl~flmlk~, or Io refine existing goals a~ i:)ollcles ~em v~ l~e Intent of the o~glnal text. A txlef sumrna~' of the mom subs~mUve changes In the proposed General Plan text amendment follow~ · Gold D.40 encourages mn of urbanized areas In city em of Influence. ~ goal is revisacl to mendod, ac:conf, of Supewisors in determh~rl~ approlx~te oompalbilty w~ city development stmda~ls and public facilities. iMuence. It ks amended as follows, to assert Ihe County's aut~ ancI ms--lily for lan~ use planning in all u~x:oq~a~ arees: · A blanket requirement of Conditional Uso F~mlt appllcation~ in sphere of i~uenoe areas Is deleted, · The o~tJon of lhe Co,q~ Board of Supervisom In Im~ use plann~ and land dovelopment o~:~:ms for all unincorporated lan~ la clarified. amended text requires oonsiclora'don of ~ plans in lhe Counl~ review I)rOCeS~. · Land U~a Polloy LU-~O acldrm,,~s the need Ior ooordlrulted planninO eflofls and ooopemOon w~h other agerr,~ lhat have |uflsdiclJon over lancl~ wflhln the County. It is amended as follows. Io clarify the · Lanouaoe llml frdght be interpreted as · requirement to Ino:~po[.~ polcles of ol~er agenctes in the County General I~an has ~ delete. · One aclion item mlatecl to consultallm wflh Sf~e and Federal Agencies Is ~ because ano~er ~ addresses ~ ~ mo~ · Requimmen~ related 1o p~c~l~n ~n GANBAG ~o address ~-~h m~'~gemen~ ~ues ~e deleted ~ ~hey ~m n~t. con~m~ w~h b'~e · ~ Use Pdicy LU-11 details ~ that should be implemented t~ promote urbm inlill. One action item related to compatibility with city polioies is delet~l beoau~e the same issue is addre~ed adequately in Policy LU-9. ~ Valley Foothills Planning Area P~!!~-~ Two polic~ [equlrln9 adoption oi city ~andards or use of 'similar' standards are amended to Implement County requirements in a manner compatible with city standards: · Noise: A policy requiring site planning standards similar to those of adjacent communltle~ to reduce potent~ nelse Impacts is revised to ref~ lo noise abatement peffom~nce standards of the County Development Code. · HIIblde Development: A policy requking adoption of the hillside development standards of adjacent communities is amended to require irrlplemerdation of compatible standards, as determined by the County Board of , ~ Loma Ll~da/W~t Redlands Pla~..~....,~ Ama The propo~d General Plan Amendment includes deleUon of Ihe following two polici8~ related to public ~ in Ihe East Loma I.inda/West Redlands Plannin9 area: · 8ewice Requirements: A po/Icy req~no all new development In the Loma Linda and Redlands spheres of infiLmnce to comply w~th the service requirements of Ule sphere city Is deleted. This leaves the authority for clet~rmlnino such requirements wl~ tim County Board of 5upewisom, consislent with all olher specific plannir~ a,~,. ,.-.,,-...-- ,._u~_:__m~_ cny ~n~e. ?qulmment referenced above, there ts no need fo; a ~ ..u ,~--, P~,,,,.~ ~,,, ~.,~VK.~ Gommmnenr6..qpp~ public service Artrnmih~ard, e ara .~,,.,, developme t propom~ls In all untnc43'poratod areas of 5an Bernardino County. (1tm full text of all the afommenlloned pollcfes and proposed amendmenls is allached lo mis Inilial Study.) .pro e ~FrlOflO~lell~ -~' .... ~ ~ arlo grOWTh m~fl~oomon! poi(OB8 hlcJudlld ill ~ (~STlllfll! PI{M~ of Nev"dd~ ~ ,A, rtz~N'~. 'The County ~Z Ih~ ~ geographio .mas, each with unique ~tur'al arid socioeconomic ~nls: Valley, and Desert. 4 including alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, riparian woodlands, grasslands and wetlands. The valley ama has a Medltemanean olimote, with hot, dry summers and mild wintem. Temperatures range fTom C-_-~_a~nal frosts in t~e The 480 ~quam mae vaaey comprises less than 3% of the County land area, while it is home to approximately 80% of the population. Of b",e 24 ci'des in San Bemardino County, 15 am located in the valley ama: Chino. Chino ~n t~ R~nge eM, 8c~.~hem Celifc~. Ele~ in Itde Rm'~ge extm~l from 2,000 lt. along the fooeilim lo i i,500 tr. on Mt ,San Gorgonio, the highest peak in 8oulhern California. ~everal distinct plant communities _t~-~_~ in the Mountahm. end dry bakes. Most of the Desert Region is comprised ~ undeveloped federal lands aclndnistmed by the BLM, si~ mineral reeoumes and a great divemity of desert habitats; Including pll~niper woodlancl, Joshua F, ciel~ndlnO on location and e)evatlon. The tie,eft I~ is sparse (<20% of total County pop.), and al~tely 80e/o of it 18 cltmtered in eight Twentynine Palms and the Tow~ of Yt,~;aa Valley am located in the m~e remote southea~em portion of the Coumy. I. ~H~S ~ Wou~ ~e p~: a) Have a lubstlmtbiI adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] [] [] [] b) EubstantIal~ damage scenic resources, including, but riot limtted to. trees, rock outcroppings, and hlstod~ hJIMin~ within a state scenic highway? [] [] [] [] c) Substantially degrade the exbl~ng visual character or quatity of the site and its SmTOUndings? [] ~--I [] [] d) Cm~ ~ nmv m3u,-,.= of substan~al ligh~ or _hl.~m WhiCh Wou~l ~clvef~ affect clay or night,me views in the .r,,.? 0 [] [] [] SUBSTANTIATION (chec~ X ff I:)roja~ is i within ~a vlewshecl of any Scenic Route listed in lJ~e ~I Plan): reh~.......~,,,,, ~ or s~emc resources, in,= project Mil have no dJre~l phy~l Impm:ts on environment, and the po~nt~l differences In futura lancl devek3pment would ~ave no significant elfec~ on ,-..,.~_. ~,~_-.~,~_~.~.~rnent rev~ ~ures, ~u~ a rev~ ~ ~ eenera~ P~a~ Open spac~ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES-- In determining whether impeom to agriouRura] ~ are Mgnlfgant environmental effects, lead agcmcies mw refer to the Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Censawation as an optional mo(Jel to use In assessing ir~ on agn~culture and farmland. Would me pro~c~ Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, m' Farmlan0 of Statewlcle ImlXxtance (Farmland), as shown 6 PAGE. 8/2~ on the rrlapl~ prepared pursuant to Itm Farmland Mapping m~onc~, to non-agdc~,tond u~,e",' [] [] [] [] b) Conflict ~ existing zoning for agrictdtuml use, or a c) lnvotve ce~er changes in the existing environment convemlon of Farmland, to non-agricultural u~? [] [] [] [] The poicy charMml propo~ In Ibis Oe~ Plan AII~II~ are not exp~ to result In any slgrdlicant en~tal impa~ls related to agriculture. 'The pm~ct would revise County policies concemlng city spheres of As an indirect result of this project, mine properties may develop under County land [m jurisdiction instead of annexing to cities. Remaining unlnooqx)ratod would not affect existing or future agriculture. Standard County development n~ prooedures, including a review of the Important Farmlands Map and application of appropriate cons~ requirements vmuld minimize potential Impacts on agricultural resources. III. AIR GUALJ/Y-- V~ e~ail~. Ifa significance criteria established by the applicable air quality manal~t or air pollu~on ~onlrol district may be naiad upee to make the toik~n9 detenalnations, Would a) Conflict with or obstruct b~plemontation of · l~:dinabis air quality plan? [] [] [] [] b) Violate my air qual~ s~andard or contdbute substantially to an existing or projected air quality c) Result in a cumulativ~y considerable net Incmese of any criteria pollutant for wflich the project ragion is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quanmatlve thre~'K)ids for ~ precursor)? [] [] [] [] 7 IV. ~IOL.O~ICAL RF.~OURCE~-- Would the proje~ a) ~ a mJbst,m'l~l ~ e;i-m:t, ellher direclly or a~ a candidate, sensitive, or special status species In nt d F~h and Game or U.S. Fish and b) Have · substantial adverse effecl on any ripan~an habitat or ottter sensitive natural community idenl~ed in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Deparlment of Fish and Game or US Fish and c) Have a substantial adveme eftact on federldly Clmm Water Act (J~Jllg, but not/Jm~ venal Ix~ol, coastal, etc.) Ihrough direct removal, filing, hydrological Interruplion, or other means? [] [] [] [] d) Interfere substanUally with the movement of any naUve resident or ndgratmy f~t or wildlife spectes or wilh established native resident or migratory wildlife co~dors, or intpecle Ihe use of native wildl~ numMy sites? [] [] [] [] e) Confl~ wt~ any local policies or ordin~n~ f) Conflict wllh the provisions of an adopted HablWt ConsenmtJon Plan, Natural Community Conservation ~JB~TANTIATION (check if ixoject is located In the Biological Re~oun~es Ovellay__X m' contains habitat for any anflex~ng to c~Ues, RemmnJng unlncoqx~aWcl would not effect exisUng biological re~0un~. Standard County devek~pmem ~ ~ume include review of ~ me General PIm Bi~c Resoumm Overlay ~md aPPUCaUon of ~ re.ri requirements and mitigation measures as necEmal7 to m mt Imbi~t ~ minimize V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-- Would the project: ~) C~tme a ~ul~tan~l ~lveme ctmnge in ~ significance of ~ histo~cal re~oume a~ defined in b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Mgn~moe of an archaeological resource pumuant c) Dlrec$1y or im~irEl~ ~ a Ul~lUe pakmnto~icM 9 VI. GEOLOGY AND ~OIL,S-- Would the projec~ e) Expam lal~Ple a' 8t~clwa~ lo pola, dhl ~ul~tmnhl ~ o~r ~1 e~en~ ~a kn~ f~ Refer D~ ~ M~ a~ ~ S~l ~n 42. ii) ~ ~ ~ s~ IJO ~mi~d gmu~ ~ilum. in~udj~ b) R~ in ~m~l ~il ~ ~ ~ ~ d i~l? ),b,,.~ O~ 'g9 CW~D) 09:08 PAGe. 12/2~ VII. HAZARI)8 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAlS-- a) Create a sigrdficallt hn~'~ tO the public or the dir~x~l of ~n~m~,fdOU~ I~? [] [] [-1 [] 11 b) Create · sigrlifioant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous c) Emit h.~lous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely I~azan:lous malerials, subslan~es, ~ waste within one-quarler mile of an existing or proposed school? [] r'"] i'-I [] d) Be IOCaI~KI on a ~;~, whiah is inclu(k~ on a i~ of Govemmem C.o~e Se~ion 65962.5 and, as a result, woulcl I~ create a ,ignificant ha~.~_.M t~ the public or e) or, where such a plan has not been adoptad, within two miles of a pul=Ilo airport or publk~ use ah~ofl, woulcl the · ,,~u m~, prqe~ result in a safety hazard for people g) Imp~r Impl~menWtlon of or p~y~lcally interf~ wllh h) ExlX~e ~ or 5tmcturas t~ a $igni~ risk of io~,, Injur~ or dealh invo~vlng wlldland fires, Including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized area~ o~ where residence~ are intem~lxed wi~ wildlm~s? [] [] I~ [] .,, ,,,~,..,,= ,~ o,- a~,~ .f~. nor wou~d it create or e3~oo~e mo~e to ~,~'~aT~.': '-"--' "'~ '"" 12 Potw~,ally ~ tl~n ~ th~n No As an indirect result of ~ls project, mom properties may develop under Cotm~ land uso jurisdiction ir~l of requirements, al~lled in oonfom~mo~ with t~e I-laza~ Waste Management Plan wot~ minimize potan~l VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Would the a) Vlolaf~ any water quality standarcls o~ waste discharge b) Subst~nfi~ly d~ groundwater supplies o~ interfere would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or ,= Iowedng of the local groundwater rathe ~ (e.g.. me pro~u~n rate of pre-existing nearby wel~ would drop to a level wNch would not SUPlXXt e3dsting land uses or planned c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ~e or ama, including through the alteration of the =oume ~ a =boam or river, in a nmnne~ which would result in substantial erosion ~x siltation on- o~ d) ~ubstantJal~ alter Ute ex~sl~ng drainage p~ttem of s~or ama, lndudtng through the alteration of the coume of e .;,,~m or river, or subetantial~ increase the rate or amount of surface runo~ In a manner whlc~ wo~ld result In lloodlng on- or off-site? [] I--] [] e) Create o~ co~t~ibum runoff water which would ex~eed the capacity of ex~ling or pimmed slnmmmter drainage systems or provide sul~tanlJal a~dllJonal ~ou~ce~ of g) Place housing withtn a lO0-year flood hazard =,maas mapped on a federal Flood I-la~rd Bounder/or Flood Insurance Rate Map or olher flood lazard delineation 13 I)Mlnllally L4M ~ ~ U~lln No h) Place within a lO0-year ~ft~__ hazard area structures which would Iml;NKJe or red mci flood flows? [] [] [] I) E)qx~ people or stint--es to a significant risk of loss, Irdury or death involving flooding. Ir~uding flooding as remJfl of t~ fa~um of 8 h~vee or dsm? [] I"1 [] [] J) ~nundB~ bY Wehe. t~mL. o~ mudflow? [] [] i--] [] 61JBSTAJ~TIATION: ~ ~ _, ....... ,~ r.,,~.,~,u~qt. U~lTIgeS .--. -.-.~ ..... -- .,u (:urm~ I )' /C~IJA~ ~.~. ~ ..... rmoo nmJan~RatoMBpsMtheFm:lendEJTmmenev~A,.,~,~ DC. LAND LJSE AND PLANNING-- Would the project: a) Phy~dcalty divide an estaMIshed community? [] [] [] [] regulation of an agency wilh judsdicam over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, ~peclflc plan, Io~a! coastal program, or zoning orclinan~e) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitiga~ng an en~mnnmnt~l ~ r-I I-I [] [] or nstuml ~omn~fly conservation plan? [] [] [] [] 14 This projec[ wW have no direct phy, k:al i,q~cls on lhe environment, but It may increase Ihe I~ ~ ~ Th~ would ~ prevent ~le division of 8stablishe<l uninoo~3omtad communit~s, arid would not conflict with any X. MINEIMJ. RESOUROE8-- WouldlheprojE~t: a) Result in the ~ of evaikability of · known mtnaral m~m~ that would be of value to b~e r~i~n end b~e b) Rem~tinlt~ Ioa~ofavailablll~yofe bcallylm~ general plan, ~ecao pan o~ other and u~ plan? I-I I-I [] [] The policy ¢hanga~ I~ In thi~ Oeneml F~an Amendment am not ®xpecled to m~ult in a~y ~jnirmant remai~ unlncoq~ratKI, under County jurla~aon. No caang~ am ~ for any Ooa~, poliOes or ao~on item~ related to mineral re~ou _ree~__ This projeal wi~ have no dim~ I~ ~on the envir°nment, and the annex~'~g t~ cities. Remaining u~ would not affect ex~ mineral ma3ur¢~. Standa'd Cou~y developrmmt mviaw I~D~dU~, including a review o~ the Oeneml Plan Mineral Resource Overlay and XII, POPULATION AND HOUSING--Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, businesses) or indirectly (for ax~rnple, through extension b) Di~ substmnl~l nurrlbers of existing housing, c) Disp~ce substantial numbers of people, neces~ltating um o.mtm=~ of n,p~em~ ho~ng e~mere? [] [] [] [] ~UBSTANTIATION: Thb project will have no dime/phil h~mc~ on the envlrcmment, but It may inc=re~ the IJkeli~ for ~ in sphere areas to be approved and dev~c~ed under the County's jurb~liction, bam~l on County goaks ~ ~ No slgn~e~nt environm~m~ Impacts o~ population anti homdng can be anl~Cipated. X~I. PUre. lC 8ERVICE~-- a) Would the pmjmct result in subs~rddal adverse environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable 17 a) Would lhe project incrmam the use ~f existing nelghbomood and mgiona parks ~x other re<;eational fa~tlil]es ~ that sub~ phyMcsI cl~elioraUo~ of b) Does the pmje~ include ~1 hdl~ ~ ~T~T~N: _ wu~,~~u~r~siu' ~ ~~,~.--.~- 18 19 P~G;. 21/2~ poterWal dlfl'erev~es in planning and set. ce jurIKIIc~lon woukf have no signif'canl adverse environmental effects. 81andard County p~anning and devek3pmont review procedures ensure adequate levels of utility XVIL MANDATORY FINml~8 OF 8J~IIFIOANCE-- a) Dtxm b~e pmject have the potmltial tD degrade Ihe quMib/ or widlife speg:ies, ~ a r~h ar wildl~ popula~n ot drop Iff. cia of other current projacts, and the ~,~,,~cls of probable future c) Do~ Ihe ploj.~ Imve efwimnmerdnl ef~K~ which will cause SUBSTANTIATION: 5~leprojectraisenocon~emslhatwerenot~omidemdinthecheddisto~indlvtduallmpacts. (c). No poterdial for the best intmests of the population. No signi~ant environmental impacls woukl be caused by this proje~ dls~-~i~xt in all uniru:o~x~ted areas. The result is that ~e County MI not be obaged to implement city plans 2? XVlIL umGATION MEASUreS (None ~equ~d)