HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-50 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 13-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CODEAMENDMENT DRC2013-00873,A SUPPLEMENTAL
UPDATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment
DRC2013-00873 for a supplemental update to the City's Development Code found in Title 17 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
2. On October 23, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Planning 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 the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 23, 2013, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City's Development Code
that implements the policies of the General Plan, in July 2012. The new Development Code
became effective on September 4, 2012.
b. Based on feedback received since the effective date of the Development Code,the
City prepared a set of amendments (the"Amendments"), which is included as Attachment A to this
Resolution and is hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
C. Development Code Amendment DRC2013-00873 conforms to and does not
conflict with the General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof, and will
provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.
d. The City has prepared an Addendum (the "Addendum") to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2000061027) (the "Final EIR"),
attached hereto as Attachment B to this Resolution,which confirms that the environmental impacts
stemming from Development Code Amendment DRC2012-01056 were adequately addressed in the
Final EIR and that a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is not required for the Development
Code Update. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act, its implementing regulations at 14 California Code of Regulations §
15000 et seq., and the City's local CEQA guidelines (collectively "CEQA").
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-50
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT - DRC2013-00873 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
October 23, 2013
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Development Code
Amendment DRC2013-00873.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce arnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 23rd day of October 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WIMBERLY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
2
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Staff is recommending the following amendments to the Development Code. These
amendments are shown in track changes as excerpts from relevant sections of the
Development Code with new language shown with underlined text and existing language to be
removed shown with strike out text.
Article III Zoning Districts, Uses and Standards
Chapter 17.30 Allowed Land Use by Base Zoning District
TABLE 17.30.030-1 ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BY
BASE ZONING DISTRICT
US@IZOOIO »J o f Z S ' d U V y U (��t O d t rY V �U
� � r
Emergency N N N N N N N N I N CPN N N N N C N N N N TNN
Shelter —
Chapter 17.32 Allowed Use Descriptions
Section 17.32.020 Allowed Use Descriptions
9. Service Station. A retail business selling gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels.
May include a convenience store. Vehicle services which are incidental to
fuel services are included under Vehicle Services — Minor.
Section 17.36.030 Development Standards for Commercial and
Office Zoning Districts
D. Other Miscellaneous Commercial and Office Development Standards.
0,1. Equipment Screening. Any equipment whether on the roof, side of building or
ground shall be screened. The method of screening shall be architecturally
integrated in terms of material, color, shape and size. The screening design shall
blend with the building design. Where individual equipment is provided a continuous
screen is desireable.
Section 17.36.040 Development Standards for Industrial Districts
TABLE 17.36.040-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
g,Di velopmerit Standard/Zoning District IP GI `' tNUHI ,Hl
Lot Area (minimum)I') 0.5 ac 0.5 ac 5a�or 5 ac
Attachment A
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Development Standard/Zoning District IP GI MI/HI Hh
Lot Width (minirrum)(3) 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft
Setback(minimum distance between structure and property line in feet))0)
Front Yard See Table 17.36.040-2
Side Yard 5 ft ts) 5 ft(5) 5 ft(5) 5 ft(5)
Street Side Yard (and rear yard abutting street) See Table 17.36.040-2
Rear Yard O ft(5) O ft(5) O ft(5) O ft(5)
Distance Between Buildings
Primary Buildings
Must meet current Building Code requirements
Accessory Buildings
Building Height(maximum in feet)
35 ft at the front setback. plus 1 it feF every-1 ft
Primary Buildings ad&iGna4setbask ( Maximum height is 750
feet u
Accessory Buildings 14 ft 18 ft 18 ft 24 ft
Floor Area Ratio (maximum ratio of building to lot square footage)
Floor Area Ratio 40-60% 1 500% n/a 40-50%
Open Space Requirement (minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project)
Open Space/Landscape Area 15% 10% 1%(')/ 10%(2)/5%
Other
Performance Standards (see Chapter 17.66) A B C/B(z) C
Table Notes:
(1) Condominium Lots. Condominium lots and lots within an approved Master Planned Development are exempt from
required minimum parcel size and dimension requirements.
(2) The following applies within 1,000 feet of Arrow Route:minimum 2-acre lot area; 10%minimum landscape area;and the
'B"level Performance Standards(Chapter 17.66).
(3) Setbacks shall be the minim um required under the City's currently adopted Building Code.
(4) Setback shall be increased to 45 feet when abutting a residential property line.
(5) See Table 17.36.040-2 for parcels abutting special boulevards as indicated in Figure 17.36.040-1 (Special Streetscape
Requirements).
f6) Buildings exceeding 35 feet high shall be set back an additional 1 it from the front setback for each 1 ft of height up to a
maximum setback of 70 feet.
(7) Heights over 75 feet may be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit.
D. Other Miscellaneous Industrial Development Standards.
1. Special Streetscape. Future development and redevelopment within industrial
areas shall be consistent with the special Streetscape standards listed in
Table 17.36.040-2 (Streetscape Setback Requirements) and as depicted in
Figure 17.36.040-1 (Special Streetscape Requirements).
TABLE 17.36.040-2 STREETSCAPE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Average Depth of gulldm Setback ., Parkin Setback
Street T e 1�`3 °� 154
YP _Landscape, s) `
Major Arterial & Special 45 ft 45 ft 25 ft
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Boulevard
Secondary 35 ft 35 ft 20 ft
Local/Collector 25 ft 25 ft 15 ft
Table Notes.
(1) The average depth shall be uninterrupted from the face of curb, except for sidewalks, pedestrian hardscape, plazas and
courtyards,and monument signs.
(2) Parcels less than 225 feet in depth from the ultimate curb face on special boulevards are not required to provide an
average depth of landscaping or building setback greater than 25 feet or 20% the depth of the property, whichever is
greater.
(3) As determined from ultimate face of curb.
(4) Average depth of landscaping must still be provided.
(5) Street frontage walls and fences over 3 feet in height are subject to building setbacks.
(6) Setback may be increased based on building height See Table 17.36 040-1
6. Rail Service. Properties which adjoin existing or proposed lead or spur lines
shall provide rail service access. Rail crossings and any spur construction
must be approved by the railroad and the Public Utilities Commission. The
following rail service standards, unless modified by the railroad or the Public
Utilities Commission, shall apply:
a. Minimum easement width for a lead line, single track shall be thirty
two (32) feet.
b. Minimum easement width for a double rail track shall be forty one (41)
feet.
C. The minimum radius of curvature for a track shall be one hundred
eighty (180) feet.
d. The maximum gradient along spur tracks shall not exceed two (2)
percent.
e. Dock height shall be no less than four and one half (4.5) feet above
the top of the spur track.
f. Road crossings at grade should be avoided wherever possible.
g. Spur trackage is not permitted along any building frontage and must
be confined to the side or rear portions of the buildings.
h. Lot divisions and building layouts for properties which adjoin existing
or proposed lead and spur lines shall be done in a manner to ensure
full potential of future rail access and use and should not preclude rail
access to other properties adjacent to such rail lines. Subdivisions
which could reduce a property's ability to accommodate potential rail
served developments, may not be authorized.
i. Building design shall include rail service features to ensure the
potential use of available spur lines.
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
j Finished floor elevations and dock height door or "kick out' wall
panels shall be provided in all properties abutting rail lines.
k. The above-referenced rail service development standards may be
amended or deleted on a site-by-site basis during the development
review process. The following must be determined by the Planning
Commission in order to authorize any modification of the rail service
standard:
i. That the installation of a lead or spur track cannot be
accomplished due to physical constraints on or adiacent to the
Proiect site; and
ii. Other existing or potential rail service properties will not be
negatively affected in their ability to accommodate rail service
activity as a result of modifications to the standards.
7. Equipment Screening. The following equipment screening standards shall
apply:
a. All roof, wall and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from
all sides within the Industrial Park (IP) and General Industrial (GI)
zoning districts.
b. Wherever possible all roof, wall and ground mounted equipment shall
be screened from all sides within the Minimum Impact/Heavy
Industrial (MI/HI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) zoning districts
Vic. All screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building
design and where possible a roof parapet wall shall be used to screen
roof or wall mounted equipment. Where roof mounted mechanical
equipment and/or ductwork proiects more than 18 inches above the
roof or roof parapet, it shall be screened by an architecturally design
enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design
and is detailed consistent with the building. Where roof mounted
mechanical equipment and/or ductwork projects less than 18 inches
above the roof or roof parapet it shall be painted consistent with the
color scheme of the building.
Article IV Site Development Provisions
Chapter 17.48 Fences, Walls, and Screening
Section 17.48.050 Requirements by Land Use Type
C. Residential.
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
1. Trail fences and gates shall be kept in good repair at all times, including
replacing damaged members and maintaining plumb. This shall not preclude
the property owner from replacing the existing trail fence with another fence
or wall material.
2. Height. The height of fences in residential district is limited according to the
following table.
TABLE 17.48.050-1 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES AND WALLS IN REQUIRED YARD AREA
Y ,Location or z
r Location of FencelV{lall/Screening e r Mini h um Setback Maximum Height t1I
� �) t:
of Fend
Required front yard area 0 ft(Y) 3 fU 6 ft(3)
Required rear and interior side yard area (along rear 0 ft 6 ft
and interior property lines)
Required street side yard area (along corner side 5 ft 1sI 6 ft
property lines)
At intersections of streets, alleys, and driveways within Varies(4) 360 in
the clear visibility triangle
All other areas of lot 0 ft 6 ft
Table Notes:
(1) As part of Site Development Review, Design Review(Minor or Major), or other discretionary entitlement, the designated
approving authority may grant additional height or location requirements to enclose or screen specific areas or uses or for
fences and walls designed for noise attenuation.
(2) Setback area for street side yard is measured property line to the fence or wall.
(3) Height of front yard fence or wall may be increased to a maximum of 6 feet if the top 3 feet of fencing is constructed of
material that is 90%visually open and transparent(e.g.,picket fence, open wood slats, open wrought iron)including any
architectural features designed as part of the fence(e.g.,pilasters and lights).
(4) See definition of clear vision triangle in Section 17.126(Universal Definitions).
3. Outdoor Recreation Courts. Fencing for outdoor recreation courts (e.q. tennis courts
basketball courts) shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height and shall be located five (5) feet
from any rear or side property lines except when adjacent to outdoor recreation courts on
adjacent properties.
Chapter 17.56 Landscaping Standards
Section 17.56.040 Landscape Plan Review Process
A. Landscaping Plans Subject to Review. When the requirements of this Chapter are
applicable as established in Section 17.56.020 (Applicability), the following
landscape plan review process shall be conducted in conjunction with design review
for the proposed action, pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.16.140 (Design
Review).
3. Approving Authority. The designated approving authority shall be the same
as the designated approving authority of the entitlement for new projects or
existing development as identified in Section 17.56.020 (Applicability). For
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
projects in the wildland-urban interface fire area, the Fire Chief is an
additional approving authority.
4. Approval of Preliminary and Final Plans. The designated approving authority
shall review and approve the preliminary landscape and irrigation plan. Upon
approval of the preliminary landscape and irrigation plan, a final landscape
and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the approving authority prior to
issuance of Building Permits for new projects or
applicable expansions to existing development as established in Section
17.56.020 (Applicability).
5. Approval Required. The landscaping shall not be installed until the applicant
receives approval of the final landscape and irrigation plan by the approving
authority and any applicable permits have been issued.
6. Changes to Final Plans. Changes to the approved final landscape and
irrigation plans that affect the character or quantity of the plant material or
irrigation system design are required to be resubmitted for approval before
installation.
Chapter 17.58 . Outdoor Lighting Standards
Section 17.58.020 Applicability
The requirements of this Chapter apply to all new and existing development. Whenever
a person is required to obtain a Building Permit, Electrical Permit, and/or approval of a
planning entitlement, the applicant shall submit sufficient information for the approving
authority to determine whether the proposed lighting will comply with the requirements
of this Chapter.
Chapter 17.64 Parking and Loading Standards
Section 17.64.040 General Parking and Loading Requirements
B. Parking Space and Drive Aisle Dimensions.
1. When outdoors (e.g., parking lot), each parking space shall have a minimum
size of nine feet (9') by seventeen feet (187') with a required one foot (1')
overhang (e.g., over a curb stop) and shall be free of obstructions such as
columns or walls.
1-2. All parking stalls shall be permanently maintained with double lines, with two
lines located an equal of nine inches (9") on either side of the stall sidelines.
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
TABLE 17.64.040-1: ANGLED PARKING SPACE AND DRIVE AISLE DIMENSIONS
" Stall Width Stall to Curb}r '{ Alste : Two Rows+ 4z
p
Angle a , b` �� Alsle;,
91_0, A 191_01, 25-0"(1) 63'-0".
900 9'-6" 191_0" 24'-8"(1) 62'-6"
10'-0" 19'-0" 24'-0"(1) 62'-0"
9'-0" 21'0" 20'-0"(1) 62"-0"
9'-0" 21'_0" 19'-011(2) 61'_0"
600 9'-6" 21'-3" 18'-611(�)
61'-0"
10,_011 21'-6" 181_011(2) 61'_0"
9'-0" 19'-10" 20'-0"(1) 59'-8"
9'-0" 19'-10" 16'-011(2) 56'-0"
45°
9'-6" 20._2.. 15,_21y21 55,x„
10'-0" 20'-6" 14'-011(2) 55'-0"
Table Notes:
(1) Two-way aisle
(1) One-way aisle
Section 17.64.050 Number of Parking Spaces Required
C. The following number of parking spaces shall be required to serve the uses or
buildings listed, as established in Table 17.64.050-1 (Parking Requirements by Land
Use). Multiple property owners may apply for a use permit for shared parking
pursuant to Section 17.64.060 (Reductions in Parking Requirements). Otherwise, all
uses must provide the sum of the requirements for each individual use. Where the
requirements result in a fractional space, the next larger whole number shall be the
number of spaces required. In addition, the requirements listed below shall apply.
7. "Square feet" means "gross square feet" and refers to the sum gross square
feet of the floor area of a building and its accessory buildings unless
otherwise specified.
8. For the purpose of calculating residential parking requirements, dens,
studies, or other similar rooms that may be used as bedrooms shall be
considered bedrooms.
9. Where the number of seats is listed to determine required parking, seats shall
be construed to be fixed seats. Where fixed seats provided are either
benches or bleachers, one seat shall be construed to equal eighteen (18)
linear inches for pews and twenty-four inches (24") for dining, but in no case
shall seating be less than determined as required by the Building Code. .
10. When the calculation of the required number of off-street parking spaces
results in a fraction of a space, the total number of spaces shall be rounded
up to the nearest whole number.
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
11. Where private streets are proposed for residential development, resident and
guest parking shall be provided as determined by the approving authority in
conjunction with the required planning entitlement(s).
44-12. For projects on commercial, office and industrial zoned properties, square
footage dedicated to restrooms, hallways and stairwells may be deducted
from the gross square footage for parking stall calculation purposes.
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
ADDENDUM
This Addendum to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2000061027)(the"EIR") has been prepared in connection with the City's supplemental amendment
to the Development Code (the "Project"). The Addendum confirms that the environmental impacts
stemming from the Project were adequately addressed in the EIR and that a subsequent EIR or Negative
Declaration is not required for the Project.
Proposed Supplemental Development Code Amendments
The Project consists of supplemental amendments to the City's recently adopted comprehensive
Development Code, which was in turn adopted to implement the policies of the recently completed 2010
General Plan Update. Since adoption of the Development Code Update in July 2012, City staff has
identified several errors and omissions in the Development Code that were never intended to be
eliminated from the Code. Staff has also identified areas where text is inconsistent or incomplete and
requires further clarification to properly communicate the intended development requirements. Further,
staff identified one land use, Emergency Shelters that as currently written, is inconsistent with State law.
State law requires all jurisdictions to allow Emergency Shelters"by right" in at least one zoning district. In
the Housing Element of the General Plan, we identified the GC (General Commercial) zone as the
appropriate zone to allow this type of land use "by right"; however, the Development Code was not
updated accordingly. The purpose of the Project is to correct these errors and omissions and clarify text
where necessary. It is therefore considered to be largely procedural in nature. The Project will not affect
the current methods of conducting environmental review for new development applications. Table A-1
summarizes the changes proposed in the project and the reason for including into the Development Code.
Table A-1:Summary of Proposed Changes to the Development Code
Article Chapter Topic Change Proposed Reason
III 17.30 Emergency Need to allow for Emergency Consistency with State law;
Shelters Shelters"by right" in GC zone. unintentionally omitted from
Development Code.
III 17.32 Definition Review the definition of "Service Consistency with prior
Stations" to determine if it is definition of gas/service
appropriate to include convenience stations.
stores, or create a unique service
station definition with convenience
stores.
III 17.36 Industrial Revise front setback on the table Error in transcription from
Building Height to max 70 feet, set max building old to new code.
Attachment B
Page 1 of 6
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Article Chapter Topic Change Proposed Reason
height to 75 feet(or more with a
CUP).
111 17.36 Rail Standards Reincorporate Rail Service Standards. Unintentionally omitted from
the old code.
III 17.36 Backup Reincorporate the language that Unintentionally omitted from
distance for requires 24 feet clearance from the old code.
vehicles driveways for backup purposes.
IV 17.48 Fence/Wall Correct inconsistency between text Clarifying text to eliminate
Height and definition of Clear Visibility an inconsistency.
Triangle for fence/wall/hedge
height
IV 17.48 Recreational Add development standards for Unintentionally omitted from
Fencing recreational court fencing from the old code.
the old code.
IV 17.56 Landscape Plan Clarification needed on when Clarifying text to eliminate
Review Process final landscape plans are an inconsistency.
required to be submitted (after
entitlement approval, not
before).
IV 17.58 Outdoor Clarify that this chapter applies Clarifying text to eliminate
Lighting to existing development, not just an inconsistency.
new development.
IV 17.58 Industrial Dock Reinstate development standards Unintentionally omitted from
Lighting for wall mounted industrial dock the old code.
lighting.
IV 17.64 Parking stall Inconsistency between the text Clarifying text to eliminate
length and table for minimum parking an inconsistency
stall length dimension
Page 2 of 6
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Article Chapter Topic Change Proposed Reason
IV 17.64 Parking Reinstate the language that Unintentionally omitted from
exempts restrooms, hallways, the old code.
stairwells, etc. from parking
calculations.
IV 17.64 Double striping Add typical standards for double Unintentionally omitted from
striping of parking spaces from the old code.
the old code
III 17.36 Equipment Reinstate development requirement Unintentionally omitted
Screening that equipment screening to be from the old code.
architecturally compatible and
integrated with the building design.
The 2010 General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report
On May 19, 2010, the City Council adopted the 2010 General Plan Update and certified the EIR. The
updated plan serves as the foundation for many of the City's regulatory documents, including the
Development Code, specific plans, community plans, master plans, and design guidelines. With the 2010
General Plan Update, the City's focus shifted to infill development (development of remaining vacant
properties within developed business districts and residential neighborhoods).
The EIR evaluated potential for the 2010 General Plan Update to result in environmental impacts, as
summarized in the following table:
No Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significant and Unavoidable
Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Aesthetics
Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Agricultural Resources
Geology and Soils Materials Air Quality
Population, Housing and Hydrology and Water Quality Climate Change
Employment Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Public Services Noise
Parks and Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
The City made findings regarding the environmental impacts of adopting the General Plan as well as
overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts, both individually and cumulatively, for
Page 3 of 6
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
the following issues: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Mineral
Resources.
The findings made by the City necessary to certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan also included a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program. For impacts to Land Use and Planning,the City determined
that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the General Plan that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR resulting in a less than significant impact. More
specifically the City's findings stated there would be no conflict between the General Plan and the
Development Code because updates to the Development Code, as well as adherence to standard
conditions related to consistency of future development with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update
and the City's Development Code, will reduce the potential impacts related to plan consistency to a less
than significant level.
CEQA Review Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") generally requires agencies to analyze the possible
environmental impacts of a project prior to approval. Depending on the nature and extent of the potential
impacts, the agency may be required to adopt a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration
adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the
following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible,and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
Page 4 of 6
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 1010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
If the none of these conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration are
met, but minor technical changes or additions are necessary to a previously adopted environmental
document are needed, Section 16164 of the CEC,A Guidelines allow the lead agency to prepare an
addendum to the prior environmental document.
A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant should be included in the
addendum, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must
be supported by substantial evidence.
The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR
or adopted Negative Declaration, and must be considered by the decision-making body prior to making a
decision on the project.
Analysis
This addendum to the EIR has been prepared for the Project because none of the conditions specified in
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative
Declaration are met.
First, the Project does not propose substantial changes in the City's development regulations that were
not analyzed in the EIR or that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.
The Project simply implements the goals and policies adopted in the City's General Plan and analyzed in
the General Plan EIR. The General Plan specifically mentions revising and updating the Development
Code, as shown in the following table.
The Development Code shall be updated to reflect the density and LU-2.1, LU-2.2, LU-3.3, LU-
intensity ranges (especially along Foothill Boulevard) as specified in 3.8, LU-4.2, LU-4.3, LU-4.5,
the General Plan including updating the development standards to be LU-5.1, LU-9.5, ED-2.1, ED-
consistent with the General Plan provisions. (Table LU-2 of Chapter 2) 2.4 ED-4.4
The Development Code shall be updated to develop guidelines or LU-2.4, LU-9.1, LU-9.2, LU-
standards that will guide infill development and make it compatible 9.4, ED-1.4, ED-4.1
with the surrounding neighborhood communities.
The proposed project does not change either the policies or the figures shown in both the EIR and the
General Plan. The project does not change any densities, intensities, land uses, or designations beyond
those analyzed in the EIR. As a result, there is no change in the project and no new significant
environmental effects,or increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
Page 5 of 6
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Second, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The EIR, which addressed the impacts of adopting the City's General Plan and revisions to the
Development Code, was adopted on May 10, 2010. The existing conditions reported in the EIR are very
similar to those currently in existence. Since adoption of the General Plan in 2010, the City has not
processed any amendments to the plan. As a result, there are no substantial changes to the environment
which would require a modification of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Third,there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified that shows(a)the Project
will have any significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b)the significant effects examined in the EIR will
be substantially more severe than previously shown; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found to be infeasible would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project; or (d) considerably different mitigation measures or alternatives than those
analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment are
now available.
As the Project is consistent with the General Plan there are no new effects that were not discussed in the
EIR. Similarly, the Project will not result in changes to the impacts identified in the EIR that could be
considered substantially more severe. The Project does not alter any of the review processes in place for
new projects, nor does it exempt new uses in the zoning ordinance from review. The Project addresses
areas of responsibility for development review and affirms the appropriate body to make
recommendations clarifies appeal procedures and establishes project review timelines. None of these
changes will result in physical changes to the environment inconsistent with the General Plan as analyzed
in the EIR. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Summary
In summary,the General Plan EIR sufficiently analyzed the potential impacts associated with the proposed
Development Code Update. The City has a thorough development review process that is fully
documented in the General Plan EIR, and that will remain in place following the proposed project.
Page 6 of 6