Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/03/28 - Agenda Packet - PC : r THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO MARCH 28 GUCAMON AMONGA , 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell _ Fletcher_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 8, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes III. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN -A request to make site improvements including installing a temporary office module, constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee eating area and parking for a 4.42 project site located within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory - Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue - APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 & 02. Related Project: DRC2011-00254. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. • 1 of 4 _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 28, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 -ALLSTATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to operate a 4.42-acre recycling facility including the use of a temporary office module within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue -APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 & 02. Related File: Development Review DRC2011-00255 Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS • VI. 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 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TO DISCUSS THE LAIONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010- 00157 AND TO CONDUCT PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 22, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ze"A�' • 2of4 Y - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO MARCH 28, 2012 CUC&MONGA If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is • important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,216 for maps and $2,328 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). • 3 of 4 V PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO MARCH 28, 2012 CUCAMONGA Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us • • 4of4 Vicinity Map Planning Commission Meeting March 28 , 2012 ------------------------- ! .--] -------------- - - i rJ fj y y E a o c r E d @ > CL CL U = Q 2 2 d I d to U j c � m 19th Sty •� Base Line Base Line r�;f Church Church -oothill Foothill c c � m y Arrow E ' Arrow Jersey r 3 ! 8th 0 W � Aand B °• R H H N C9 6th ' c 6th W d Y 4th 4th • * Meeting Location: City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Regular Meeting February 8, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca ABSENT: Ray Wimberly, Frances Howdyshell STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca (Howdyshell,Wimberly absent), carried 3-0-2,to approve the minutes of January 25, 2012. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Munoz indicated that because of his employment in the communications field, he would feel that in the public's interest he should recuse himself on the following item. He noted that this would create a lack of quorum and therefore no action would be taken on Item A. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00873 - AT&T MOBILITY - A request to modify the existing wireless communication facility housed in a 57-foot, 6-inch high cross tower(MDR 00- 14) in order to replace the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas and related equipment for a site located on the north side of Highland Avenue and west of Cambridge Avenue in the Low(L) Residential Development District at 9944 Highland Avenue - APN: 0201-055-49. Staff has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). • Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney said the item would be re-noticed and scheduled for a future meeting. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254-ALL • STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to operate a 4.42-acre recycling facility including the use of a temporary office module within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03&02. Related File: Development Review DRC2011-00255 Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255- ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to make site improvements including installing a temporary office module, constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee eating area and parking for a 4.42-acre project site located within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN:0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03& 02. Related Project: DRC2011-00254. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Chairman Munoz recommended that the items be pulled and brought back to the DRC for review. He said the applicant wants to change things that were agreed to at the DRC and that although the applicant submitted a letter to staff; he had not had the opportunity to review it. He said their request is specific to the wall material and the in-lieu fee calculation. He felt that a discussion at this time would be premature, that it should be returned to the DRC for proper review. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney explained that new information was brought forward today and the Chair would like to bring it back to the DRC for further review. • Commissioner Fletcher stated that since it was agendized and previously reviewed by the DRC, he would like to proceed and discuss the item tonight. He said it is not out of the ordinary to proceed although he thought they had agreed to a block wall at the DRC, but undergrounding fees are often discussed at the Planning Commission level. He said he did not want to delay the applicants. Chairman Munoz said it was ready to go and approved as presented to the DRC, but now the conditions have changed and he would like to review it again at the DRC. He moved that the items be sent to the DRC for another review. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if it has been reviewed before. Chairman Munoz stated, yes, twice. Commissioner Fletcher clarified that the applicant agreed, but now they want to review and discuss it. He asked if they needed to appeal the DRC decision. Mr. Flower stated that this does not require a separate appeal as the DRC is a recommending body. He said the item goes to DRC with a recommendation and then it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision. Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that there is one item in question for the DRC to review-a block wall vs. a metal fence. He said the other is in-lieu or phased payments of underground fees based on the acquisitions of currently leased parcels. Mr. Flower confirmed that in lieu fees are not for DRC review. • Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 8, 2011 Commissioner Oaxaca stated the block wall was discussed in October and the project was recommended to the Commission with a block wall proposed. He confirmed that it did not reappear • for the meeting in January where the temporary trailer was discussed. Chairman Munoz said this issue has not gone back and forth; the applicant agreed, the DRC approved it to move forward and now the applicant does not want that condition. Commissioner Fletcher said he read about the tan corrugated metal fence request. He said he did not think it appropriate to delay the item. He said the Commission could approve the application with the block wall as recommended and let them appeal the decision if they are not in agreement. Chairman Munoz asked for the staff report. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner gave the staff report and history of the business. He summarized the required improvements including curb, sidewalks, landscaping, a wall, and additional fencing. He said they upgraded the windows in the adjacent single-family dwelling per a noise study. He said the application was continued last time because the owner wished to add a scale to weigh vehicles and to use a temporary building. He said now the applicants do not want to do the walls and do not want to pay the full undergrounding fees. He said the applicant feels that because they lease two parcels on the property they should not have to pay for those. He said if the decision is to defer payment until they own the entire site;there would be no guarantee for payment in future. He said staff believes the improvements will help beautify the area particularly along Whittram Avenue. Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that the scale building is located on the southern portion of the property and if it straddles the property line. • Mr. van der Zwaag confirmed it was not wide enough, and therefore is straddling the property line. He said the owners processed a lot line adjustment to allow room for trucks to pass via the southern portion of the property which in effect lessens the truck traffic on Whittram Avenue. He said the applicants are willing to do all street improvements but not the undergrounding. He explained that the property with the single-family home is leased to them and there is an auto repair next door. He said it had become a wrecking yard and Code Enforcement has been working with the owner. Commissioner Fletcher suggested that if there is a 5-year lease, if the applicants have not acquired those properties in 5 years, then they could pay the fees at that time. He said that in the past we have not required the undergrounding fees for improvements taking place off-site. He said we are collecting fees on leased property and the applicants may not be there in 5 years. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer said the lease issue is not involved with the City. He said we would have to impose a condition for the paying of the fees in 5 years or shut them down. He said it is similar to when street improvements are required. They must guarantee completion of the street improvements with a bond and there is a timeline. He said they could do a timeline on the undergrounding. Mr. Flower said that the point about the property being only leased to the applicants is not relevant. He said development often occurs on leased land. He said this issue should be worked out with the property owner and the lessee. Commissioner Fletcher noted that to him the Heavy Industrial zone area is akin to the adage of the silk purse/sows ear. He said Whittram Avenue is an industrial street and it is not a pretty site, so to require a lot of expense that will not affect their business nor the City did not seem appropriate. He • said it is a hodge-podge area. He granted that we may have to start someplace and improvements on this property may encourage other owners to improve as well. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 8, 2011 Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the railroad right of way and what is on the parcel to south across the tracks. Mr. van der Zwaag said it is currently vacant land. • Mr. Henderson added that the property is used for overflow parking for the racetrack and it was at one time a proposed soccer complex. Commissioner Oaxaca asked what the requirement for a block wall was based on. Mr. van der Zwaag said it is a standard condition to require either a solid block wall or a metal fence with a metal backing. He said the DRC did not feel metal fencing was not appropriate and would not look nice. Chairman Munoz clarified that the applicant's proposal was not actual metal fencing, but just old metal sheets that have been recycled for fencing. Mr. van der Zwaag said they used non approved metal fencing. He said the Edison Company no longer wanted them on their easement, so now they want to use the old fencing that was being used there. He said it is solid metal sheets with a V protrusion. He said it is not an actual fencing product, but something that was custom built. (He displayed a photo of the material on the overhead). Commissioner Oaxaca commented from his experience with the railroads. He said there concern is how to prevent access from a property owner's side and how to discourage access from rail easement onto private property. He said a block wall may be the option of choice, but sometimes it is as effective to use wrought iron fencing. He said the footings for a block wall along the rail line could be a challenge. He said there would be no reason anyone would want to cross there, and he • would be willing to look at alternatives to a block wall that would meet our standards. Mr. van der Zwaag says the City has no history of metal fencing along railroad easements. Commissioner Fletcher asked if we are attempting to screen the view from passing trains or something else. Commissioner Oaxaca noted that passengers sitting in the upper level of a train are about 16-feet high and therefore the wall/fence would need to be 20 feet tall to really screen the property. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. George Chu, 718 West 16'" Street in Upland, representing All State Recycling clarified that the letter was first distributed on December 14 and then again yesterday. He said the metal steel panels would be painted to match the block wall that will be constructed along Whittram Avenue. He said it would be supported by steel columns every 20 feet. He said the owners have been in business since 1987 and currently employ 40 people. He said the panels are 8 feet tall and they have been to DRC twice. He thanked staff for their assistance. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are efforts to purchase middle property. Mr. Chu responded, yes; they are not ready to sell and the elderly lady does not want to move. He said her son works next door and they have been living there for about 30 years. He said the parcel to the east is a different owner. He said he tried to purchase it but they are not ready to sell either; it is owned by an irrevocable trust. • Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 8, 2011 Commissioner Fletcher said the letter indicates the objection to the block wall was because of cost. He said he got the impression tonight that the metal fence material-not a commercial fence-was • something custom from the other facility. He said he visited the facility on one occasion and thought it was filthy and dangerous and would not go back there again. He said he is sympathetic to not spending too much on the railway right of way, but he would have reservations about approving a makeshift fence. Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Fletcher said his initial concern was about the expense in this particular area. He said he would think it to be more appropriate to require this with new construction applications. He said this is a large area and he did not want to apply standards that are not applied to others on Whittram. He said he did not think the underground fees are unreasonable for properties that are owned by the applicant. He said he is ok with delaying the fees for the properties that are leased (5 years). He said he has not seen the fencing the applicants want to put up so he is not sure that he could decide any differently than the DRC did. Commissioner Oaxaca said we could have an opening to consider a condition to pay the in-lieu fees in entirety but within a reasonable timeframe. He agreed that he is not comfortable with the fencing material and he has not seen an option proposed that fits in with our current standards. He said there are other barriers that could accomplish the screening that would also consider the surrounding properties. He said he would look at a condition to pay the initial fees and require the balance over a maximum of 5 years that would compel them to pay remainder. Chairman Munoz said phasing has been considered before. He asked staff if there is a way to collect an initial portion and phase a part. He asked if it is enforceable. • Mr. James said it is not customary. Mr. Flower said it would have to tie to some time period. He said the City has not seen a lease and we have no way to monitor it. He said if it was not paid in 5 years, we would have to revoke their CUP; that is how it would be enforced, either they pay or shut them down. He said the process could be done. Mr. James said it is just like public improvements; they have a time line and if they are not completed, the applicant is also faced with that process. Chairman Munoz said he concurred about the wall. He said we rely on City standards and the concern has nothing to do with the wall being observed or being seen by the trains. He said there are safety issues and normally we require walls all the way around for safety. He said in-lieu fees are problematic and coming up with a condition is difficult because we do not know what will happen in future with this business or those leased properties. He said he cannot ask future projects to underground if we let this one go. He said we have negotiated with the applicant several times and he was surprised this came up. He said we prefer to operate this way and we would hold others to the same standard. He said they can be non-conforming until they develop and then they will face the same requirement. Commissioner Fletcher said he forgot to ask the applicant the level of difficulty of constructing block wall along the train right of way. Mr. Chu noted that the challenge was mentioned by Commissioner Oaxaca but they would face big footings and a trench the full length of the wall, several feet deep along with workers and related • equipment. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 8, 2011 Chairman Munoz said that is an engineering issue and they would have to allow room along their property line for the construction of the wall. Commissioner Fletcher said he does not believe 'one size fits all'. He said the City is getting • improvements along Whittram Avenue plus more. He said he does not like their alternative scrap fencing but he has a problem with taking fees for portions of property they don't own. He said he would like to condition them to pay the fees within 5 years and if that is approved then accept the application with.the approved block wall. Mr. Flower said that if the applicant does not agree, they could appeal to City Council or request a continuance and go back to DRC to hash it out. Chairman Munoz said it seems the Commissioners are not in favor of the fence. Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that there are other opportunities for other materials other than block. He said he would lean towards flexibility about the undergrounding, but not for what was proposed instead of the block wall because the metal panels are very removed from our standards. He referred to Page B & C -14 and the DRC Action comments specifying the required walls and fencing for the entire site. Commissioner Fletcher asked if chain link with slats is an option in the Code. He said we have to look at alternatives and if there are other approved materials, why can they not be used. Mr. Henderson said the Development Code has several options listed but per policy of the Commission, we really don't want to see that; solid block walls are preferred and that is what the Commission has requested that staff seek from the applicants. He added that staff is here to serve and if the Commission desires to change that policy, staff could do so with their direction. Commissioner Fletcher said he did not object to alternative screening material but if we could get • the whole right of way in block wall then yes, he would support that. He asked if staff is requiring all the other property owners to install a block wall. He said if the applicant wants to go back to DRC to review an alternative material then he can with choices, but he did not feel we should enforce the most expensive one. He said the area is the problem. He said he would go along with the block wall if they can work with the applicant on the undergrounding fee. Chairman Munoz said the DRC has to have a standard and it is hard to set standards for various parts of town. He said it is problematic to go on an economic basis and this has been the standard for 25-35 years. He said if we change it, it should be a procedural change and not on a project basis. He said typically we ask staff to prepare a study,we consider it at DRC, then we share it with the Commission. We may even go out and look at examples and then bring everyone back for a decision. He said tonight, they agreed to the condition and then they came back and want to make changes and decide here at commission. He said we are making design and engineering decisions. Commissioner Fletcher said it is not unusual to do this and if it happens then it is the applicant's decision to either delay their project and work with the DRC or appeal the decision. Chairman Munoz said we depend upon recommendations from staff to guide us and there was no previous knowledge of a disagreement. He recommended the project be sent back to DRC for review. Commissioner Oaxaca seconded the motion to continue the applications and to be sent back to the DRC with the new information. He said the Commission should allow DRC to do its job-they make recommendations to the Commission and then the Commission can make an informed decision. He • said he did not feel he had all the options before him to decide tonight. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 8, 2011 Chairman Munoz asked the applicant if he accepts the motion to accept the project as proposed with exception to the in-lieu fees. • Mr. Chu said he would like the opportunity to present an acceptable metal fence design to the DRC. Mr. Henderson said the project will have to be re-advertised when it is ready to come back to the Commission. He asked the Commission if they desired the staff to propose phasing options with respect to the in-lieu fees. Chairman Munoz responded affirmatively. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, to continue the applications for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 and Design Review DRC2011-00255 to a date non-specific for the purpose of reviewing the materials proposed for fencing at the DRC and to discuss phasing options. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA NOES: NONE ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL, WIMBERLY - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS • None ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Wimberly), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: • Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 8, 2011 t E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 14, 2012 Vice Chairman Howdyshell called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: Lou Munoz STAFF PRESENT: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner + x w w ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES No action was taken on the minutes of February 8, 2012 because of a lack of quorum for the specific approval of those minutes. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1, (Oaxaca abstain, Munoz absent) to approve the minutes of February 22, 2012 Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1, (Oaxaca abstain, Munoz absent) to approve the Adjourned Meeting minutes of February 22, 2012 CONSENT CALENDAR A. DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF DOLCETTO PLACE, NORTH OF GARCIA DRIVE AND SOUTH OF VIA VENETO DRIVE, ADJACENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 18096 — A request to find the quit claiming of Lots D and E of Tract 15711-1 in conformance with the General Plan - APN 1100-181-37 and 1100-181-38. Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Wimberly,to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: • AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MUNOZ - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS • B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00873 - AT&T MOBILITY - a request to modify the existing wireless communication facility housed in a 57-foot, 6-inch high cross tower(MDR 00- 14) in order to replace the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas and related equipment for a site located on the north side of Highland Avenue and west of Cambridge Avenue in the Low(L) Residential District at 9944 Highland Avenue - APN: 0201-055-49. Staff has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 exemption - existing facilities) Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Edwin Kim, 381 Elmwood Drive, Pasadena stated he represents the applicants. He said he had nothing to add to the staff report and he was available for questions. Vice Chairman Howdyshell offered her compliments to the applicants for maintaining and using the structure that is there already to increase the transmission technology in the area. She said it has good aesthetics and is very attractive. Mr. Kim said he worked closely with the Planning staff on the design. Commissioner Wimberly said this represents a straightforward upgrade of technology. He also complimented them because they kept the structure intact. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for • Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00873. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: . FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MUNOZ - carried NEW BUSINESS C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00188 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2010-00189-A request to initiate the review of a business known as Mc Alan's Pub&Grill located at 6321 Haven Avenue -APN: 0201-272-06. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner presented the staff report. He said the request for this item came from Police Chief Mike Newcombe, as there were several recent incidents at this location that are rather serious. He said staff met with the owner, Charlie Buquet (representing the applicant) and Deputies Wright and Bahia. He said it was suggested the owner(Stacy Wendler)surrender her Entertainment Permit and cease all entertainment activities until a new permit is approved and on file but a letter to that effect has not yet been received. He said there are a-mails received today regarding this and those are on file. He said he did receive a response from Charlie Buquet later today asking her to confirm but it did not confirm the surrender of the permit. He said it did not contain the verbiage regarding the surrender of the entertainment. He said the item tonight is to initiate a review of the Entertainment Permit and the Conditional Use Permit (for serving alcohol) and bring it back for a public hearing. Vice Chair asked for a report from the deputies regarding calls for service. • Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 14, 2012 Deputy Bahia stated he serves on the Alcohol Compliance Team. He mentioned that in the past 90 days there have been two serious assaults including a rape, alcohol poisoning and one assault with • a deadly weapon and numerous DUI's. He said the calls have become serious in a short period of time and the Police would like to bring their permits forward for review and to find a way to fix the problem. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if these incidents occurred in the last 90 days and if they occurred in close proximity or if they could be directly related to McAlans. Deputy Bahia responded affirmatively and added that one sexual assault was committed behind their building in full view with the suspects friends cheering them on. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if there is a relative timeframe in which these events are occurring. Deputy Bahia said it is usually close to or in the late hours; 11:00 p.m. and later. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked how many calls for service there were. Deputy Bahia said there were at least 12 in the last 90 days. He said there were over 30 in the last year as well as several DUI's attributed to McAlans. Deputy Wright elaborated on some of the recent fights in the business and in their parking lot. He noted that one incident was quickly resolved because a deputy was already on site taking another report and the armed security person assisted in stopping a knife attack. He said their compliance team knows how hard it would be to sell this business without a CUP in place and the Police believe in being business friendly and to work with the business owners. He said she indicated she had the intent to sell the business. He said their focus is for public safety and to help her. He said they • consulted with their Chief and staff and asked the owner if she would willingly surrender the Entertainment Permit so she could still sell the business with the CUP still in place. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if we know if a certain element is being drawn to the business as a result of their advertising. Deputy Wright said they are not having too many problems with other businesses right now with respect to their advertising. He said they have worked with Ms. Wendler for a long time and they believe she needs to totally change her clientele. He said security has been added, but she can't seem to change it-this element seems to gravitate to it. He said she has tried, but it is not working and she has complied with all their suggestions and tried to fix it. He said she would need to have a complete turn around of clientele that comes in. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said it is good to know the owner is being compliant and working with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Fletcher asked the deputies if they thought the problems have to do with entertainment and the type of entertainment being offered and on the nights there is entertainment. He asked if they thought that surrendering the Entertainment Permit would solve most of the problems. Deputy Wright said yes, the type of music they offer is the type that draws this crowd. He said they are not all bad but they get rowdy. He said surrendering the permit would cut it back. He said if she does not sell the business, the owner has been asking about other types of entertainment might work and his team is trying to assist with public safety and help eliminate the stress she is • experiencing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 14, 2012 Commissioner Oaxaca noted that the Commission recently approved a change of hours of operation for this location. He asked if the hours are or are not the big issue. Deputy Wright said he did not think the hours are a big issue; it is mainly the entertainment. • Deputy Bahia concurred; he did not think the hours are the main issue. Commissioner Wimberly commended the deputies for their proactive approach in working with the owner and staff. Charlie Buquet stated he is representing the owner, Stacy Wendler. He apologized there was no formal letter on her behalf as she is traveling. He assured the Commission that staff would receive it tomorrow. He said the discussions have been very positive and they will come back to the Planning Commission with collective solutions. He said he did not much to add as staff did a good job. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there will be a written withdrawal of the permit. Mr. Buquet said yes; she did not provide it at the time because she was driving. Commissioner Wimberly asked for clarification that she is surrendering the Entertainment Permit. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if they would have it in 24 hours. Mr. Buquet said the letter would be in tomorrow. Commissioner Wimberly asked if that would be before the close of business tomorrow(March 15). Mr. Buquet said yes, he would make sure staff has that and that she concurs with process and is • moving forward in a positive direction. Mr. Henderson said the Commission action can be to initiate now to remove the permits ortable the issue until more information is brought forward by the Police or continue the item to a date certain for an update. He said staff could bring it back at the soonest in 4 weeks to allow time for legal noticing and documentation. Commissioner Wimberly said asked if the process of removing the threat with Entertainment Permit being surrendered would that resolve some of the issues for now. Mr. Henderson said it does. He reported that if anything further happens in next 3-6 months it would not reflect favorably on the CUP. He said the owner is aware of that. He said it does not negate anything that happened before this time or anything in the future. Vice Chairman Howdyshell confirmed that if staff receives the surrender of the Entertainment Permit in the next 24 hours then that could change the atmosphere there. She then opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher said he thought much of this would be resolved if we receive the written withdrawal of the EP and he did not see much point in pursuing a review if that happens. He said we could have another update report in 4 weeks and see how it worked out. Commissioner Wimberly agreed that provided the EP is surrendered, the Commission could have an update report/review. • Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 14, 2012 Mr. Henderson confirmed that they meant just a status report and not a public hearing type of review. • Commissioner Wimberly confirmed that provided we receive the letter of surrender, staff will then get a fresh report from the Police Department, compile any relevant information and bring a status report back to the Commission. Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted that report would occur at the meeting of April 11, 2012. Commissioner Oaxaca added that the Commission would like to be notified when the letter is received. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, subject to receiving a letter from the business owner by close of business tomorrow to not initiate the review of Conditional Use Permit DRC2010- 00188 and Entertainment Permit DRC2010-00188 at this time but to provide the Commission with an update report on April 11, 2012. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MUNOZ, - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None • COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: • Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 14, 2012 �! r STAFF REPORT • PLANNINGDEPAR'L'MENr Date: March 28, 2012 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director RANCHO CiUCAMONGA By: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to make site improvements including installing a temporary office module, constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee eating area and parking for a 4.42- acre project site located within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue -APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03, and 02. Related file: DRC2011-00254. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 - ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to operate a 4.42-acre recycling facility including the use of a temporary office module within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of • Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue, located at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue - APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03, and 02. Related file: Development Review DRC2011-00255 Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vehicle Storage —General Industrial (Subarea 8) South - Vacant Land — Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) East Auto Dismantler— Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) West - Vehicle Storage — Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Heavy Industrial North - General Industrial South - Heavy Industrial East - Heavy Industrial West - Heavy Industrial C. Background: The project was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2011. On the day of the meeting, the applicant informed staff that they wished to expand the scope of the project by adding a temporary office module for the operation of the vehicle scale. The project was continued to an unspecified • date to give the Design Review Committee an opportunity to review the inclusion of the office module. ITEM A & B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254—ALLSTATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING-JAMES LIN March 28, 2012 Page 2 The project was reviewed.by the Design Review Committee on January 17, 2012, and the • Committee approved the design and layout of the office module. Staff rescheduled the project for the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Prior to that date, the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Department requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the requirement that a block wall be constructed along the south property line and that payment of the utility undergrounding fees be deferred until the applicant takes ownership of the entire site. This letter was given to each of the Commissioners prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission heard the testimony on the request and voted to continue the meeting to an unspecified date to allow the Design Review Committee an opportunity to review the applicant's request. The Commission also directed staff to draft an alternative condition to the utility undergrounding requirement. The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed metal fence on March 6, 2012. D. Site Characteristics: The 4.42-acre project site is made up of multiple parcels and is located on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue. The street frontage along Whittram Avenue has not been widened to the ultimate width, and the street improvements have not been installed. The site is developed with multiple small covered work areas, a bathroom facility, and is partially paved. The site is divided by two unrelated properties that are developed with a single-family residence and an automotive repair shop. ANALYSIS: • A. Project Description: All State Recycling proposes upgrading and expanding their existing ferrous metal processing facility on Whittram Avenue. The facility has been operating at this location without the required Conditional Use Permit since 1987. The applicant manages a second recycling facility on Etiwanda Avenue that operates under a separate Conditional Use Permit. All State Recycling processes approximately 30,000 to 50,000 tons of scrap metal per year. The two facilities operate in tandem, with trucks arriving at the Etiwanda Avenue facility to be weighed and are then transferred to the Whittram Avenue facility to either pick up or drop off metal (depending if they are purchasing or selling metal). They then return to the Etiwanda Avenue facility to be weighed again to either pay or be paid for the metal. The applicant is installing a scale at the Whittram Avenue facility which will greatly reduce vehicle travel between the two sites. The scale will necessitate the installation of an office module to accommodate the scale operator, to complete paper work, and to process payments. A permanent building cannot be constructed because of the office needing to be adjacent to the scale, which will be built across a property line. The Building and Safety Department does not allow permanent structures to be built across a property line. The Conditions of Approval will limit the use of the temporary office module to a time period of 5 years from the date of approval or 1 year from the date that the applicant closes escrow on the adjacent parcel of land on which a portion of the structure is located. The Whittram Avenue facility receives the scrap metal, breaks it down into smaller pieces, and then resells it. The facility currently operates on 5 parcels which are separated by two • unrelated parcels. The 2 unrelated parcels consist of a single-family residence and an automotive repair shop. The applicant is in the process of completing a lot line adjustment (Lot Line Adjustment SUBLLA689) for a portion of the parcel on which the residence is A & B 2 �! )::PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254—ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING-JAMES LIN March 28, 2012 Page 3 • located and a lease for a portion of the parcel on which the automative repair shop is located. The additional land will provide truck access between the two sites in order to limit truck traffic on Whittram Avenue. A Condition of Approval has been added stating that the selling of any of the subject parcels will void the approved Conditional Use Permit unless the change is approved through an amended Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. B. Entitlement Requirement: Section 17.30.030 of the Development Code requires that scrap operations obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The Scrap Operation classification covers the storage and sale from the premises and/or dismantling of used recyclables. As part of the approval, the applicant is required to make a number of site improvements (street, landscaping, and screen walls) which require the approval of a Development Review and Planning Commission approval. C. Description of Operations: All State Recycling currently employs 42 employees between their Etiwanda Avenue and the Whittram Avenue facilities. The Whittram Avenue facility will have 6 full-time employees. The facility will operate one shift from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Saturdays. They will receive approximately 10 to 15 truck trips per day. D. Site Improvements: As part ofthis approval, the following improvements will be made to bring the site into conformance with the current requirements of the Heavy Industrial Development District: • 1. Install street improvements including curb, sidewalks, and landscaping for the Whittram Avenue frontage including the frontage adjacent to the single-family residence and vehicle repair shop. 2. Install an approximately 400 square foot temporary office module. 3. Construct an 8-foot high decorative wall with a decorative cap and view obscuring metal gates along Whittram Avenue and between the project site and the single-family residence. 4. Construct an 8-foot high painted metal screen fence along the east and west property lines and along a portion of the property line separating the project site from the single-family residence. These metal screen walls will not be visible from the Whittram Avenue right-of-way. 5. Construct an 8-foot high plate metal fence along the south property line adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. 6. Construct an employee parking area, outdoor eating area and upgrade the existing bathroom facility. 7. Upgrade the existing on-site covered work areas. 8. Pave the entire site and add a vehicle scale along the south property line. • A & B 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT e l s DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254—ALLSTATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING-JAMES LIN March 28, 2012 Page 4 • 9. Upgrade the windows and doors of the single-family residence in order to reduce the indoor noise levels to City standards as recommended in the Acoustical Impact Report (LSA— June 2011). E. Time Line for Project Completion: The applicant has submitted the following time line for completion of all the proposed site improvements taken from the date of Planning Commission approval: 1. Walls and Gates — 2 Months 2. Noise Mitigation for the single-family residence — 3 Months 3. On-site Improvements (paving, parking facility, outdoor eating area, upgrade of the covered work area) - 4 Months 4. Street Improvements and Landscaping — 8 Months F. Utility Undergrounding Requirement: At the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting the applicant requested to have payment of utility undergrounding fees deferred to a future date for the parcels they lease (0229-192-02, 03, & 04). It has been Planning Commission policy to require applicant's to pay undergrounding fees at time of permit approval. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft an alternative condition to defer undergrounding fees for the parcels that they lease for up to 5 years. The following condition has been included in Resolution of Approval: • For Assessors Parcel Numbers 0229-192-06 and 09 an in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electricity) on the opposite side of Whittram Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of street frontage. , For Assessors Parcel Numbers 0229-192-02, 03, and 04 an in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electricity) on the opposite side of Whittram Avenue shall be paid to the City within 5 years from the date of this approval or within 6 months of obtaining ownership of the said parcels. If payment is not received within the stipulated time period, revocation procedures for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 will begin. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of street frontage. G. Parking: The applicant does not propose any permanent on-site structures other than the existing bathroom facility and covered work areas. Staff has determined that the ten proposed on-site parking spaces will be adequate for the 6 employees and any visitors to the site. H. Land Use Compatibility: The project site is located within the Heavy Industrial • Development District, which permits open air storage of large mounds of raw and semi-refined products. The surrounding uses include vehicle storage, vehicle dismantling, vehicle repair, and a non-conforming single-family residence. The major negative effect A & B 4 'PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254—ALLSTATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING-JAMES LIN March 28, 2012 • Page 5 that the recycling facility will have on the surrounding land uses will be noise, especially for the neighboring single-family residence. As part of this approval, the applicant will construct an 8-foot high masonry and metal walls between the project site and the neighboring uses, as well as provide upgraded windows and doors for the neighboring single-family residence. The proposed site improvements and mitigation measures should reduce the negative effects on the neighboring property owners to an acceptable level. I. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, Granger) on October 4, 2011, The main issue was the type of screening material that would be required along the east, west, and south property lines and adjacent to the single-family residence. The Committee recommended that the applicant provide a solid block wall along the south property line, painted metal fences along the east and west elevations, and a decorative block wall between the facility and the single- family residence. The applicant has made all the requested changes. The Design Review Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, Granger) reviewed the request to add the office module on January 17, 2012. They were accepting of the inclusion of a temporary building on the project site as it will be located at the rear of the property and will only be minimally visible from the public right-of-way. They requested that a condition be placed on the final approval limiting the use of the temporary office module to 5 years from the date of approval or 1 year from the date that the applicant is able to purchase the neighboring parcels. • The Committee (Howdyshell, Wimberly, Granger) reviewed the applicant's request to replace the required wall for the south side property line with a metal fence on March 6, 2012. Two metal fence designs were submitted to the Committee for review, a corrugated metal fence, and a plate steel fence. The Committee felt that the location of the fence along the rail right-of-way was mainly visible to the public traveling on the commuter trains using the rail corridor and that the extra cost of constructing a block wall was unreasonable. They concluded that the painted plate metal fence would be the best choice for appearance and durability of the two proposed fences. The Committee directed staff to include a Condition of Approval in the Resolution of Approval requiring that the applicant remove any graffiti on the fence within 48 hours and to keep the fence painted a uniform color. J. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The project was reviewed by the Committees on October 4, 2011. The Committees recommended approval of the project without changes. K. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to aesthetics, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, air quality, green house gas emissions and geology and soils, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff • provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the A & B 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254—ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING-JAMES LIN March 28, 2012 Page 6 • Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 and Development Review DRC2011-00255 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Respectfully submiitted, Jam Troyer, AICP Plan g Director ' JRT:TV/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Plans Exhibit B - Business Description Exhibit C - Design Review Action Comments dated October 4, 2011, • January 17, 2012, and March 6, 2012 Exhibit D - Initial Study Parts I and II Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2011-00255 Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 • A & B 6 1®i Mim lily lz 1 I ,bn �' _;*+,..tom` �+v.;�• �'•i ,t.� 1�.�, 1( `_ 1" 1 �h r - Wed."t i• ��t•T',j�k �fTrj�f � 4��1�1`'�il, 1 r .y, k.4t°��.�t, j a ! �'t•' �� -r�'§°'�-1.� 1 4 Ra r .x 7FL 4 '�'.yl�+.�'"" ' '^�'n ' _.e _ °��. I �i Y!�5.5 �,�°it •,v, .y, l �k �I r � tM ne, Ld ry k- 2: 0 x g8-,1 --a LL F- Xx C'4 C'3 < co z (L N 7 7 00 Ha Z. • LL mv' N < CI) a w A L6 ge a. W 0) Ltu JI A & B 8 ^ " ,OC Iaql ` A & B 9 ' g�E n � 97 � � ' 9 [ �• � ['� f ii1 U r<: = Y Jni gy E y 9�f I VII 1 r MI '/ / l]n7f xx xngl5n3 b i •./ m.•m sou— i A �i 1 rnprw-ssw I / � KY;; r A51k✓ lye I I,,rl • A & B 10 000000000E z 3 of 1 81 AM S t t, mm _�zi :,..' •rug x� 111111.t!. . ./. . . ..t.' t/ .•. _ G � .� /i MW pJt VAA '��� / A VAAA�A�1� � I 2 • N ` { A & B 11 3' U 3 F _7 W v4 � W _ � � '� f �p, • p s s z� i9 a ds od 6 z '� 3 sz £ EZ DTs €i � Zas.J e - c 3u' 36 3 V {{ gg N oEEe '{ O I_�r �I °LL � ,•", � !j a f� �! p �o cc `A 3 tt {t x• } o L� n• e.I a2: � p� YS�j t{ SSE4 °�Q� • O l314. '.aol"' .• ���•� �•r..��. � INll Jill e x as I x= d a LL J O _o rtl g t - O• Q1 t cc � � • DVNOJ O 9 �..,Tmn.. JAJ3N ONI151% i ..: .:..... •„•..„.... ..•...•... 'X11. a:.� ��`.\�1�t��...... 7 cc u l a N < A & B 12 b a a ALL STATE RAPER & METAL RECYCLING CO., INC. gal • DEALER Oi'SCKAP Mi:TAI.S&CARDBOARD "Attt7P ALIiM1N;!M(':\K•<'Of°�R • RIIAS� kammft TFI.'qpu-84w-3hf; • aw.a;lq - FA).'4Uu-au4-0S?v 1tUle11MOS,U¢. iHF=PJAL F.F MURS R1:: I311=1111.00254 & -00255, All State Papct and Metal Recvcintg Co., Inc. ("911 Smtc'� jainec 1-in - A request to operate a scrap operation vlithin the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 1S at 13195. 132(17, 13251, 13243, and 13253 Whittrarn Avenue - APN: 02219-192-09, 06, 04, 03 & 02 (five parcels) All Smut (llo Family) started its recciJMg business at \Miitttam faeihn' in 1981. A nearby Etaand:, faeilin' (8689 ]"tiwanda Avenue)was purchased and sec cs as main afncc to 1997. The original ` "hittram facilin'consists of 2 parcels which had been used as recycling card prior to Lin family acquired the subject property in 1987. The recycling operation was recently being expanded from the nngutal 2 parcels m 3 additional parcels to the cast.The P/hirernm recycling yard can be Clearly identified as 2 originally parcels on the west and 3 recently icised parcels on the east. The west two parcels (APNs 02-19-192.09 & 06) ate owned by family members of All State. The 3 parcels on the east are bang used with a term of 5-yeah lease agreement. All State intends to purchase all leased parcels from the current property owncrs in the near lumrc. The Whittram lard receives, handles, sorts, processes, and transports ferrous scrap metals. Most of scrap metals are purchased from customers in the Cin•.of Rancho Cucamonga, neighboring communities and southern California. All processed scraps see placed in containers and shipped off site by cruel:. The great majority of processed Scrap metals are exported in Asia for reuse The existing Whittratn faalin,does not equip with weight station. All scraps are previously weighted at Etiwandn main facility/office located at 'ie mile southwest of Whittram aim The expanded facility will be equipped with a new above- ground truck scale to mlmml+c truck trips between facilities, A new mobile modular will be installed far use of track • scale monitors. Off-mad vehicle and equipment, such n shear-crane, grappler, bulldozcz, bobcat, excavatm, torch curter,and forklift are used'onaire for scrap metal processing and handling. All State currently employed a total of 42 employees at Eriwanda and Whittram facilities. There are only six (t) full- nine amployees working at Whittram yard. The facility operates one shift from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm on Monday to .Friday,7:30 am to 2.30 pm on Saturday. The typical daily material intakes arc averaging 10-15 truck trips. The Whittram facility recvcies an average of 30,000-50,000 tons of asap metals per year. For every ton of steel recycled, 2.5()o pounds of iron arc, 1,400 pound of coal and 120 pounds of limestone are conserved Steel product can be rec7c-ied repeatedly without loss of strength. Due to magnetic properties that make steel the easiest material to separate from solid waste stream. Almost of 69% of all steel is recycled in North America (Facts from American Iron and Steel Institute). The benefit of this recycling facility expansion is to bring an existing non-conforming facility into code compliance. The expansion project will substantially reduce traffic backup on Whittram Avenue and increase matrrriaal recycling flow, rate. The project is expected to furnish street improvements for six contiguous parcels (13195, 13207, 13221, 13231, 13243& 13253 Vrnittram Avenue). The project proponent is expected to pay far the costs far installation of public sidewalk. select lights, streetscane and public fire hydrants along the frontage of all five (5)project-parcels plus the out-parcel (APN 0229-192-05, 13221 Whittram Avenue). All State is committed to full}' comply wirh all relevant Federal, State, Count', City codes and safety, health, cmironmental rules and regulations. January 26. 2011 11U'AKI)A AVFN11t,K.ANt'Hl I OK A NA(tlJl'f A,("A u t 71V EXHIBIT B A & B 13 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 P.M. Tabe van der Zwaag October 4, 2011 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to operate a scrap operation and make improvements to the 4.42-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15, located at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue -APN: 022-192-09, 06, 04, 03, and 02. Related file: Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254. Project Proposal: The applicant proposes upgrading their existing ferrous metal processing facility on Whittram Avenue. The facility has been operating at this location since 1987 and around the corner on Etiwanda Avenue since 1999. The two facilities operate in tandem, with trucks first arriving at the Etiwanda Avenue facility to be weighed and then heading to the Whittram Avenue facility to either pick up or drop off metal (depending if they are purchasing or selling metal). They then go back to the Etiwanda Avenue facility to be weighed again to either pay or be paid for the metal. The Whittram Avenue facility receives the scrap metal; breaks it down into smaller pieces, and then resells it. The Whittram Avenue facility currently operates on 5 parcels which are separated by 2 unrelated parcels. The 2 unrelated parcels consist of a single-family residence and an automotive repair shop. The applicant proposes purchasing a portion of the parcel on which the residence is located and leasing a portion of the parcel on which the automatic repair shop is located in order to provide truck • access between the two sites and limit truck traffic on Whittram Avenue. The applicant has submitted an acoustic study which recommends installing new windows in the residence to reduce noise from the facility. The existing facility has been operating on a portion of the two sites on Whittram Avenue without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and has been directed that the existing facility will need to be upgraded as part of the CUP approval process. The upgrades include street improvements (curb, sidewalk, landscaping), a new 10-foot high decorative wall and view obscuring metal gates along Whittram Avenue (Development Code limits the height of stored material to the screen wall height for the first 120 feet from the curb face), 10-foot high walls along the rail road right-of-way, employee parking, and outdoor eating area, upgrading existing on-site structures (bathroom facility and covered work areas), paving and on-site clean up. The street frontage upgrades will also include the areas in front of the single-family residence and the automotive repair shop. Staff Comments: Staff feels that the proposed changes will greatly improve this portion of Whittram Avenue. A number of issues remain that need to be resolved by the Design Review Committee. The applicant proposes using painted solid metal fencing material along the rail right-of-way, along the west property line, and between the project site and the residence and automotive shop. The question is whether the metal fencing is adequate. It should be noted that there are other businesses that use metal fencing along Whittram Avenue, and that the Development Code permits masonry, concrete, wood metal, or chain link with slats in the Heavy Industrial District. Staff feels the metal fencing may be appropriate (if properly installed and painted) along the rail right-of-way and along the west property line. Staff believes that block walls would be a more appropriate separation between the facility and the • residence (with the block wall located along the side of the house and continuing a minimum 20 feet from the back of the house). EXHIBIT C A & B14 DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2011-00255 — ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING — JAMES LIN October 4, 2011 Page 2 The applicant is also proposing to line the east property line with metal shipping containers and leaving the existing chain link fencing in place (there is an auto wrecking business to the east). Staff has informed the applicant that if the Design Review Committee approves the use of the shipping containers as screening, they will at minimum need to paint them all a coordinating color. Ma or Issues: None. Secondary Issues: 1. Whether metal fencing is an adequate screening material or should be upgraded to decorative block walls. 2. Whether block walls (rather than metal fencing) should be used to screen the facility from the neighboring residential use. If block walls are required, for what distance? 3. Whether shipping containers may be used to screen the facility from the neighboring industrial use or should be upgraded to either a solid metal fencing or block walls. Policy Issues: 1. Barbed wire shall not be used on the property line walls facing Whittram Avenue or the railroad • right-of-way. 2. A Sign Permit is required for all signage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct staff to the appropriateness of the proposed changes and whether the project may be scheduled for Planning Commission review with staff reviewing any recommended changes. Design Review Committee Action: The project was approved with the following changes: 1. Provide an 8-foot high masonry wall along the entire south property line (rail road right-of-way). 2. Provide solid metal fences along the east and west property lines and between the project site and the automotive shop. 3. Provide an 8-foot high decorative wall between the existing residence and the project site. The wall shall run from the north property line to the terminus of the adjacent subterranean loading dock. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag • A & B 15 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:20 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag January 17, 2012 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to make site improvements including the addition of a temporary office trailer, constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving, and add an employee eating area and parking for a 4.42-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue, located at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 and 02. Related file: DRC2011-00254. Background: This project was previously reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee on October 4, 2011, and was docketed for the Planning Commission meeting on December 14, 2011. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant changed the scope of the project to include a temporary office trailer. The office trailer is needed to house the control equipment and operator for the on-site truck scale. Proiect Proposal: See the attached October 4, 2011, Design Review Committee Comments and Action Agenda for a full description of the proposed project. The only change from the original proposal is the addition of a temporary 12-foot by 40-foot modular office trailer. The location of the trailer will be adjacent to the proposed truck scale, which will cross a property line. The applicant is leasing a portion of the property on which the trailer will be located. The Building and Safety Department does not permit permanent buildings to be built across a.property line. The applicant will construct a permanent building •when they are able to purchase the site. The applicant will paint the building to match the other structures on the site and add skirts around the base of the trailer to screen the undercarriage. The trailer will be located 12 feet off of the south property line and will be screened by an 8-foot high wall. Staff Comments: Staff has no concerns with the trailer as long as it is temporary in nature and is painted to match the other structures on the site and a skirt is added around the base of the trailer. Maior Issues: None. Secondary Issues: None. Policy Issue: A condition of approval will be added to the related Conditional Use Permit (CUP DRC2011-00254) limiting the period that the temporary office trailer may remain on the site for up to 5 years. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project as presented. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee was accepting of the inclusion of a temporary building on the project site, as it will be located at the rear of the property and will be slightly visible from the public right-of-way. They requested that a condition be placed on the final approval limiting the use of the temporary office module to 5 years from the date of approval or 1 year from the date that the applicant is able to purchase the neighboring parcels. *Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag A & B 16 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:20 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag March 6, 2012 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to make site improvements including installing a temporary office module, constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee eating area and parking for a 4.42-project site within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15, located on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue - APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 and 02. Related Project: DRC2011-00254. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Background: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on October 4, 2011, and docketed for the December 14, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission continued the meeting so that the Design Review Committee could review the applicant's request to add a temporary trailer to the overall project proposal. The Design Review Committee reviewed the temporary trailer on January 17, 2012. The project was rescheduled for the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the applicant requested that the Commission reconsider the Design Review Committee's requirement that the applicant construct a block wall along the south property line of the project. At the applicant's request, the Commission voted to continue the hearing in order for the Design Review Committee to • review the proposed fencing change. Proiect Proposal: See attached (Exhibit D) October 4, 2011, DRC comments and action agenda for a full description of the proposed project. The applicant is requesting to replace the DRC approved 8-foot high block wall along the south property line with a metal fence because of the cost of constructing the approximately 560-foot long wall (Exhibit C). The applicant has submitted photographs of the fencing used on the neighboring parcels along the railroad right-of-way, which all consist of various types of metal fencing. The applicant has proposed two types of metal fencing for the DRC to review as a replacement for the required block wall: 1. A commercial grade corrugated galvanized sheet-metal fence (similar to fence used at 1 31 95/1 3207 Whittram Avenue) painted an earth-tone color (Exhibit A). 2. A custom made welded metal fence using 1/8-inch thick by 4-foot by 20-foot panels painted an earth-tone color (Exhibit B). Staff Comments: The Development Code permits storage area screening within the Heavy Industrial Development District to include masonry and concrete walls, wood fences, and view obscuring wrought iron and chain link fences (Section 17.30.040). It is Planning Commission policy to require solid block walls to screen storage areas that are within the public view. It is staffs opinion that the rail right-of-way is within the public view as pedestrian trains use the rail right-of-way. Of the two metal fences proposed by the applicant, staff feels that the custom fence is preferable as it is of a heavier grade steel which will be more durable. The difficulty is guaranteeing that the workmanship will be of an expectable quality. • A & B 17 DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2011-00255 —ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING —JAMES LIN March 6, 2010 Page 2 Maior Issues: Determining the most appropriate screening material for storage areas adjacent to the rail right-of-way in the Heavy Industrial Development District. Secondary Issues: None. Policy Issue: It has been Planning Commission policy to require block walls to screen storage areas from the pubic right-of-way. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the applicant's request and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the most appropriate fencing material. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee was accepting of the applicant's proposal to replace the originally approved 8-foot high block wall with an 8-foot high plate steel fence. The Committee felt that the location of the fence along the rail right-of-way was mainly visible to the public traveling on the commuter trains using the rail line and that the extra cost of constructing a block wall was unreasonable. They concluded that the painted plate metal fence would be the best choice for appearance and durability of the two proposed fences. •The Committee directed staff to include a Condition of Approval in the Resolution of Approval requiring that the applicant remove any graffiti on the fence within 48 hours and to keep the fence painted a uniform color. Members Present: Howdyshell, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag • A & B 18 � , .rPiinbborm ENVIRONMENTAL I INFORMATION FORM , (Part i - Initial Study) City of Rancho Cucamonga (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move trom one line to the next line.) Planning Department (909)477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City Policies, Ordinances, and Guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application, additional information such as, but not limited to,traffic, noise, biological, drainage,and geological reports may be required. The project application will not be deemed complete unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees' review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to prepare the Initial Study Part II as required by CEQA. In addition to the filing fee, the applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, its agents, officers, and/or consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations, mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports. • INFORMATIOW INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal, City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: All State Paper and Metal Recycling- Scrap Metal Recycling.Yard on Whittram Avenue Name &Address of project owner(s): All State Paper and Metal Recycling Co., Inc. 8889 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Name &Address of developer orprojectsponsorr All State Paper and Metal Recycling Co., Inc. 8889 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 • Contact Person &Address: James Lin, President/ CEO I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Par l.doc Page 1 EXHIBIT D A & B 19 „ Name &Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): J. George Chu, AICP, LEED AP 718 W 16th St. Upland, CA 91784 Telephone Number: 909-322-5134 PROJECT • ' • DESCRIPTION: Information indicated by an asterisk(*)is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. *1; Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11)copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s)which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2; Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north, south, east, and west, views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site:and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): 13195 &13297(All State property), 13221 &13231 (Vasquez property) and 13243 & 13253 (Mushegain TRS property) Whittram Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 North of railroad track, on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Ave and Hickory Ave • 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): APNs 0229-192-09 & 06 (All State Owned) APN 0229-192-05 (Anita Vasquez), APN 0229-192-04 (south half, leased from Anita and Telesforo Vasquez) APN 0229-192-03 & 02 (leased from Richard D & Lauren M Mushegain TRS and Thomas L Mushegain TR) *5) Gross Site Area(ac/sq. ft.): , *6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets&proposed 3.83 acres+ dedications). 100% of parcels APNs 0229-192-09, 06, 03 & 02 and southern portions of APNs 0229-192-05 &04 7. Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): No proposed general plan amendment(GPA) or zone change. The subject site and all surrounding lands are zoned for heavy industry uses. 8 Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and othergovemmental • I:\PLANNINGIFINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.doc Page 2 A & B20 agencies in order to fully implement the project: • 1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)from City of Rancho Cucamonga 2. Existing Industry Facility Permit No.: 8 361021481 issued by State Water Resource Control Board The existing WDID applied to the existing facility at 13195 & 13207 Whittram Avenue (APNs 0229-192-09 & 06 WDID need be updated to include the newly expanded area 9 Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals,mature trees,trails and roads,drainage courses,and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site(including age and condition)and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition,cite all sources of information(i.e.,geological and/or hydrologic studies,biotic and archeological surveys,traffic studies): General slope: 0.5% to 1.5% toward south,west and southwest direction Stable soils with good drainage course toward Etiwanda Creek; A few mature trees along parcel/property lines Whittram Avenue on the north, Railroad track on the south APN 0229-192-09 & 06: site paved, existing shade structures and loading dock/platform APN 0229-192-05: single-family house (built 1944) located at the north end of this parcel (not a part) APN 0229-192-04: an automobile repairs garage located on the north of this parcel (not a part) • APN 0229-192-03 & 02: gravel on top of native soils and a small, deteriorated rest room with septic 10, Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information(books,published reports and oral history): None • 1 kPLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partt.doc Page 3 A & B 21 11, Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site(aircraft,roadway noise, etc.)and how they will affect proposed uses: Railroad track on the south: Noises generated by passing trains • Whittram Avenue (Collector Road) on the north: Roadway used by surrounding industry users 12 Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary: APN 0229-192- 09 & 06. The existing scrap metal recycling yard operated by All State Recycling since 1987 APN 0229-192-05: To lease and use the southern 50'wide for fire access lane (26' paved) APN 0229-192-04: To lease and use the south half for material storage APN 0229-19203 & 02: To lease and use the entire two parcels for materials storage and operations • 13 Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use(residential,commercial, etc.),intensity of land use(one-family,apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.)and scale of development(height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): East: Industry; Existing auto wrecking yard with a workshop( metal shed building) West: Industry; Existing equipment/vehicle storage yard and green waste recycling yard North of project: A one story single-family house built in year 1944 and a auto repairs garage shed building North of Whittram Avenue: Industry; Construction equipment and materials storage yard South: abutting railroad track and to further south is vacant heavy industry land 14. Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.doc Page 4 A & B22 15, Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? • This is an existing scrap metal recycling yard. The expansion of materials storage to the west is not expected to significantly raise noise above current level. -16, Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: To remove 4 existing trees to allow 26'wide pavement for fire access lane on the parcel of APN 0229-192--05 17, Indicate any bodies of water(including domestic water supplies)into which the site drains: Etiwanda Creek 18. Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A. for usage estimates). For further clarification, please • contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential(gal/day) Peak use(gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use(gal/min/ac) 19. Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑� Septic Tank ❑ Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests..If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification,please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591 a. Residential(gal/day) b. Commercial/Industrial(gal/day/ac) 183 Q RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20, Number of residential units: Detached(indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.doc Page 5 A & B23 21. Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ • Rent(permonth) $ to $ 22, Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23, Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24 Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts.as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: • c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL. AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25, Describe type of use(s)and major function(s)of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: The site is an existing scrap metal storage and recycling yard operated by All State Recycling since 1987. The subject yard is a part of All State Recycling operations. It is located at 1/2 miles southwest of the site. All business functions and processing are conducted at main office located on 8889 Etiwanda Avenue. 26, Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: No proposed new building on site 27, Indicate hours of operation: Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 3:30 pm Saturday: 7:30 am to 2:30 pm 26) Number of employees: Total5 out of 45 All State's employees Maximum Shift: One shift only Time of Maximum Shin: 9 hours, 7:30 am to 3:30 pm • - I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.doc Page 6 A & B24 1 29 Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate o hire for each classification(attach additional sheet if necessary): • Forklift Driver $8.00 11hr, ROH 1/yr Torch Operator $8.0 to $15.0 1hr, ROH 1/yr Crane Operator: $10.0 to $15.0/hr, ROH N/A 30, Estimation ofthe numberof workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: No new hires at Whittram site '31. For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should bt verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at(818)572-6283): The air quality analysis and health risk assessment were conducted by LSA Associates in Irvine, CA. The environmental impact of air pollution emissions are below threshold for consideration of mitigation. ALL PROJECTS 32. Have the water, sewer,fire,and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine theirability to provid( adequate service to the proposed project? If so,please indicate their response. • Fontana Water Company: Yes; Existing water mains and service meters located on Whittram Avenue No sewer services in this area. Septic only Fire Construction Services: Yes;Applicant to install two new public fire hydrants on Whittram Avenue 33, In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials': Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's;radioactive substances,pesticides an( herbicides;fuels, oils, solvents,and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, i known. No The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Converse Consultants in Redlands, CA. • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTERIinitial Study Partt.doc Page 7 A & B25 34' Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use,storage,or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes,provide an inventory or all such materials to be used an( proposed method of disposal, The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown am labeled on the application plans. Temporary storage of motor oils and diesel for use of on-site equipments. Long-term use of LPG for torch used in metal cutting. Used oils to be picked up and treated and disposal by certified/qualified recycler No expected discharge of hazardous andior toxic materials. 35 The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game ree. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning CommissioniF!anning Director hearing.: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the dat rdormation.required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability.that the facts,statements,and information p apte .rue and correct tot he best of n,y knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information maybe require .toed before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cuca.mopga. __: X_. �. March 24, 2011 Date: Signature'-`' Title: • I:I PLANNING\PNAL'FORtdS\COUNTERJnitial Study Panl.doc Page 8 • A & B26 City of Rancho Cucamonga • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 and Development Review D R C2011-00255 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: A request to operate a 4.42-acre scrap operation and make site improvements including constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee eating area and parking for a project site located within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue APN: 0229-192-09, 06, D4, 03 & 02. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: James Lin for All State Recycling S. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial 6. Zoning: Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 4.42 acre site is located on the south side of • Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Hickory Avenue. The site is currently being used as a ferrous metal recycling facility that includes large piles of ferrous metal, a small building that includes restroom facilities and a number of open sided covered work areas. The site is divided down the middle by a non-conforming single-family residence and an automotive repair shop. To the east, west and north are developed sites used for industrial purposes and to the south is an active rail line. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tabe van der Zwaag (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None GLOSSARY—The following abbreviations are used in this.report: CVWD—Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR— Environmental Impact Report FEIR — Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR - Final Program Environmental Impact Report NPDES —National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • NOx— Nitrogen Oxides ROG — Reactive Organic Gases A & B27 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 2 PM10— Fine Particulate Matter • RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD—South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP—Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan URBEMIS7G— Urban Emissions Model 7G ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or"Less Than-Significant-Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (✓) Aesthetics (✓) Agricultural Resources (✓)Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources (✓) Cultural Resources (✓) Geology & Soils (✓) Greenhouse Gas ( ) Hazards &Waste Materials (✓) Hydrology &Water Quality Emissions ( ) Mineral Resources (✓) Noise ( ) Land Use & Planning (✓) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( ) Population & Housing ( ) Utilities & Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of ( ) Transportation/Traffic Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A • NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: It • Rev. 9/2011 A & B28 Initial Study fog DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 3 • Less Then significant Bess Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Tnan Significant Mitigation Significant Na Impact InmmoreteE Imoen Im act EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? () ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ( ) ( ) (✓) ( ) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Figure LU-6. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho • Cucamonga. c) The site is located on the south site Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Hickory Avenue and is characterized by heavy industrial development to the north, east and west, a rail line to the south and is adjacent to a non-conforming single-family residence. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project as the site is in an area designated for heavy industrial uses. The applicant will install street improvements and landscaping along the public right-of-way and will construct decorative screen walls to limit public view of the on-site activities. Design review is required prior to approval. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project would increase the number of streetlights and security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans which require review for consistency with City standards that requires shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ( ) ( ) (✓) ( ) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? • b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Williamson Act contract? Rev. 9(2011 A & B29 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 4 1-tim Less an The • Significant Leas Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP 9 Significant Mitigation Si gnificant No I mead Intmtpotat.d Impact Imoad C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoing of, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓ ) forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located on the south site Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Hickory Avenue and is characterized by heavy industrial development to the north, east and west, a rail line to the south and is adjacent to a non- conforming single-family residence. There are approximately 209 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to General Plan Table RC-2. Concentrations of Important Farmland are sparsely located in the southern and eastern • parts of the City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Farmland in the southern portion of the City is characterized by industrial, residential, and commercial land uses and Farmland in the eastern portion of the City is within the Etiwanda area and planned for development. Further, a large number of the designated farmlands parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FPEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. C) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. d) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. e) The site is located on the south site Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and • Hickory Avenue and is characterized by heavy industrial development to the north, east and west, a rail line to the south and is adjacent to a non-conforming single-family Rev. 9/2011 A & B30 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 5 • an T Less Than an Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP 9 SignF¢ant Mitigation $Igni9ranl No Impact Incotooiatad Imoact Im act residence. The nearest agricultural use is more than 3 miles to the north from the project site. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) concentrations? • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) number of people? Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.3), the proposed project would not interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards for Criterion 1 Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations (local air quality impacts) or Criterion 2 Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP (consistency with the 2003 AQMP). Therefore, the project is consistent with the 2003 AQMP and is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (So2), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PIN/11G), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2,5) microns in diameter and lead. Among these pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PMZ,S) are considered regional pollutants while the others have more localized effects. In addition, the State of California has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (1-12S), vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. The City of Rancho Cucamonga area is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated • when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this include motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall and on highways. SCAQMD also Rev. 9/2011 A & B 31 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 6 Than L to The ha T Less • 1 Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially weh Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact tncoryotateE Impep imp.ct regulates stationary sources of pollution within in jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin the worst air pollution problem in the nation. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude); this inversion (coupled with low wind speeds) limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants, termed criteria pollutants: ozone (03), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PMZ.S) microns in diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the Federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" or "non-attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas have additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization • (MPO) responsible for ensuring the Basin's compliance with the FCAA. The South Coast Air Basin is in Non-Attainment Status for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include daily emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and consistency with the current AQMP. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an air impact study was prepared by (LSA, March 2011) that utilizes the Urban Emissions Model URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 methodology and CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993 to evaluate short-term construction emissions and short-term construction emissions for localized significant thresholds, long-term operational emissions, operation emissions for localized significant thresholds, and Green House Gas Emissions. Short Term (Construction) Impacts There will be minimal short term impact related to the project. New construction related to the project will only include street improvements, new landscaping, paving and screen walls. The standard mitigation measures included below will reduce the potential effects on the environment to less than significant. Equipment Exhausts and Related Construction Activities Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, asphalt paving and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The • use of construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Rev. 9/2011 A & B32 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 7 • Lees TW Significant cant less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Peleneent wnn then SiIMD.dnl Mitigelion Significant No ImgeCl Incoatod mgad Imeecl Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. Odors He equipment in the project area during construction would emit odors. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. The air quality study (LSA, March 2011) completed for the project states that the proposed project only processes dry paper and metals, thus is not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 the proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, objectionable odors posing a health risk to potential on-site and existing off-site persons would not occur as a result of the proposed project. • Naturally Occurring Asbestos The proposed project is located in San Bernardino County, and it is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. In addition, there has been no serpentine or ultramafic rock found in the project area. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestors (NOA) during project construction is small and less than significant. 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures (short term) Short Term (Construction) Emissions - Continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project- specific basis and in conformance with the General Plan FPEIR. Therefore, the following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: • 1. All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per Rev. 9/2011 A & B33 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 8 Less Than • S,ghtficiant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: amamiain With hen Significant Mitigation Significant No Imaad noomanated Imned Imoatl manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3. All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108: 5. All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: is Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to • reduce PMIg emissions. Rev. 9/2011 A & B34 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 9 • Than Lass Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wm Than PP 9 sgniri.nl 104,9alion SipniFmnt Np Imoect linwntioate, Impel Impel 8. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. Based upon on the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS7G) estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan (FPEIR), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2,5 and PM,o) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, they would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. Long Term (Operational) impacts Long Term Project Operational Emissions Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. The proposed project would result in a net increase in the number of industrial uses in the project area; therefore, the proposed project would result in net increases in both stationary and mobile source • emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from additional natural cas consumption for on-site buildings and electricity for the lighting in the buildings and at the parking area. The Air Quality Study (LSA, March 2011) completed for the project reviewed the Long Term Operational Emissions of the project including health risks on the surrounding area (Table 1). The study concluded that project would not have a significant effect on the environment including Cancer Risk (Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI)), Acute Risk (Maximum Acute Hazard Index (MNHI)) or Chronic Risk (Maximum Chronic Hazard Index (MCHI)). Therefore, project-related long-term air quality impacts will not be significant and mitigation measures will not be required. Table 1: Summary of Proposed Project Health Risks Cancer Risk Number in Chronic Risk Acute Risk Exposure Pathway One Million Hazard Index Hazard Index Maximum Exposed 2.11 0.0025 0.0086 Individual MEI SCAQMD CEQA 10 1.0 — 1.0 Significance Threshold Significant? No No No _ Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2011. SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA =California Environmental Quality Act • Rev. 9/2011 A & B35 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 10 LessT Lass ha • Loas Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fotentauy With Then fiw nSiBnifirant MlBalon S No mBad ncoryoelad ma d 2010 General Plan FPEIR Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures (long term) Long Term (Operational) Emissions - The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report(FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the future build out of the City. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan FPEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented: 10. Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 11. Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.3). C) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 4.3), continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and • State standards. The General Plan FPEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 114 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is adjacent to a single non-conforming single-family residence. The Air Quality Study (LSA, March 2011) completed for the project reviewed the Long Term Operational Emissions of the project including health risks on the surrounding area (Table I above). The study concluded that project would not have a significant effect on the environment including Cancer Risk (Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI)), Acute Risk (Maximum Acute Hazard Index (MNHI)) or Chronic Risk (Maximum Chronic Hazard Index (MCHI)). Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b) above will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels. e) Construction Odors (Short-term) may include odors associated with equipment use including diesel exhaust or roofing, painting and paving. These odors are temporary and would dissipate rapidly. Operation Odors (Long-term) are typically associated with the • type of use. Industrial uses could create objectionable odors and therefore are located away from residential uses and sensitive receptors. The site is located directly adjacent to Rev. 9/2011 A & B36 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 11 Less• Sign Than $Ignlfipant Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pptamlalnt wan Than PP 9 Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact - Incprporatetl Impact Impact a non-conforming single-family residence. The air quality study (LSA, March 2011) completed for the project states that the project will only process dry paper and metals and thus is not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, • vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat O O O (✓) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site is located in an area developed with heavy industrial uses. The site is an unpermitted ferrous metal recycling facility. According to the General Plan Figure RC-4, and Section 4.4 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on-site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. • c) No wetland habitat is present on-site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. Rev. 9/2011 A & B37 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 12 Less Then • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pmanhally wm Tnan SlBnificant Mitigation SlBni,, t No Im ad Inw atetl Impett Impact d) The City is primarily located in an urban area that does not contain large, contiguous natural open space areas. Wildlife potentially may move through the north/south trending tributaries in the northern portion of the City and within the Sphere of Influence. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are no heritage trees on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. f) Neither the City nor the SOI are within an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan area. The project site is not located within a local conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Figure RC-1. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) • resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). There will be no impact. b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential archaeological resources. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Cultural Resources based on the future build out of the City. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR shall be implemented: 1. If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: a Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its • archaeological value. Rev. 9/2011 A & B38 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 13 • - s T LesLeahen N h Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially w,th Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporated Im ed Impel • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying a in-kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. C) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the research performed at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere-of- Influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last "Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium, per the Public Safety Element of the General Plan; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 2. If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). Rev. 9/2011 A & B39 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 14 Than n • Less ga Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wnn Than Significant Mitigation Signd..nl No Imoact Inca tad Imped Im iit • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site currently be used as an unpermitted ferrous metal recycling facility and there are no known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, no mitigation is required in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on-site. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to • Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? O (✓) O ( ) C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault, according to the • General Plan Figure PS-2, and Section 4.7 of the General Plan FPEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 3.5 miles northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies Rev. 9/2011 A & B40 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 15 • Lam Than Signlrmant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than pf 9 Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImP.M Impact approximately 5 miles north of the site.These faults are both capable of producing My,6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to My,,7.5 earthquakes is 10 miles northeasterly of the city boundary and the San Andreas, capable of up to M,, 8.2 earthquakes, is 12 miles northeasterly of the city boundary. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code, Standard Conditions and the recommendations made in the Geotechnical Investigation Report will ensure that geologic impacts are less-than-significant. b) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area Exhibit 4.7-4 of the General Plan FPEIR. The grading and paving of the project site will require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or movement of on-site soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM1g emissions, in accordance • with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2. Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM1g emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PMtg emissions from the site during such episodes. 4. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM1g emissions. C) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.7) indicates that there is a potential for the hillside areas at the northern end of the City and in the SOI for slope failure, landslides, and/or erosion. Areas subject to slope instability contain slopes of 30 percent or greater. Landslides may be induced by seismic activity, rain, or construction. The City Hillside Development Regulations prohibits the development within slopes of 30 percent or greater and limit the number of units that could be constructed within the Hillside Residential and Very Low Density Residential designations in the Hillside areas. The site is not within an Earthquake hazard zone or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-2. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Gravelly Loamy Soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil • deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Gravelly Loamy Soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Rev. 9/2011 A & B 41 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 16 Than Less • Less itanl Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than significant Mitigation Significant rvo Imaad Incerpof0tetl hlmad hnaacl Exhibit 4.7-3. These soils are typically found in long, broad, smooth alluvial fans. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project utilizes an existing septic system and does not propose any new structures or the expansion of any on site buildings that would necessitate the increase in the capacity of the existing septic system. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a) Regulations and Significance - The Federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act(92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas ("GHG") emissions reduction target in Executive Order (ED) S-3-05. The EO created • goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: (1) that GHGs endanger human health; and (2) that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines six key GHGs (carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], hydroflourocarbons [HFCs], perflourocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]. The combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to GHG pollution. The western states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, already experience hotter, drier climates. California is a substantial contributor of GHGs and is expected to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit(°F) over the next centu ry. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent) to be achieved by 2020 and prepare a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline. Significant progress can be made toward the 2020 goal through existing technologies and improving the efficiency of energy use. Other solutions would include improving the State's infrastructure, and transitioning to cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The ARB estimates that 38 percent of the State's GHG emissions in 2004 was from transportation sources followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at • 28 percent and industrial at 20 percent. Residential and commercial activities account for Rev. 9/2011 A & B42 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 17 • Less Than Significant less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenhally wth Than signihcenl Mitigation 5i9nificsnl No ImpaLl nWrppldlad ImpaLl ImpaLl 9 percent, agricultural uses at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. It is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change but that GHG emissions from the project would combine with emissions across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Therefore, consistent with the ARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan, the proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the Early Action Measures (Scoping Plan is a recommendation until adopted through normal rulemaking). The proposed project is assessed by determining its consistency with the 37 Recommended Actions identified by ARB. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 97 and CEQA, the project has been analyzed based on a performance based standard") (CEQA 15064.4). Additionally, the ARB was directed through SB 375 to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. SCAQMD and ARB maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The stations closest to the project site are the Upland station and the Fontana-Arrow Highway station. The Upland station monitors all criteria pollutant except PM,o, PM2.5, and .S02 which are monitored at the Fontana-Arrow Highway station. The ambient air quality in the project area for CO, NO2, and S02 is consistently below the relevant State and Federal • standards (based on ARB and EPA from 2007, 2008, and 2009 readings). Ozone, PM,o, and PM2.5 levels all exceed State and Federal standards regularly. Project Related Sources of GHG's- Based on the Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community. However, neither the CEQA statutes, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, or the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines, prescribe thresholds of significance nor a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. Significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. An air quality study was prepared for the project(LSA, March 2011) that reviewed the long term project related operational emissions and concluded that the operations would not cause a significant effect on the environment(see Tables F and G below): 'Fable F: Project Operational Emissions Pollutant Emissions(Ibs/daV) Emissions Source ROC NOx CO I SOs ( PM,o PM,s - Stationary Sources I 0.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ener v Sources I 0.0^- 0.11 (1.12 0.(1 i 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 2.3i IS.3i 10.11 I mn 1.17 1.0 Total Pro'ect Emissions 2.8 IS.i 10 0.02 ➢:! 1.0 SCA MD Thresholds 55 i5 Si0 _ 150 li0 55 Significant? No No No No No No Source:LSA Associates.Inc..March 2011. CO=wrhnn monoxide PM_.=particulau:matter less than 2.5 microns in size • Ibs/day=pounds par day ROG=mactivc organic eases NO,,=nitrogen oxides SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality Management District PM particulate matter less than 10 microns In size SO,=sulfur oxides Rev. 9/2011 A & B43 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 18 ess ea'a •an Sigrvficent Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pmamiany wun pan Sitlnlficam Miligalion Signifiwnl No Impact Incomoratetl Imoacl Impact Treble G: Prqject LST Operational Impacts i Pollutant Emissions(Ibs/day) Emissions Source CO NO% I PM nI PM,, On-site emissions 1 9.0 18 1.0 0.99 LSTThresholds 2,193 Significant Emissions? No No No No Source:LSA Associates.Inc..March 2011. Note:Assuming San Bernardino SRA(34).5-acre site.25 meter distance. CO=carbon monoxide PM,,,=particulate matter less than 10 microns in size Ibs/day=pounds per day PM,_s=particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size LST=localized significance threshold SRA =Source Receptor Area NO,=nitrogen oxides Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions - The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.5) indicates that GHG emissions result from construction activities associated with diesel- powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e. Generators, workers vehicles, material delivery, etc.). The GHG emitted by construction equipment is primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The highest levels of construction related GHG's occur during site preparation including demolition, grading and excavation. Construction related GHG's are also emitted from off-site haul trucks and construction workers traveling to the job site. Exhaust emissions from construction activities would vary each day with the changes in construction activity on site. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHG's such as • COz, Ch4, and NZO. CH4 are emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than- significant levels: 1. The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2. The construction contactor shall select construction equipment based on low- emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture's specification. 3. Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4. Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5. Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. 6. Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG's Emissions - The primary source of GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to review the project for "adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full • disclosure," to determine potential impacts of GHG's. Therefore the project has been analyzed based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time this Rev. 9/2011 A & B44 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 19 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wnn Than Signi4cam Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incornorated Imodn Imvac. document was prepared. Estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is a worst case with the understanding that technology changes may reduce GHG emissions in the future. To date, there is no established quantified GHG emission threshold. On January 29, 2009 the SCAOMD's working group released GHG emission thresholds for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The GHG emission thresholds provide a tiered analysis approach specifically for industrial projects. The threshold requires that a project's GHG emissions be within GHG budgets in approved regional plans and that the project's incremental increase to GHG emissions is less than 10.000 MT CO2e per year. The project includes the operation of an unpermitted ferrous metal recycling facility and the construction of street improvements, new landscaping, paving and screen walls. An air quality study was prepared for the project (LSA, March 2011) that reviewed the projects GHG emissions and compliance with AB 32. The study found that the total operational greenhouse gas emissions expected from the project, using the standard CaIEEMod sources for industrial uses and adding the construction emissions representing the construction-type equipment used to process the recycled material, are approximately 1,000 MT COZe per year. This is well below the 10,000 MT CO2e per year threshold; therefore, the project will not result in a significant impact on global climate change. The following mitigation measures will further reduce the projects effects on the environment: • 7. Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 8. Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. b) The project proposes the construction of street improvements, paving, new landscaping and screen walls. The project is in compliance with the City's water efficient landscaping requirements (City of Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance No 823) which limits the maximum allowed water use for landscaping on a project site and in turn reduces GHGs as result of less water conveyance to the site. No other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emission apply to the project. The main source of pollutants will be from the operation of heavy equipment as part of the ferrous metal recycling operation. The project is an expansion of an existing operation. The existing equipment will continue to be used and handled under a normal equipment replacement/upgrade cycle. The 2010 General Plan Update included adopted policies and Standard Conditions that respond to the Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of GHG's and determined that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable, which would be a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and therefore would be less than a significant impact. • Rev. 9/2011 A & B45 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 20 Than T Less h • Less an Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentialy win Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Imoacl 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) Development within the City may utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. This is usually associated with individual households, small business operations, and maintenance activities like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil or through construction activities that would use paints, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, and oils. These materials would be stored and used at individual sites. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the sate. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. Additionally, an Environmental Site Assessment • (Stantec, September 2010) was performed on the soil of the existing ferrous metal recycling facility and found that the levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and various Rev. 9/2011 A & B46 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 21 • Less Than SignifW Less L.. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PctentWly wit^ an Significant Miagation Significant No Impact Inmrooratetl Impact Imoaci metals in the soils were at levels well below the United States Environmental Protection Agency screening levels. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. No adverse impacts are anticipated. C) There are no schools located within 114 mile of the project site. The project site is located approximately 1 mile from the nearest school. No impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspections did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. An Environmental Site Assessment (Stantec, September 2010) was performed on the soil of the existing ferrous metal recycling facility and found that the levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and various metals in the soils were at levels well below the United States Environmental Protection Agency screening levels. No impact is anticipated. • e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1 and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 4 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. Further, the site is not located within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA), according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1. No impact is anticipated. f) There are no private airstrips within the City. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 Y miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. The project site has access to existing roadways. The City's Emergency Operation Plan, which is updated every three years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from wind-driven fires in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone found in the northern part of the City; however, the proposed project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to General Plan Figure PS-1 • Rev. 9/2011 A & B47 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 22 Less Than • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polenfimy with man Significant Mlligafion SigNIcanl No Impact InCOmOfdtetl Imoacl Imoacl 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ( ) ( ) (✓) ( ) requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) • the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a) Water service is provided by the Fontana Water Company (FWC).The project is designed to connect to existing water services. The site does not have access to public sewer services and is on a septic system. The project does not propose any additional buildings or expansion of the existing septic system. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The General Construction Permit treats any construction activity over 1 acre as an industrial activity, requiring a permit under the State's General NPDES permit. The State Water Resource Control • Rev. 9/2011 A & B48 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 23 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Min Tnan Signlfianl NAipation Significam No Imoacl Incomomted Imoacl Imoacl Board (SWRCB), through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, administers these permits. Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for new development or significant redevelopment. Prior to commencement of construction of a project, a discharger must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The General Permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during construction activities, including site clearance and grading: 1. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. 2. Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. 3. Perform inspections of all BMPs. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges. A construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires an • NPDES permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare an SWPPP. To comply with the NPDES, the project's construction contractor will be required to prepare an SWPPP during construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post-construction operational management of storm water runoff. The applicant has submitted a WQMP, prepared by Lin Consulting, Inc. (July 11, 2011), which identifies BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system after construction. Runoff from driveways, roads and other impermeable surfaces must be controlled through an on-site drainage system. BMPs include both structural and non-structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant levels include detention basins, oil/grit separators, and porous pavement. Non-structural controls focus on controlling pollutants at the source, generally through implementing erosion and sediment control plans, and various Business Plans that must be developed by any businesses that store and use hazardous materials. Practices such as periodic parking lot sweeping can substantially reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The following mitigation measures are required to control additional storm water effluent: Construction Activities: 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 5. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and • implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall Rev. 9/2011 A & B49 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 24 Less Then • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenfially V Tnan Significant Mlbganon Sigetificant No Impact InCOfOO(dt¢a Imoacl Impact include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 6. During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 7. During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. Post- Construction Operational: 6. The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Lin Consulting, Inc. (July 11, 2011) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 9. Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing • the use of fertilizerslpesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Figure RC-3. Development of the site will require the grading and excavation, but would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 300 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2030. No impacts are anticipated. C) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on the site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and • amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. Rev. 9/2011 A & B50 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of P.ancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 25 • r Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P.Mn'ia'ly wlm Than significant Mitigation Slg'huhl No Impact IOCpfppldtetl ImpdC� ImpdL� All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on-or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The project is an expansion of an existing ferrous metal recycling facility and is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City • Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 11. Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. g) No housing units are proposed with this project. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to adequately convey floodwaters from a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as • shown in General Plan Figure PS-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. Rev. 912011 A & B 51 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 26 Less Tian • Less Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated tinned Impact j) There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located on the south site Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and • Hickory Avenue and is characterized by heavy industrial development to the north, east and west, a rail line to the south and is adjacent to a non-conforming single-family residence. This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding industrial development to the north, south, east and west. Adjacent to the project site is a one non- conforming single-family residence. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site land use designation is Heavy Industrial. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection, SCAG's Compass Blueprint, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such, no impacts are anticipated. C) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local • general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Rev. 9/2011 A & B52 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 27 • ess Than significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sy.moaioi Mit giafion Signhficant No Im act Incomoretetl Imoacl Imoacl Comments: a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or, periodic increase in ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels • existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is not within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Figure PS-9 at build-out; however, there is a non-conforming single-family residence adjacent to the.site. An Acoustical Impact Study (LSA, June 2011) was performed on the site and mitigation measures were recommended that would reduce the interior noise levels of the single-family residence to less than significant. Exterior- 1. Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. • Rev. 9/2011 A & B53 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 28 Less Les Than • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P°te"liany with ma^ Signitican� Mitigation SlgniM1can� No Impact Incom°ra[etl Impact Imoad Interior. 2. Replace the existing doors and windows of the adjacent single-family residence with retrofit doors and windows that have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32 or higher to be completed within 120 days of the approval of the project. 3. Construct an 8-foot high block wall along the property line adjacent to the single-family residence from the minimum street side setback to the southern end of the existing subterranean loading dock to be completed within 60 days of the approval of the project. b) The proposed ferrous metal recycling facility does not use any equipment that creates a sustained ground borne vibrations. The main source of any ground borne vibration is the moving of the recycled materials which may cause very short periods of vibration that are not excessive for the Heavy Industrial District in which the site is located. As such, no impact is expected. c) The Acoustical Impact Report (LSA — June 2011) states that the onsite operations will have a maximum noise level of 86 dBA. The site is located in a heavy industrial location which permits outdoor operations that do not exceed 85 Ldn. Ldn is an average noise level over a fixed period of time, whereas dBA is an average sound level at a given point in time. Per staff discussion with the author of the Acoustical Impact Report, the on-site Ld" • measurement is much lower than the maximum permitted 85 dBA. As such, no impacts are anticipated. Additionally, the project is an expansion of the existing ferrous metal recycling facility. d) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.12) indicates that during a construction phase, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: 4. Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or,at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 5. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 6. The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase to be completed within 60 days of the approval of the project. • Rev. 912011 A & B54 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 29 • ass Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fntamially wim rnan Significant Miligetion Significam No Imgacl Incorooraletl Imoad Imoacl The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction equipment but do not address the potential impacts because of the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 7. Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not,pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The Project is located approximately 4 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 '/: miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. • 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. The project is an expansion of an existing use and will have a very limited number of new employees; hence, will not create a demand for additional housing as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project site is zoned Heavy Industrial and therefore contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. C) The project site is zoned Heavy Industrial and does not contain any residences. No impacts are anticipated. • Rev. 9/2011 A & B55 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 30 Less Than • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pote"tiaity With Than Significant Miligation Si gnificant 10 Impact Incnlpnfated Impact Ohm 14, PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ( ) (✓) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) C) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a) The site is located on the south site Whittram Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Hickory Avenue and is served by a fire station located approximately 2 miles from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc, October 2011) was submitted for the project. The Fire Protection Plan made a number of • recommendations to reduce the demand for public safety services (Fire Services) to the site. The recommendations made in the Fire Protection Plan and the Standard Conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project to lessen the future demand and impacts to fire services. No impacts are anticipated. 1. The project shall conform to all of the recommendations made in the Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc, October 2011) including limits on pile heights(20 feet maximum). b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. C) The site is in a developed area currently served by the Etiwanda School ,District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay School Fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is located 1 mile from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, • currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in Rev. 9/2011 A & B56 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 31 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fclentially WjN than Significant Mingaticr. Significant No Imgad Incomoratetl Impact Impact the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.14), there will be a projected increase in library space demand but with the implementation of standard conditions the increase in Library Services would be mitigated to less than significant impact. Additionally, the Paul A. Biane Library has an additional 14,000 square foot shell of vacant library space that is planned for future Library use. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: • a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is located 1 mile from the project site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. 16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including () ( ) ( ) (✓) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Rev. 9/2011 A & B57 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 32 Less Than • Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenbany with Than Significant mugation Significant No Imvan Incorporate, Impact Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Comments: a) Implementation of the proposed project will generate 6.97 vehicle trips daily. The proposed project is developed with an industrial use. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each industrial uses will generate 6.97 trips daily. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.16), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In addition, the City has established a Transportation Development fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used • to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project will produce approximately 10 to 15 truck trips to the site on days that is in operation. The project site is within a Heavy Industrial Development District which was designed to accommodate businesses with above average large truck traffic. Additionally, in November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair share toward regional transportation improvement projects. On May 18, 2005, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a Comprehensive Transportation Fee Schedule updating these development impact fees. As a result, the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency waived the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis reporting requirement. This project will be required, as a condition of approval, to pay the adopted transportation development fee prior to issuance of building permit. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. C) Located approximately 4 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. • Rev. 9/2011 A & B58 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 33 • Less Than Sianifiwnt less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polenlially wun rnan significant Mitigation Significant No Imoacl Inwrporaletl Imoacl Imoacl e) A Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc. — October 2011) was prepared for the project which included a fire access plan that was approved by the City. The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles during construction and upon completion of the project and will therefore not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project is an expansion on an unpermitted ferrous metal recycling facility and no new buildings are proposed. The project will not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) water drainage facilities or expansion of existing • facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project site is served by a private septic system that will not be enlarged by the proposed project. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by a private septic system that will not be enlarged by the proposed project. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. • c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official Rev. 9/2011 A & B59 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 34 Than Less • S,gnlficant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wnh Than F Significant Mugaaon Sigriffwt No Imvect Incolporaled ImaaCl Imvad and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the Fontana Water Distrcit. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project site is served by a private septic system that will not be enlarged by the proposed project. No impacts are anticipated. f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. No impacts are anticipated. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or • wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history,or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C) Does the project have environmental effects that will ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Figure RC-4. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site. No impacts are anticipated. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2010 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of • Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental Rev. 9/2011 A & B60 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 35 • effects of build-out in the City and Sphere-of-Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral Resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. C) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less-than-significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier PER or Negative Declaration per Section • 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (T) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (T) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (T) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (T) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (T) Air Quality Analysis (LSA, March 2011) (T) Acoustical Impact Study(LSA, June 2011) (T) Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc., October 2011) (T) Environmental Site Assessment (Stantec, September 2010) • (T) Geotechnical Investigation Report (Heider Engineering, August 2011) Rev. 9/2011 A & B 61 Initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 City of Rancho Cucamonga All State Recycling Page 36 (T) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR • (Certified September 19, 1981) (T) Air Quality Analysis (LSA, March 2011) (T) Acoustical Impact Study (LSA, June 2011) (T) Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc., October 2011) (T) Environmental Site Assessment (Stantec, September 2010) (T) Geotechnical Investigation Report (Heider Engineering, August 2011) • • Rev. 9/2011 A & B62 initial Study for DRC2011-00254 and DRC201 -00255 City of P.ancno Cucamcnae Alt State Recycling rage 37 • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION - -! certify tits', I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. 1 acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the pr000sed mitigation measures. =urther, I have revised the proiect pians o� prnpcaa!s and/or hereey agree to the proposed mR1ga'tiap measures to avoid the effects o; mitigate the effects to a paint where dearly no significant environm €ftec s would occur. i \ Applicants Sfgnsture'L ,� �i� �'—'' Date' Print Name and Title: c iwportmR%rgimanlisfloweN361486 iAcc c:%nrportbl\rwglman 1 WlowenT3B 1456_i.dor. Rev 9(X11 • A & B63 City of Rancho Cucamonga - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: DRC2011-00254 and DRC2011-00255 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring • progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management- The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the Planning Director, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. . 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action,what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • A & B64 Mitigation Monitoring Program Project—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255. Page 2 • 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department,to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to • hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project.monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. • A & B65 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: DRC2011-00255 and DRC2011-00254 Public Review Period Closes: March 28, 2012 Project Name: Project Applicant: James Lin for All State Recycling Project Location (also see attached map): Located within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 and 02. Project Description: A request to operate a 4.42-acre scrap operation and make site improvements including constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving, add an office module, and add employee eating area and parking for a project site. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency,has conducted an • Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted,the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. • March 28, 2012 Date of Determination Adopted By A & B66 o .,. U sa 2` • V »y+ ; L) N N N N N N (Q jvp., Q LL a N U U N U �. a U a a a a J w Rub m m m @ @ @ tC6 O A O o `o o `o `o T d L m n=< ~ h-t N fS fS Y A U _ _ .r _ • Y61 O r U ;r a) U.) x .) o o v gyro 0 o O O O a a Z o m m m Q N U +y p@ c .4 = 2 ac E p a a p 0, 0 mod `: UE — 0003 M @E Z ❑ d v c � c '@ E �� .a ca% 3 � av) OM E w - d ,E o ❑ a) U — f� Q N J U@ O@ L N (n Q c E O aZ = =p a° oa Z - o odo o0 cu a tw 2 F .., _ U �> � �� a -0 'm°o E r0 Q N @ @ n' E n r E a ° o da x s- co. co uo aim@ o O � ' ° ` L F- , o.� m rn O P U p w @ m o n U o 2 w > a) w 2 C L a w a) M 2:1 C � om U ° >c �QVm mam E MM ° m N N - m E d x a $ ) N 2 00 U O N a 0 C o L nc C to c o c o a E wa) V mc @ m � ° oE 0 m c C rio v E Z o c S ° . �._ ` 0 — o4E � a> u � rn o c vo � - N Gl N c � ' C w g w d m > I a C Q c LL m 3/I •U d O :+ _ ° — 'ma'N E o U E .N °o ° a an d aao)CL.-M M U m w Q) O @ n m n w pO N O 0 > mma � mo o M � 3a)aiv o A & B67 a Q •N N N R V a s a Q Q Q Q a s Q @ @ @ @ @ @ a s n n 0 0 0 0 0 H U U U U U O O C y C o C N C N C y N N N N N N p J O N N U U U U O U T T W 0 •U U U U U - U U U U U U N O O O O O O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m a) C '0 "0 U L_ W 0) �- N L _0 C N c Y 0) 0 0 - c O . 0) O aj N C w U . c O U m m `m v3 0 � N m@ J ; (U = p a) 0 a) O C N @ N N n N 1. N V C O ;p > a)) N U N U 3 @ O. O y C L o c@ O o C N O o r j L 0 N E -p @ E L O O p U C N N @ a-0 N � C Na ? O) V .0 r0 N � >. p D O E a) L N '0 L@ @ y N L@ @ a) @ {Up N N N C .N. U L 3 � '�O N C N a) a) N N O O C ID.0 ' C 0 -0 o@ o @ L N J _ C 3 N @ O N d 0 o@ m 0 m Od N _ E a) o - E ar m orn oo m C c y n p 3 O > N .O m @ vi "0 @ U fa m N O. L d N lv� O C) Q C N ID 0 N _ N N > O. > Vl '0 E- O U y O N th' E N -0 U) 'O ° N n.? fa 'O O @ n o, — '> 6 N = m m = OZ 0u � E0 Co p 00 N @ � c � pa >, o).o '5 m 3 a ur '� v, @ °� 'c m o a N .E ° 3 c c N w N > @ J o a :D o m X V O N 0) a) >. C ul cr 'E C' (a N N o N V N - � N c d O N 0 n N `N N O U c >` @ O `0) N D > a) o @ `og - � . N m a mUL E p a° m L)) E — ° cg J 'or o U 2 ° L n ) O N c o U 0N W m O � N" O L ❑ U> N L 0 _ > O O = N J .m m U o 0 J N o CL o. m U N 3 @ N ma.-- F- o U m � 0 E m O _3 • 3 • • • L 0) 0@ U L > L L C N F @Oacn Um @a a r ° u A & B68 �lf r 4 C14 Q N N C) a 3 If r m m 1�Y CL n 7uur'rr�� } v m `o `o o `o `o `o �• T • _ y 1.'. D esM.p O U U M O O O O m m m m O m m a a. a o_ � 0 C m C7 uQuE "mcc a > ° g a) o � oa 3 °� a y � 5 V) UJ 0omm co CLm ID ° M N � UQ �voio ? Eo @ 3 `oc 2wa. Ana' -0 w? Z a) 00wyE co -0 3: o " @ N 0 C L .� 0 OE 7,r I L.. 'C @ U N co ..>. C N @ U @ .0. a) - O °1`. O O c M O W O °— 'U d N N ` O 10 C U L a - ,'� ''' u .E E@ t U ° 'c U Mn @ w ° 0 c a1 r 0@ o � y N o@ E � � o 0'u1 � `o_ o � w U 0 o 0. M m @ U 0 ilm 0 °� m @ N ° ,O 0 .0c L O @ _ 0 0 — O N `O c ` a) ;A,y L C 'C W' c �, m @ y a) Od @ .O > -0 . 0 o .J c ;;'-' ` � o a. ,- c o ... cL m m v Co '- � '- fe; @ -0 a1 0 � o w .- E ai L E c m m c a c o a - 4'`,„ Lac a@i �. > > .N @ 'N .S c o 0 0 ° E U o > N m°' ` l 0 mU E 014 m o �.a U m o1 , � .° o 0 — � b°° U E O > m L 0 a)0 Exam � � cm L > mc moc Lo := o l'e`i; 0a) a�ir L oU ooco ao EEC � � @ .4 U M - i'^o ra of � Ec 'o 0o a) 6) @Q@ . nS0m 3 N N � NN i a) 'O f0 O a) W c 0@ O N ru p_ O O N N d c m m @ m � 3 ccu `:�- � mww - o o@ Na_ a� � @ `mricr :° ° mE "' °' m " �• ac@mEm @ co , E L o 'Ea0 '�1 -° N 0 C c O U O U O al O U U a) C 'O j al O .O_. @ O .0 '> 10/1 L W N 3@ U .0 'O � d@ d N m E C 'U1 L+ Y m � aci o ° 4= c � � a� U - aD @a `@ A & B69 M V V Q M M ' °a °a °a °a ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 r CL CL m d v a Q) `o `o `o o aLD D aa)) W a3) aa)) a>) aa)) a>i aa)) w aa)) U O •U m m m ❑ ❑ V a a a m a a U L.. � C m a) p o y a) c a) a1 m 'D L m N a) � O O O m O C m C U L.. a C . E N O L a) C L noUE 'a � E � ° a _° Eo° 'a aN, cmi � m � a 0 = m m3U C p m ❑_ p 'O p N C d C N o) m N > >,w O M E N '� C O. O m N E d a) '� O a) .� C OU m a) -0 — m a) C E cao rnnEmma`) v N a « of Cn N L m 0 _N CD m m al_ L N E_ ... 0 N m a V m m C 'U c aa)) 3av 0- o .M- = 3 c pc) w `o f0 � C a) � E a) m 0 o ot� maC E J a - > = E U N ° N me a p � ar � oo 'g E0 a ° v v E .0 a o U m E o c 0 _ m o T c c o o E o « m b N a C - a m N �' m U `� o N c- 0 p C E v N m m O �..v �O °i ° o m e m a o J m m E E p > o L r L E o E m m a) m cN mo 0 0)-m .0 m mt m ` JO Ec� r U) o > E `o - - o Q) Y mo0 0 @ter 3m .° mt EE0 0o p N a m �O N p)'J N p) m .p C C N U J 'y a) O `) - O CL... E N m C O m O a) C m C O C .�' .p N 0 Cp yj O N J O E O ,O O :- U o O `0 J C E N O C m 0' N ' a o � M0mN � rmc0EO o3 � m � ? « a) ° c m � � Zmpa r o) o � � 0 -0 a) 'v; a) -° � Z a ° _ °' � � "� mE EF- � o rn; 0 o m > Z m m m O N w m m in d N 'c c c m c o m J m 'E0 � � Emu° mEo � Ev' n° per SID 0uo 6cl Nom CD v a� J = o m m m .3 c a. . o a_ E v m a� ° m `m ' � a m o2 _ o o E a � o � C m � m `m a) '� .n Q) Nio f6E o) nE O1 � o)3cE) ` mE@c Em aJi Q) U O N .m U U CL O_ ` O J V Oo C) N J C c O 0 0 'O C N V J a U d N • d "O C1 f0 O Q m >` N O U N N O N Q'- J L N U (a O O C O J J p J C 'N a) W a) - 'U m d.o Q m E 'O U) O N 0) U d a m U U) U U m > C m m Cl ` O "O OU A & B70 Y( �1 icy y.•• illyy-� 1.2 4 - �IX O p p p ;fi U U U U F � ty r r V- • } O c z h F o p o m ° a o a E a c a a Q aULU a m m @ ��.N �d ao ; oa N i Qp w$ (�o D a , o 0 o E U CD v) � E o c o oa m 32� ` " ad Co O s E O co_ L'Cl< ,C L N T L a E a CD m O — 3 U d @ O O - N t,-rlf fn c 3 3 0 PL/1 L .a N a't5 N d a) .00 N a) N E L ,N N C tYU! N C N C d d . a a) w 'N U (Ja la o:r 0 a E N a '0 m N o L j N d N U N O a) ja .0 N N — @ N NN > ENO 'orE o "•c m v m Tc day .0,2• '$Tr N ma m a) a) c E cu .0 o N a m m N 'N U V 0 0 .N O)� �� d U N N Ex`t'On a) O a) N C a) ,�) O a 4 L A & B 71 ?)rrt !.r; y' } N N N N N N N N au.t —y- r..; r:y '{4y a a a a a a a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ •� a a a n o_ n a a O O O O O O O . O :.# a) N N N N a) N a) l 411- r [ W sSY-4`x O • m m m m m m m m � t= -�? C a) � _ N c L O) a) a) l0 C N L_ -0 N O O ono @ 0 me o = o EL vox, N C "o N@ L � _ C � L 3 � N U N @E .> cc a)O O0 C @ a)a) ) >U O O a) C 0 O ; ° E °c a @ E Prt .� '� @ 'C N C N O >. @ C N N i U V E@ 3 _ o C U C w N C N C @ O U Vl a) a) @ O U @ @ 4P+' @ a) r L .N N U@ O E O O > C V) .'L� C CL 0 o E C p C a) V) C 7 y) U c E a) arn) w o aka O_ N o �@ o $ `m o a) CIO O > L ) L C rvo� 0 30 O c @ @ E LJ U @ o E � U �"• D o E a c c N o C 'D c C � N O) la N a @ ,a) U Q O) >, N c C .0. y > CO c U .2) � d o)U m,C Y d a) @ @ V) aj ` O m UO 3 N O .— 0) •0 a)piCgj a U — O U d m V O Y C O 1] N N a) — �EQ m > m.! N 3 L_ L O a '� a) C a C U C = V C@ N 'O W 'O V C a.�.. L ' U M N L O' C@ C@ @@ O O 72 c c C J a) O cO E r E Q _ w U a � fa 5@ U D c A & B72 f � h r.: �Mai N N N N N N y � s ' a a as a a @ @ @ @ @ n a a n a a r 3 3 3 > > > W a>i a>) o 0 4 U U "+. m m m m m m a4 eY. 9 m m m m m m I�z cyco o cE >.mrno cc cn -6RZ E @E2 = lj ° m � " o no ° � w5E 0o ° a :o3rn � c -_ 0° o > = v^: o 22r 'E o2 aU � N- � coo � ° � cu� @ @ ° 30 Lioc CL U N 3 0 l4 c @ " a) W y >. U C N O) O ,E o m N a) U a Fa: o o -o E o > 0 c c c a) o o ac ° c N o 3 CL ME ow Eo CO @ .@ - Y a o 000 0 @ @E `o ona - - QE � .c mL `n is w � CD O a as 0 'O a) ` V) O .O o 'p U h E N to > > c v '� o @d 'D aE @ o o ma) -0 .�' NU oLY ° o ° ° Ep ° 30 @o = o � u o mo � oaca° NE ° 3 aa) 0 3 ° 0 3@ �wUm � w adOM EEca. - a) a)0 - aE of 3 co ca) ' o 0) E - o � o � c Q) E o a E T@ m a a � n o E o � o d _ E c L _ @ @ o o o c @teamN 0 � Qua �'m ipdc "' ww Ev) co ai Ev, E y_ O m O U O C T@ m c 0 L n'- E „@ � dm � c cv - c of y ° o ° c � cw � E °? c.1 y oc ca@ @oR Yc Cl',tl E3 a� m ° c@ p moo @ o a @ 0 0 c E 0 E a d o v 0 a w U) u c ° ° u E u o .= m N a m aN 0 0 p _c ` a) E 0 c @1 Evm ° m o 0 0ma � o :� ro o CIF o m � E n a`) E oL u 'm v 2 ��^, - N a E C.c T U U O C y UU N C N N .0 U@ O O. @ W m N 2 Old N v d -- o a? u) o c .4 o m@ 0 d -0 �. ° 0 C 0 .=_ in 'oo � c c a) a @ . m 0 E U v d c ' .0 0 o U o 0 • @cow � 0 oo c u iE � ° 0E c �mt @oia -o � UO : � o c <� O O O) c O o Co td E O N a � c CD d 2 5z O "' a) °` `� a) 0-N 02 M O _ d F- U c ... W N .0 C N .EE O - C - N E W O o @ > a) @ -O T.- N N .- C L . ° to @ o @ c N a) 'o o ._ a) @ .S L L, c U M 2? ❑ a a.5 '� Win a a` S :°_ rn U Q w a s @ H E m Q .E o U A & B73 N N N zt N ' a a a a N Vl V) N m m m m o a a n `o `o `0 0 3 3 3 3 o w d m D 0 U U U U ° 07 m m m CO • M m m m C O c c N 0 0 � O 0@ 0 rn N N U N c N Co N OJ m T@ W N y p W >@ .Q.V N ula O C N > 2 N _ w w � +N„ 0 N N@ U N N ... N - c 0 m N m U c m N C NOCO � c � c@E O ? NTdC ° ° c@ma@ � � o ca> : E a 3 � 0 mO2 owo rn.. ? E2U' ° v oo 'a as aN o. 0)-w00 m > � E D5Zaa) c,4 n0 c c� a) O °-=_ 0 ° c m � � L E d o-ino ppc ° m CD - o w a•- mvE ,z• 30 ° m -o 'D rnE w a • c a) u C° aUu m C0E o0C0 � Eo 0_ •2y N CD E ' ° ^ O ° d @ rn E E N - Ea d@ o _ o n � � m n m cm o 'O Y .N mo m - c m E 6 °, o c r o o ° n ° M r o c c c M o E W u E om � o - g >. �' m c NEo -0m@ aw � 'o � Npya) U '� a3 d L � M � a m � v ° ° i. o ° 2E.� .n .c � ami Er 2 ° o w c a m u m E o n V d = m a E o ° a� ° c ° c o, c . L c cnNO nU' ° cap ma� o- � I = « cm3 -oF � > � ° 3 � � ° oo rn0. a) a) ° °c w mcLE °- � ° ° maw > a ,� o E ° S Ln : m `m E @ L 2 .- - sumo • ) m 2 E o N o 3 ;N o '" yaw y .0 -3`- a>'iZ, c c a, a " ._ o E_ d N smoo � mo � dcm .c > � °- > > a�'i � a� moZm O V m a HwU o f � owe CD d 0O "om- nc A & B74 �1 t � k wy r'i. s" ax S L,q o 0 0 0 > y C C C C D L) O OV D U O U r • 0 U m U U U U j s r f y;. a) T C C jn �. m „,.i. m O ai N m O C N p N E O)O m 0) T Ll w6 a) m N N U Q) '`'N O Z C N N .S 4) O F N .0 m 'C O •' 'O 'O vio -' aci arnoaci ",':''",' mEaa)i '- _D v mc (nm .�., xs aci2 'o op° C� CL m . � s E o 2 u r o m m-2 NO E m 3 ^ m o 'Eo BUT a -o dui aUoWU) *.E ° p `a a> Omo o m c d s �.o a) 0- N '� N of Y E `o rnZ . * d - vo � 0 0 C d r mm U m N -O O N o 'N O -O C2 m N C o. � ZOdaLo. � x c � co £ c0 3o00 cm � a o_ om 0 � D �xs.,g: mE ' Nomo .o Em ° � co y3o oE '- acmNmo ? cQ� XoEc c ` � � 0aca d � �° om o a) E -a a) bL""' :° o . o t6 i m 3 E a M M a E v w 0 Mm r� EO N OOO � mL. CO O > NY O. f6 m (n mZO ° o > Nam � o � m @° � 03oau - 'E � oy N � o mm m o � o o o j N � a � � o � °o � m o o rn� O mo m'D E `0 .5 m '� m o � v . ' s N o m m m me E d a ra c - v c '- a � o .EEomEoE oroL 120 c ) DLm o � c'�i � > cu 0 0 `o a) c Vi 'N . Eo)= o . mmo rn m c o E z ma a mLL m 'x :Et N .0 ° a a m m m LLl U m c 'o c , m m o � m °' >, E o o y c m ° o m • N N 'C O N 0 a= O ,y 0 C @ y L m O — m CV m m m O O Fu V L 6 O O O ' N w O O O > O 0 n C c m m a) L O)N O N O O_L N C N y O. .— O N m 0 0 . O m 0 O O m N a) C m += a) amSOUK o -OmU Z; m `o00na E a) ww � � Um in ucia L) A & B75 n e" �h V Q V V sx:`tw"o 4 8 r y Q Q Q Q P C O O " '; O C j C .2 C 1...9 r 5 � U U U � U � • � rz SO nay O ❑ O O m a a a aUU > a°iU 03t !EN'NL a1) "O a°i _°cNN :�F- wrn g� cRo X a� � 'oma ids O � (D mc°o L? ' mac Eaa)i � � m5 .2 Q) O a) C O V a7 C O C a T C O V a j > E O L O O C T U ? 'p L 'c .0 '00 d L a) "O a7 O)L O O 'Ot si. E N m lV 'C C N L "O O N .O N ` 3 N a1 C "' 5 N N L L c � 3 d E v mm o ,.. y -o n. ° � E LL C ^" say N E Oa c, N N N N m C O >> o L O` N O a) -OO �' O M O_ Ul E E o O c > 'p N O N Y C T •p O N w 0 > 0 ° o d E � -S a za° � 'p ° a m ° m ° O aam m �s ? o a oy � > c3 >oo 0 c nE EOC � 6a" a a `' = cN c N a>i @ aO� L c°� m m i. m � > m °c ash � L m .4 m uoi oa .E o O ❑ O .0 O cS°— a) .L.• a3 .L] N m 5 a7 O O W ° N J N 0 t3 c = A m C N G N 01� 0I 'O U N u aJ �O O N a/ U O) O N c a O U E -o m Lo w. c c -p a) a1 N 3 a� N c E 2 .S 0 c a c c a) 'O a a) a) '� .O Q E aJ U7 (D U N � a) a1 T C O O al O O V S °' N c 0'E E m 'E '� a s ? E ° c ? Ty C N a3 O L N = 00 O N w N a) a)2] C O a7 m... N N N CO E aI W O p U a C, N c N a N C N = U E — O U — >; m > N C w N *uN y N L.+ N E S • 2 t c N 2 m a 2 `o m c . O 0 o c U N N N m C m N a) jn ° °_N W _ N "O '� -gyp _'O C O. �Or a a) L E O C C O — C O (q N a) a) N > > = 'O O C Y) �•.i (D V O •X �+ O .�. S O a1 0 0 0 0 > L O O O N 'O O @ X O - L (a U E >1 co U N N E w c o c o d F a, 2 L (/J Q m a N c dk F- E O E Y A & B76 N U Ji�}yy'.0 C C V • w zy$ LL' U U 0 5 0 a �P p m p C dtYYY N {{pp r*:e• == v m v O oo U' U s v U . °•CI; a a o >0 0 v o 0 0 0 > c 0 o Oj � s tiY W�v c Si N �o 3 fn ttol Q n zpt v FU A�y cp :4=a. ._ EL (D o T e w m u U) c m v v apt v Q L m OR N N C N O 'O a o - hs w • Nab O tf6 0 0 6�a i o 2 w�4 aji U o U o n m m O L E c 3C w F- '' o m . o U c n M0� a` rOO € ¢ mUOw m c �y v Pik d �yjy�iY � `i�'. O C O N ryi C m d a W O O O 0 O m • � m )4 E E m U C3E c W .o 2 U o m v ?& 'O: U d U m d LL o o w 0 0 0 K:- U a U m LL LL A & B77 RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255-A REQUEST TO MAKE SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING INSTALLING A TEMPORARY OFFICE MODULE, CONSTRUCTING NEW SCREEN WALLS, INSTALLING ALL STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING, COMPLETE ON-SITE PAVING AND ADD AN EMPLOYEE EATING AREA AND PARKING FOR A 4.42-ACRE PROJECT SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OF SUBAREA 15 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITTRAM AVENUE BETWEEN PECAN AVENUE AND HICKORY AVENUE, LOCATED AT 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, AND 13253 WHITTRAM AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03, AND 02. A. Recitals. 1. James Lin for All State Recycling filed an application for Development Review DRC2011-00255, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 14, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application that was continued to a date uncertain. 3. On February 8, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application that was continued to a date uncertain. • 4. On March 28, 2012, 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. 5. 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 December 14, 2011, and continued to February 8, 2012, and March 28, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a request to do site improvements related to the permitting of a ferrous metal recycling facility; and b. The subject property is zoned Heavy Industrial; and C. The property to the north is zoned General Industrial and is developed with a • vehicle storage facility; the property to the south is zoned Heavy Industrial and is undeveloped; and, the properties to the east and west are zoned Heavy Industrial and are developed with a vehicle dismantler and a vehicle storage facility, respectively; and A & B78 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 2 d. The subject site improvements are required as part of the approval process for • Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity; and C. The application,which contemplates operation of the proposed use,complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the • project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department • of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. A & B79 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 'DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 3 • 5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning 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 Department: 1) Approval is granted for site improvements related to the operation of a 4.42-acre recycling facility located at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03, and 02. 2) . Install street improvements including curb, sidewalks, landscaping for the Whitram Avenue frontage, including the frontage for the single-family residence and vehicle repair shop. 3) Construct an 8-foot high decorative wall with a decorative cap and view obscuring metal gates along Whittram Avenue and between the project site and the single-family residence. 4) Construct an 8-foot high painted metal screen fence along the east and west property lines and along a portion of the property line separating .the project site from the single-family residence. These metal screen walls will not be visible from the Whittram Avenue right-of-way. • 5) Construct an 8-foot high plate metal fence along the south property line adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. All the welds on the fence shall be ground smooth and be painted tan. All graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of being noticed, and the fence shall maintain an even tone of paint. 6) Construct an employee parking area, outdoor eating area, and upgrade the existing bathroom facility. 7) The parking area shall include a perimeter landscape planterthat has a 5-foot minimum wide interior dimension and includes a 12-inch step out curb where a parking space abuts the landscape planter. All parking stalls shall be a minimum 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep and be double striped. 8) Repair and paint the existing on-site covered work areas. 9) Paint the temporary office module to match the other on-site structures and add a skirt around the foundation to screen the undercarriage. 10) Pave the entire site, and repair all damaged asphalt and concrete. 11) Upgrade the windows and doors of the single-family residence in order to reduce the indoor noise levels to City standards as recommended in the Acoustical Impact Report (LSA—June 2011). • A & B80 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 4 12) Conditions 2 through 11 shall be completed in the following time period • from the date of this approval or revocation procedures for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 will begin: a) Walls and gates shall be completed within 2 months of this approval. b) Noise mitigation for the single-family residence shall be completed within 3 months of this approval. c) On-site improvements (paving, parking facility, outdoor eating area, upgrade of covered work areas) shall be completed within 4 months of this approval. d) Street improvements and landscaping shall be completed within 8 months of this approval. 13) Print a copy of this Resolution of Approval on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 14 The facility shall be maintained at all times, including making necessary repairs as needed, and keeping the site free from trash and debris. In no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 15) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building • and Safety Department. 16) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Conditions, Health Departments, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances, Fire Conditions: 1) Comply with the Fire Protection Plan when approved. 2) Obtain the necessary operating permits from RCFPD for a recycling facility and Hot Work Operations. 3) Submit for plan check approval and obtain a Building Permit for the facility improvements. Engineering Department: 1) Lot line adjustment to be recorded by San Bernardino County. Please submit proof of recordation. 2) Install public improvements on Whittram Avenue per City standards,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer including, but not limited to, the following: • A & B 81 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 5 a) Provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches as required. b) Remove existing street lights on wooden poles and install three(3) 9500 Lumen HPSV street lights on concrete poles. c) Provide existing R26 "No Parking" signs, or replace as required. d) Provide traffic signing and striping as required. 3) Install drive approaches and street trees per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. a) Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size, shall be of a species and spaced in accordance with the City's street tree program. b) Street improvement plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. c) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to the issuance of a City Building Permit. d) Prior to any work being performed in the 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. 4) Per the Driveway Policy, driveways require the following: a) A minimum width of 35 feet for Commercial or Industrial drive approaches. 5) For Assessors Parcel Numbers 0229-192-06 and 09 an in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electricity) on the opposite side of Whittram Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of street frontage. 6) For Assessors Parcel Numbers 0229-192-02, 03, and 04 an in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electricity) on the opposite side of Whittram Avenue shall be paid to the City within 5 years from the date of this approval or within 6 months of obtaining ownership of the said parcels. If payment is not received within the stipulated time period, revocation procedures for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 will begin. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of street frontage. A & B82 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 6 7) Install pavement transitions within the existing rights-of-way,to the east • and west of the project site, with asphalt curbs to contain street run-off that extend to adjacent drive approaches. . Obtain permission to remove the existing fences and other private improvements from street right-of-way. Re-establish private improvements beyond right-of-way as needed. 8) Development Impact Fees: None. Development Impact fees are associated with Building Permits. No fees are due at this time. (Fees subject to change.) Mitigation Measures: Air Quality 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be • utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff, 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local . ordinances and use sound engineering practices. A & B83 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 7 • • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. • 10) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 11) Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). Cultural Resources 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities,to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project A & B84 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 8 effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, • including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor,trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, • divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed • 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. A & B85 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 9 • 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contactor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture's specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. • 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for construction crew. 7) Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 8) Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. Hydrology and Water Quality 1) Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. 2) Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. 3) Perform inspections of all BMPs. 4) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit • to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices A & B86 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 10 (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during • construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 5) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b)An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 6) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 7) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality • Management Plan prepared by Lin Consulting, Inc. (July 11, 2011) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 9) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 10) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 11) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under • the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources A & B87 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 11 • Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Noise 1) Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. 2) Replace the existing doors and windows of the adjacent single-family residence with retrofit doors and windows that have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32 or higherto be completed within 120 days of the approval of the project. 3) Construct an 8-foot high block wall along the property line adjacent to the single-family residence from the minimum street side setback to the southern end of the existing subterranean loading dock to be completed within 60 days of the approval of the project. 4) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of • 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 5) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 6) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase to be completed within 60 days of the approval of the project. 7) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation • plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible,the plan A & B88 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00255 - JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 12 shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or • residential dwellings. Public Services 1) The project shall conform to all of the recommendations made in the Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc, October 2011)including limits on pile heights (20 feet maximum). 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer,AICP, 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 28th day of March 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • A & B89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT #: DRC2011-00255 SUBJECT: ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING APPLICANT: JAMES LIN LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF WHITTRAM AVE -APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 & 02. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 16 '. venerai 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. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 12-11 and 12-12, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans(full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $ 2,151.50 X B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, and Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • 1 A & B90 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_• site plans,architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department 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 Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. Trash receptacle(s)are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and _/_/_• the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits. 9. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners'association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. • 2 A & B 91 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date 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 Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) F. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: _/_/_ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; C. Planning Department Project Number(i.e., DRC 2011-00255 and DRC2011-00254)clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to • the City prior to permit issuance. --- 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 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., DRC2011-00255 and DRC2011-00254). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes,ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m, and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 3. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public counter). H. Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. • 3 A & B92 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date I. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading _/_/_• Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT,(909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements(interior streets,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 are not limited to, curb and gutter,AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution#88-557, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been • completed and accepted by the City Council, except:that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb& A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Whittram Avenue X X X I X X X n/a n/a n/a 4. 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 Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. • 4 A & B93 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date C. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • d. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. - e. 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. 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. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet_(typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The Engineering Services Department reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size Qty. Whittram Avenue Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 5' 30' OC 15 Gal Fill in Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. is 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. K. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever.occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. L. 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 Valley Water District(CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval • 5 A & B94 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. M. General Requirements and Approvals • 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. 3. Prior to approval of the final map, or prior to improvement agreement approval if no map is involved, all Tract Maps, Parcel Maps and public improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division on a compact disc (CD) in Auto CAD (computer aided design) format. If public improvement plans are completed after map approval, the CD shall be submitted prior to issuance of a construction permit for frontage improvements or a building permit, whichever occurs first. 4. Provide copy of final Water Quality Management Plan with submittal of Grading plans to Building and Safety. WQMP and Grading plans are subject to review by the Building Official. • • 6 A & B95 y Yi. RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 - A REQUEST TO OPERATE A 4.42-ACRE RECYCLING FACILITY INCLUDING THE USE OF A TEMPORARY OFFICE MODULE WITHIN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OF SUBAREA 15 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITTRAM AVENUE BETWEEN PECAN AVENUE AND HICKORY AVENUE LOCATED AT 13195, 13207, 13231,13243,AND 13253 WHITTRAM AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03, AND 02. A. Recitals 1. James Lin for All State Recycling filed an application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 14, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty noticed public hearing on the application that was continued to a date uncertain. 3. On February 8, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application that was continued to a date uncertain. 4. On March 28, 2012, 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. 5. 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 December 14, 2011, and continued to February 8, 2012, and March 28, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a request to operate a ferrous metal recycling facility; and b. The subject property is zoned Heavy Industrial; and C. The property to the north is zoned General Industrial and is developed with a vehicle storage facility; the property to the south is zoned Heavy Industrial and is undeveloped; and, the properties to the east and west are zoned Heavy Industrial and are respectively developed with a vehicle dismantler and a vehicle storage facility; and d. The applicant proposes upgrading and expanding their existing ferrous metal • processing facility on Whittram Avenue. The facility has been operating at this location without the required Conditional Use Permit since 1987. The applicant operates a second recycling facility on Etiwanda Avenue which operates under a separate Conditional Use Permit; and A & B96 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254—JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 2 e. Section 17.30.030 of the Development Code requires that scrap operations obtain • a Conditional Use Permit. The scrap operation classification covers the storage and sale from the premises and/or dismantling of used recyclables; and f. All State Recycling currently employees 42 employees between their Etiwanda Avenue and the Whittram Avenue facilities. The Whittram Avenue facility will have 6 full-time employees. The facility will operate one shift from 7:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8:30 a.m.to 2:30 pm. on Saturdays. They will receive approximately 10 to 15 truck trips per day; and g. The project site is located within the Heavy Industrial Development District which permits open air storage of large mounds of raw and semi-refined products. The surrounding uses include vehicle storage, vehicle dismantling, vehicle repair, and a non-conforming single-family residence. The major negative effect that the recycling facility will have on the surrounding land uses will be noise, especially for the neighboring single-family residence. As part of this approval, the applicant will construct an 8-foot high masonry and metal walls between the project site and the neighboring uses, as well as provide upgraded windows and doors for the neighboring single-family residence. The proposed site improvements and mitigation measures should reduce the negative effects on the neighboring property owners to an acceptable level. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the • Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity; and C. The application,which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record • before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that A & B97 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 —JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 3 • the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning 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. Plannino Department: • 1) Approval is granted to operate a 4.42 acre recycling facility located at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue - APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03, and 02. 2) Approval also includes the use of a temporary office module for a time period of 5 years from the date of this approval or 1 year from the date that the applicant closes escrow on the adjacent parcel of land on which a portion of the structure is located. 3) Changes in the operating hours (7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 pm. on Saturdays), the nature of the business (ferrous metal recycling facility), or overall size of the facility (4.42 acres) will require Planning Commission approval. 4) All the site improvements outlined in the Conditions of Approval for Development Review DRC2011-00255 shall be completed within the time period prescribed in that approval (PC Resolution 12-11) or revocation procedures will begin as prescribed by the Planning Director. The start date for completion of the improvements will be taken from the date of approval of this application by the Planning Commission. 5) The maximum height of all stored materials shall not exceed 8 feet within 100 feet of the curb face on Whittram Avenue and the maximum • height of stored material shall not exceed 20 feet on any portion of the site. A & B98 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 — JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 4 6) The selling of any of the subject parcels will void this approval unless • the change is approved through an amended Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 7) Print a copy of this Resolution of Approval on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 8) The facility shall be maintained at all times, including making necessary repairs as needed, and keeping the site free from trash and debris. In no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 9) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building and Safety Department. 10) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Conditions, Health Department, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. Fire Conditions: 1) Comply with the Fire Protection Plan when approved. 2) Obtain the necessary operating permits from RCFPD for a recycling • facility and Hot Work Operations. 3) Submit for plan check approval and obtain a Building Permit for the facility improvements. Mitigation Measures: Air Quality 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed bythe South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards • noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. A & B99 ,.PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 —JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 5 • 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds • exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PMio emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 10) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 11) Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). • A & 8100 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 —JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 6 Cultural Resources • 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. • • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and • notify the monitor of the find. A & B101 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 —JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 7 • • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall • be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil- stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contactor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture's specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes, 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. • 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for construction crew. A & B 102 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254—JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 8 7) Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in • compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 8) Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. Hydrology and Water Quality 1) Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. 2) Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. 3) Perform inspections of all BMPs. 4) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during • construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 5) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b)An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 6) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 7) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality • Management Plan prepared by Lin Consulting, Inc. (July 11, 2011) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. A & 8103 ;PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 —JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 9 • 9) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 10) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 11) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the • City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Noise 1) Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. 2) Replace the existing doors and windows of the adjacent single-family residence with retrofit doors and windows that have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32 or higher to be completed within 120 days of the approval of the project. 3) Construct an 8-foot high block wall along the property line adjacent to the single-family residence from the minimum street side setback to the southern end of the existing subterranean loading dock to be completed within 60 days of the approval of the project. 4) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any • time on Sunday or a national holiday. A & B 104 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 —JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 10 .5) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards • specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards,then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 6) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase to be completed within 60 days of the approval of the project. 7) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips(counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible,the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or • residential dwellings. Public Services 1) The project shall conform to all of the recommendations made in the Fire Protection Plan (Hughes Associates, Inc, October 2011) including limits on pile heights (20 feet maximum). 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary 1, James R. Troyer,AICP, 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 28th day of March 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: A & B105 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 — JAMES LIN FOR ALL STATE RECYCLING March 28, 2012 Page 11 • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • A & B106 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254 AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT #: DRC2011-00255 SUBJECT: ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING APPLICANT: JAMES LIN LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF WHITTRAM AVE -APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03 & 02. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • General Requirements Comoletfon Dare 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. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 12-11 and 12-12, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans(full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $ 2,151.50 X B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, and Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • A & B107 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date's C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_ • site plans, architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department 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 Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. Trash receptacle(s)are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and _/_/_ • the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits. 9. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners'association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet. wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 2 • A & B 108 , Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date E. Landscaping 40 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 Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) F. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; C. Planning Department Project Number(i.e., DRC 2011-00255 and DRC2011-00254)clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to • the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 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,, DRC2011-00255 and DRC2011-00254). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes,and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 3. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public counter). H. Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. • 3 A & B109 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion b%te' I. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading _/_/_ • Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT,(909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements(interior streets,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 are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution#88-557, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been • completed and accepted by the City Council, except:that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb& A.C. Side. Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Whittram Avenue X X X X X X n/a n/a n/a 4. 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, priorto final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. r 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 Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. 4 • A & B110 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion Date C. Pavement striping, marking,traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit,and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • d. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. e. 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. 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. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet_(typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The Engineering Services Department reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size Qty. Whittram Avenue Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 5' 30' OC 15 Gal Fill in Construction Notes for Street Trees: • 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. K. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. L. 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 Valley Water District(CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. • Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval 5 A & B111 Project No.DRC2011-00255 AND DRC2011-00254 Completion cafe" -t in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. M. General Requirements and Approvals • 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all _/_/_ new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition.project. 3. Prior to approval of the final map, or prior to improvement agreement approval if no map is involved, all Tract Maps, Parcel Maps and public improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division on a compact disc (CD) in Auto CAD (computer aided design) format. If public improvement plans are completed after map approval, the CD shall be submitted prior to issuance of a construction permit for frontage improvements or a building permit, whichever occurs first. 4. Provide copy of final Water Quality Management Plan with submittal of Grading plans to Building and Safety. WQMP and Grading plans are subject to review by the Building Official. • 6 • A & B112 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RANCHO MARCH 28 CUCAMONGA , 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell Fletcher_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca _ • II. NEW BUSINESS A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CITY OF ONTARIO - A joint workshop from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff and the City of Ontario Planning Staff to present the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 - ZION ENTERPRISES LLC: A request for a Planning Commission Workshop review of a mixed use project comprised of a senior assisted living and dementia care facility, a medical office building, retail and restaurant pads, and a hotel on two parcels of about 301,000 square feet (6.9 acres) in the Mixed Use (MU) District (Subarea 19) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive that is part of a retail and residential development generally located on the west side of Haven Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard. APN: 0208-331-40 and -47. Related files: Development Review DRCDR00-79 and Tentative Tract Map • SUBTT16179. III. PUBLIC COMMENT ti PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 28, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2 This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. IV. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS V. 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. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 22, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, • please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Vicinity Map tanning Commission Workshop March 28 , 2012 B --------------------------- - - 1 ; •y E c t 1 a U = Q 2 2 I d N U I I t � 1 19St - Base , °t Line Base Line J !� Church 1 Church -oothill. Foothill c c 1 Arrow B 1 Arrow (D L R 1 Jerse 3 8th 0 - W 1 t9 6th, € m Y 6th w N L M 4th R = _ 4th • Item A is a Planning Commission Workshop for the LA/Ontario * Meeting Location: International Airport City Hall Land Use Complatibility Plan 10500 Civic Center Drive STAFF REPORT _ • PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: March 28, 2012 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Donald Granger, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CITY OF ONTARIO - A joint workshop from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning staff and the City of Ontario Planning staff to present the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984 Background: Commercial aviation plays a significant role in the Inland Empire on many different levels-transportation (personal and business), economic synergy with other businesses (hospitality, car rentals, and restaurants), travel opportunities, and parcel service. Communities in close proximity to airports benefit economically but also face airport impacts. Less than 2 miles south of • the City's limits is LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT), which began operations during the agricultural days of the Inland Empire and has provided commercial aviation service for over six decades. Although air traffic for ONT has diminished during the recent economic downturn, in 2002 Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) initiated a master planning effort for ONT. The Master Plan includes reconfiguring the existing runway system, shifting both runways south and east of their present positions. This reconfiguration is necessary to permit the runway system to accommodate the volume of aircraft operations associated with the aviation forecasts for passenger and air cargo loads for 2030. Since ONT is located in the geographic center of the City of Ontario, the City of Ontario is presently the only affected municipality by operations at ONT; however, with the Master Plan proposal of reconfiguring the runways to meet 2030 projections, neighboring municipalities and agencies that were previously outside the affected area of ONT would now be affected by aircraft operations. The agencies affected by future operations at ONT include the following six municipalities: Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland. Counties affected include Riverside and San Bernardino. Workshop Focus: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et. seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) be prepared for nearly all public-use airports in the state. These plans are created "to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." Cities and agencies that fall within the • ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00157 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 28, 2012 • Page 2 Airport Influence Area (AIA) are required by State law to adopt the ALUCP. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA of ONT. In December of 2008, the City of Ontario initiated an update to the existing ALUCP for ONT. The City of Ontario desires a collective and collaborative approach to compatibility planning around ONT from all affected agencies. Over the past 3 years, the City of Ontario has invited neighboring jurisdictions that may be affected by operations at ONT to participate and contribute to the development of the updated LA/ONT ALUCP. One of the principal goals of the updated ALUCP is to determine how the City of Ontario and other affected jurisdictions can mutually work together to accomplish airport land use compatibility around ONT. Ultimately, the City of Ontario is responsible for preparing the ALUCP, the environmental assessment, and presenting the ALUCP to the City of Ontario City Council for adoption. Implementation of ALUCP requires completion of several steps, which are summarized as follows: 1. Preparation and adoption of an ALUCP by City of Ontario. 2. Adoption of the ALUCP by each affected agency. 3. Amending General Plans and Specific Plans by each affected agency to be consistent with the ALUCP. 4. California Division of Aeronautics Approval by City of Ontario. • As noted above, over the past 3 years, the City of Ontario has been collaborating with the eight affected agencies on the LA/ONT ALUCP so that compatible land planning for future operations from ONT are addressed and future aircraft operations at ONT are not adversely impacted. On April 19, 2011, the City of Ontario adopted the 2011 ALUCP, thereby completing Step 1. On January 11,2012, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission through minute action direct staff to initiate Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 text amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code text amendment DRC2010-0098, thereby enabling staff to craft language and continue to collaborate with the City of Ontario Planning staff to ensure that these two documents provide consistent land use policies and regulations that are consistent with the LA/ONT ALUCP. The Commission approved the initiation of both text amendments and began the process for Steps 2 and 3. Prior to each member agency adopting the LA/ONT ALUCP (Step 2) and formally amending their General Plan and Specific Plans as needed (Step 3), a joint workshop between the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning staff and the City of Ontario Planning staff will be conducted in order to provide a global overview of the LA/ONT ALUCP and provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. The Planning staff of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario will be making a joint presentation to the Planning Commission at the workshop covering the LA/ONT ALUCP and the Draft ONT Inter Agency Collaborative (IAC) Agreement. The entire text of the LA/ONT ALUCP is available on online at the website address indicated in the exhibit section below. • A-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00157 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • March 28, 2012 Page 3 Respectfully submitted, dw;l Jam R. Troyer, AICP Plan ing Director JRT:DG/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Map 2-1 (Airport Influence Area) Exhibit B - Draft ONT IAC Agreement LA/ONT ALUCP (complete text with exhibits) available at: hftp://www.ontariopian.org/index.cfm/3371 0 LA/ONT ALUCP hard copy (to be presented at workshop) • • A-3 am 4e2s��zg a, � deb � a�. Z� 5m Ea o W o d rL F� \ a g S t�\ •R=W�1a .I F —VNF�'\ III , yJf:�iN U "'AAA�f.]} LM uE ,`i rr n I Y"• � , I I • I ; yF J A> 1 W " f -� EXHIBIT A A-4 • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE FOR AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING This Cooperative Agreement is entered into by and among the City of Chino, City of Fontana, City of Montclair, City of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Upland, San Bernardino County and Riverside County in order to establish a cooperative process and partnership for Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning for Ontario International Airport and co with State Law provisions of the Alternative Process ' (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2 . I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Cooperative Agreement is o aintain local f -if dictional control of land use planning for areas within the Airport Influe - ea (AIA)2 of Ontari rnational Airport (ONT), amend the existing Alternative Process to inc d articipation of Affect encies3 and establish the "Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency borat' �_.•NT-IAC). 11. BACKGROUND The California State Aeronautics Act (P 'c Uti qqde, Sec 1670 et. seq.) requires that an • Airport Land Use Co "tib Ii Ian (ALU e pr e' all p -use airports with a minimum 20-year horizon t n Into C eration r owth eo Ions and future airport expansion plans. State law i' equires I land use ns and individual development proposals to be consistent with the AL - . In nties, a ort Land Use Commission (ALUC) is established and re n `T epa "' n I air within the county. The ALUC also establishes an r each a •o nd a e�ve,s majo I s actions and development for consistency with an -P. State law a loca :3 ictions in n Bernardino County to be responsible for airport land u mpatibility pl un a "Alternative Process" in place of a county administered ALUC. Un a provisions he Alte tive Process the City of Ontario is the designated agency having jurisdl R• over ONT, II be responsible for airport compatibility planning for ONT and is required to do th Q owing •rs ant to State Law: 1) Adopt processes 5 reparation, adoption, and amendment of the ALUCP for ONT; 2) Adopt processes for a notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, and other public agencies regarding the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the ALUCP for ONT; 'Alternative Process—County Board of Supervisors and each affected city must individually determine that proper airport land use compatibility planning in the county can be accomplished without the formation of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). ' Airport Influence Area — An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses as delineated in Exhibit 1—AIA. 3 Affected Agency—Any county,city,or special district having lands within the ONT Airport Influence Area, EXHIBIT B A-5 3) Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, • implementation and amendment of the ALUCP; and 4) Adopt processes for the amendment of general plans, specific plans and major land use actions to be consistent with the ALUCP. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established for the preparation of the ONT ALUCP. The cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and counties of San Bernardino and Riverside participated in the development of the plan in conjunction with representatives from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Los Angeles World Airports (LA , ) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics. The ONT was adopted by Ontario's City Council on April 19, 2011 (Ordinance No. 2935). The ONT ALUCP contains the ONT-IAC operatio r ework n identifies three framework components: 1) a technical group (ONT-IAC Tech aff Group) com '•t d of senior staff members from the affected agencies to review projects fo sistency with the ALU - an appeals body (ONT- IAC Mediation Board) to resolve consistency eva n disput and 3) an inistrative function managed by the City of Ontario. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTI P AGEN 3.1. ADOPTION OF Ti f'FbMM.LUCP: Pa "'epating A '4(" "are r sible for adopting the ALUCP • or specific t ly to t s AIA. Participating Agencies are responsible t Wi difying t _ respecti eraI plans, ecific plans, zoning ordinances and other policy doc a is to onsistent he compatibility policies and criteria set forth in th 3. T-IAC NOTI ON 10 ES Participating Agency is required to prepare tency evaluat or pr d Major Land Use Actions (Table 2-1 of the ALUCP) within thei on of the Al subml evaluations to the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is then re " ible for dis ting these consistency evaluations to other Participating Agencies for comme accorda Lvith the timelines and procedures set forth in Section 7 below. 3.3. CONSISTENCY Fl 01 G FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE ONT AIA• Proposed projects that are within the AIA and are not Major Land Use Actions are also subject to the ALUCP. Participating Agencies are required to use the ALUCP to evaluate proposed projects in accordance with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight policies that apply. Each Participating 4 Participating Agency—The agencies participating in this cooperative agreement(Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair,Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland).The County of Riverside elected to voluntarily participate in the ONT-IAC and may withdraw from the cooperative agreement upon written notification to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.The County of San Bernardino and its cities are required to participate in this cooperative agreement to maintain and continue to be an Alternative Process County. • A-6 • Agency shall be responsible for including a consistency finding within their staff reports/resolutions for projects within the AIA, stating the following: The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and has been evaluated and is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 3.4. PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS: Any proposed project located within the AIA that is discretionary and requires public hearing notification pursuant to state and/or local law shall include the following statement: "The proposed project is cated within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and has been eval a Fand is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the Airport Land Use Co qa i ility Plan." IV. ONT-IAC TECHNICAL STAFF GROUP 4.1. MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENT: The City ager or County Chief.. e tive Officer of each Participating Agency shall a ' p g g y appoint a deli to re a nt their a on the ONT-IAC Technical Staff Groups and su this informatl t ty of Ontario, PI g Department. 4.2. MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITIO 'NDIa.RESPONSIB ITlIES: Members shall consist of one representative from each Partic in y. Me m%A, r designee, should be middle managers or higher within thei o aniz 'o. ( .eAssistant Director, Manager, Principal Plann Ea ember a I be : s articipating in the ONT-IAC Notification r ss an ke comm m: Sub i in Agency's6 consistency evaluation within 15 cale ' a days. V. ONT- AC ME 1 TIO 5.1. CTION OF MEDI ' .ION BOARD: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board is an official voting bo NQ � to f Ily hea ' 3 utes that are not resolved at the Technical Staff Group leC Med' t'y n Boar only revie ws matters appealed to it by Affected Agencies. 5.2. OTON B ARD MEMBERSHIP: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall be comprised of elected or ap in e vernment officials of the Participating Agencies as outlined below and two members presenting the public. The members representing the Participating Agencies should have land use, planning, and/or public hearing experience. Members of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall be appointed as follows: s ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group—A middle manager(i.e. Director,Assistant Director, Manager, Principal Planner) staff member from each Participating Agency appointed by the City Manager or Chief Executive Officer who will be responsible for participating in the ONT-IAC Notification Process, 6 Submitting Agency—The Participating Agency that is submitting the Project Comment Worksheet to the City of • Ontario Planning Department for distribution to the other agencies. A-7 a. City of Ontario: Two members representing the City of Ontario, appointed by the • Ontario City Council. b. LAWA: One member representing the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), (the LA/Ontario International Airport Manager). c. Public: Two public representatives (at least one having aviation expertise), appointed by the Ontario City Council with recommendations from the other Participating Agencies. d. Other Participating Agency: Two members representing the agency with the disputed project, appointed by the agency's go Wing body. If the agency with the dispute is either the City of Ontario or the two members shall not be appointed and the ONT-IAC Mediation hall consist of a five-member board comprised of individuals identified p L ubsections (a) — (c) of this Section 5.2. 5.3. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD DECISI S, When acting upon isputed action (e.g., a consistency evaluation or the preparation, '' tion or a :endment o LUCP) the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall: a. Hold a noticed pu 'e ing on the a under consideration. b. Provide the opport blic input. c. Issue formal findings o• e u, action. d. Make s by majo vote o rum. • 48 5.4. PROJECTS S 87 CT TO EDIATI f s,D.ISPUTE PR C S: State law pertaining to the Alternative Pro s quires,f+tit a proces established for"the mediation of disputes arising �Q4 fro reparatl y a$ amen nt" of an airport land use compatibility plan "tls Code ton 2 2) The mediation process outlined in this r'eement sha app t, ny dispu `at t may arise in connection with certain land use s of Particip Age specifically, general plan amendments, zoning ordinance mo tions, airport v lopme ns,or other major land use actions. S.S. CONVENT :: IiE ONT-111 t� EDIATION BOARD: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall convene on an as nee ka )KIAC resolve disputed matters brought to it by an Affected Agency. Meetings shall f3Tnsed within 30 calendar days from the date the Affected Agency requests in writin Board Hearing date to resolve a dispute. Additionally, the Board shall convene once per calendar year to receive an ALUCP Annual Report' from the Ontario Planning Department. All meetings shall be publicly noticed consistent with Ontario's public hearing procedures. 'ALUCP Annual Report—Identifies activity within the AIA over the Calendar Year providing the following information: number of Project Comment Worksheets,Avigation easements,Consistency Determinations, Disputed Major Land Use Actions and discretionary approvals within the AIA. • A-8 • 5.6. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD ACTIONS FOR NON-AIRPORT PROJECTS: When deciding whether a proposed project is consistent with the ALUCP, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board has three possible actions: a. Consistent—Find that the proposed project is consistent with the ONT ALUCP. b. Conditionally Consistent—Find that the proposed project is consistent the ONT ALUCP subject to specified conditions or modifications. c. Inconsistent—Find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP. 5.7. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD ACTIONS FOR AIRPORT PROR,OSALS: When making consistency determinations on a proposed planning and/or deveh i),� nt action pertaining to ONT, the Board has four possible actions: a. Consistent—Find that the airport plan is con e ALUCP. b. Conditionally Consistent—Find that th ort plan i c- ,sistent with the ONT ALUCP subject to specified conditions or limi n on the airport or use. c. Inconsistent—Find that the airport s inconsistent with the ^: ALUCP. d. Consistent Upon ALUCP Revision— the 0 ALUCP (a my noticed public hearing by the Ontario Cit Council)to re h ptions and pr als in the airport plan—thereby making th plan consis ` 5.8. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: co ility crite et forth in the ALUCP are intended to be applicable t ations wit he 0 owe ere may be specific situations • where a nor ble use c be pa le because of terrain, specific location, or r extrao ry facto rcumsta related to the site. After due consideration o j' the fact• ' involved i h situations, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board may find ally inc t' be acc '• ble. In reaching such a decision, the ONT-IAC o shal ment re e extraordinary circumstances that warrant policy exce nd he follow ecific findings: hat the prop roje neither create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aft in flight esult i essive noise exposure for the future occupants of the pr d use. b. That ranting o policy exception is site specific and shall not be generalized to include o ites. 5.9. OVERRULING ONT 'C MEDIATION BOARD DECISIONS, If the ONT-IAC Mediation Board determines that a proposed project is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP, the Submitting Agency shall be notified and the governing body of that agency has the option under state law to overrule the Mediation Board's decision. The agency must make specific findings that the proposed local action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, as stated in Section 21670. Such findings may not be adopted as a matter of opinion, but must be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the governing body of the Submitting Agency must make specific findings that the proposed project will not: • A-9 a. Impair the orderly, planned expansion of Ontario International Airport; adversely affect • the utility or capacity of the airport (such as by reducing instrument approach procedure minimums). b. Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. 5.10. OVERRULING NOTIFICATION AND VOTING REQUIREMENTS: a. The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date, to the City of Ontario and California Division of Aeronautics, as r uired by State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676). b. The governing body of the Submitting Agenc old a public hearing prior to making a decision to overrule the consistency d na of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. The public hearing shall be noticed c to t with t bmitting Agency's established procedures. c. A decision by the governing bo the Submitting Agen overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board must be made vote of least two- of the Submitting Agency's body's membes. d. The Submitting Agenc clude any c ents received from an Affected Agency, ONT-IAC Mediation ion of autics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in t It of any ) decision to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation • VI. ONTAAC AD STRATI 6.1. PREJOHAM l AND HE ON 0 UCP: The City of Ontario is the lead agency nsible art r ONT d any amendments that may subsequently be osed. The Ont hall also responsible for coordinating these efforts with A -- d Agencies. ed Ag' s are responsible for maintaining consistency between the ALU the Affecte ency's eral Plan, Specific Plans, Zoning Code and other relevant land use ing docum 6.2. ONT-IAC MEDI 1 . ' D GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: The City of Ontario shall perform general administra ties for the Mediation Board including, but not limited to: a. Arranging meeting places and schedules, preparing agendas, and recording meeting minutes. b. Issuing required public notices for meetings of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. c. Providing an annual report to the ONT-IAC Mediation Board and California Division of Aeronautics on the compatibility planning actions reviewed over the course of the year. • A-10 • 6.3. Administration of the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: The City of Ontario shall coordinate with and assist Affected Agencies with implementing the relevant policies of the ONT ALUCP by: a. Developing, maintaining and distributing the Project Comment Worksheet(Exhibit B — Sample Project Worksheet), when necessary; b. Providing affected agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; c. Serving as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the AIA and proposed on-site airport development; d. Reviewing proposed major airport and land use act' or consistency with the policies set forth in the ALUCP and preparing written 4 ,ency evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; e. Soliciting input and comments from the 6' a Aviatio d inistration, California Division of Aeronautics, pilot groups, and of ti garding compa planning matters, when necessary; and f. Encouraging Los Angeles and Riversi cunties to kdopt comp -b t'ty planning policies and criteria for the portion of the ONT Al -at i m their respe 'v ajurisdictions. VII. ONT-IAC PROJECT NOTIFICA P E 5 • 7.1. PARTICIPANT : ac Rec ed Agen n A al, articipate in the ONT-IAC Project Notification o, ess for _ urposes " oviding to nical assistance, information and oversight for th '[m lem tion of th T ALUCP. Participating Agencies required to pa : the I cation r cess include LAWA and the Cities of Ontario, 2,1; 0 onto ancho a, pland and the County of San Bernardino, The 0 unty of Rivers s ele o particip n the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process on an basis. 7.2. PROJE :REVIEW PROC25 The ONT-IAC Project Notification Process includes the steps listed below. a. For each ct I nd use action subject to the Alternative Process, the Submitting Agency shall to a Project Comment Worksheet and forward it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies. The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the ALUCP for ONT. b. Commenting Agencies will have 15 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet. Agencies that do not respond within the 15-day period would be.considered to have no comments and subsequently agree with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. Commenting Agencies shall limit their • A-11 comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the ALUCP and forward their • comments electronically to the City of Ontario, Planning Department. c. If the Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, staff of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the commenting agency and/or commenting agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with the ALUCP. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Wo*sheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consis emain, the Submitting Agency or any Commenting Agency may request a Mediat' , rd hearing to mediate the dispute. d. If no comments are submitted on t o ect Co t Worksheet as provided in subdivision (b), or if comments are r as provided i u division (c), the Submitting Agency shall indicate in its own pu otices that the projec ithin the ONT AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluat nd was and to be &tent with the ONT ALUCP. VIII. REFERENCING THE ONT AL CIA DO ENTS The California Environmental Qua Act requir ected Agencies to utilize the California Airport L lonning dbook a ONT lE P as a technical resource for • analyzing the e tno men i pacts o is a within the AIA. Projects situated within the AIA s - d be eva d to d if the prof t would expose people residing or working in the proj ea to -taessive leve airport-related noise or to airport-related safety hazar esour 096). IX. D ION OF C `x - RATI AGREE ENT The ive date of Coope Agreement is after Caltrans Division of Aeronautics approva . coo perativ reeme shall remain in effect unless and until such time as subsequent d ications a quested and approved by each of the Participating Agencies. The Participating A s inc the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, ntario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland. The County of Riverside elected to voluntaril rticipate in the ONT-IAC and may withdraw from the cooperative agreement upon written notification to the City of Ontario and State Division of Aeronautics. X. GIS DATA The following GIS Data shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for the purposes of maintaining the ALUCP document: General Plan, Zoning, Specific Plan, City Limits, parcels, streets and building footprints with height information for areas within the AIA. GIS Data may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the above list should be provided if data exists to assist with maintaining accurate maps. GIS Data updates should be provided on an annual basis or when amendments or changes • A-12 • occur such as a general plan amendment. The City of Ontario shall provide Participating Agencies with ALUCP shapefiles and basemap shapefiles and provide annual updates of changes as needed. XI. FEE SCHEDULE A fee schedule may be adopted by the City of Ontario, with the consensus of the members of the ONT-IAC, if adopted; such fees would be reviewed and negotiated annually for Major Land Use Actions requiring public hearing and Mediation. No Fee Schedule is proposed at this time. • T, • A-13 SIGNATURES OF AGENCY OFFICIALS • City of Chino City of Rancho Cucamonga Print Name: Print Name: Signature: Signature-42A Date: D City of Fontana Riverside Count' _ Print Name: w. s in e: Signature: Sig i e: Date: te: • 'i City of Montclair t San Bernardino County Print Print Name: Signatu Signature: Date: Date: City of Ontario City of Upland Print Name: Print Name: Signature: Signature: Date: Date: • A-14 • STAFF REPORT PLANNING Df?PARTMHNT DATE: March 28, 2012 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission RANCHO FROM: James Troyer, AICP, Planning Director CUCAMONGA BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 - ZION ENTERPRISES LLC: A request for a Planning Commission Workshop review of a mixed use project comprised of a senior assisted living and dementia care facility, a medical office building, retail and restaurant pads, and a hotel on two parcels of about 301,000 square feet (6.9 acres) in the Mixed Use (MU) District (Subarea 19) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive that is part of a retail and residential development generally located on the west side of Haven Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0208-331-40 and -47. Related files: Development Review DRCDR00-79 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179. GENERAL: A. Pre-Application Review Process: The Pre-Application Review process is intended to promote • quality development and to facilitate the development review process. Although Pre-Application Review is not required, it allows an applicant to present schematic designs to the Planning Commission during the early stages of concept plan preparation, prior to formal application, and to receive broad, general comments and direction from the Planning Commission. The meeting is not a forum for debate and no formal decision or vote is made. After the meeting, staff prepares minutes of the meeting, which are sent to the applicant. B. Site Description: The project site is the remaining part of a master planned mixed use commercial/residential complex (referred to hereafter as "the overall site") that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2001 (related files: Development Review DRCDR00-79 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179). The overall site is about 1,320,000 square feet (30.3 acres). At the specific location of the project site are the parcels APN: 0208- 331-40 and -47, and is located at the southeast corner of the overall site near the intersection of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive. The area of work is undeveloped with landscaping along its perimeter and low grass within its interior. Immediately to the west of the project site are apartments while immediately to the north of the project site is a pad building. The pad building is currently occupied by two restaurants — Omokasi and Oporto. The overall site is bound on the west by vacant land, on the south by additional apartments and vacant land, on the north by a shopping center, and on the east by office development including City Hall and the San Bernardino County Courthouse. The zoning of the overall site is Mixed Use (MU) District (Subarea 19), Haven Overlay. The zoning of the properties around the overall site area as follows: North - General Commercial (GC) District; • South - Medium-High (MH) Residential District/Industrial Park (IP) District (Subarea 7), Haven Overlay; East - Industrial Park (IP) District (Subarea 7), Haven Overlay; West - Low-Medium (LM) Residential District/Commercial Office (CO) District, Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) ITEM B PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC MARCH 28, 2012 Page 2 Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct seven (7) buildings with a combined • floor area of 357,025 square feet as follows: a 4-story hotel (62,800 square feet); a restaurant (4,800 square feet); two (2) retail buildings (12,000 square feet); two (2) 2-story senior assisted living and dementia care facility buildings (combined 77,425 square feet); and a 2-story medical office building (20,000 square feet). The project as proposed is a departure from what was approved on this part of the overall site on March 9, 2006. The approval at that time was for a 4- story office building and two (2) commercial buildings with the remainder of the project site devoted to parking. The office building was to be located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive. The commercial buildings were to be located along Haven Avenue. ANALYSIS: A. Land Use Compatibility: The hotel, retail, and restaurant uses are generally consistent with the on-site and surrounding land uses. There are numerous hotels in other Industrial Park districts and at least one within the Haven Overlay. There is a hotel at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street (Aloft Hotel) (Related file: DRC2005-00458) while another was approved by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2008, but is not yet built, at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and 6th Street (Related file: DRC2007-00542). There are numerous retail and restaurant uses within the overall master planned site; retail and restaurants are typical in mixed use developments. The medical office uses is consistent with the land uses expected in the Haven Overlay. The most significant issue regarding land use compatibility for consideration by the Planning Commission will be whether the senior assisted living and dementia care uses are compatible with the goals and intent of the Haven Overlay. Also, the Planning Commission may • want to consider the compatibility of these uses when located immediately adjacent to the residential apartment uses that are to the west. In particular, aspects to consider are the potential for 24-hour operations and the corresponding noise, light glare, and traffic. Currently, the proposed senior assisted living and dementia care facility is not a use that is permitted in this development zone, nor is it permitted in the New Development Code Update that is currently being processed. B. Land Use Determination: Prior to submitting a formal development application, the applicant is required to submit a Use Determination 'application for Planning Commission review and discussion to establish whether the proposed senior assisted living and dementia care facility is consistent with the definition of a "Convalescent Facility' as defined in Section 17.02.140 of the Development Code. If the Use Determination application is found to be not consistent with the definition of a "Convalescent Facility," the applicant would be required to process a text amendment to the Development Code to allow this use to be permitted in this zone and to further revise the Master Plan already in place. C. Design Goals and Policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga: The design goal for the Haven Overlay is for master planned development along the Haven Avenue Corridor "which enhances the Rancho Cucamonga's image by providing an intensive, high quality gateway into the City and by promoting a distinctive, attractive, and pleasant office park atmosphere in a campus-like setting with a prestige identity" per Section 17.30.080(A) of the Development Code. The primary land use function along Haven Avenue is intended to be of an administrative/professional and office nature. Furthermore, site planning must create opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other landscaped open spaces. And, the architecture along Haven Avenue shall project a high- • quality, progressive, sophisticated, and urban style of development. Multiple story buildings of sufficient mass are encouraged as are articulation of wall surfaces and building entrances. B-2 PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC MARCH 28, 2012 Page 3 • The design guidelines and policies established by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission stress the importance of having the buildings dominate the project site. Historically, when the opportunity is available to do so, i.e. when there are no significant site and/or vehicle circulation constraints, both the Committee and the Commission favor having the buildings close to the street. When there is a site located adjacent to an intersection, the plotting of the buildings as close as possible to the intersection is also highly encouraged. This, in turn, results in a parking area that is either behind the buildings relative to the street or in a less prominent area of the site. The layout of the project site and architecture of the buildings is generally consistent with these design goals, guidelines, and policies. D. Site Layout: The buildings are proposed to be generally plotted at the perimeter of the project site with the hotel, restaurant, and one of the retail buildings prominently positioned along Haven Avenue. The other retail building will be aligned along Civic Center Drive while the remainder of the buildings will be plotted at the west side of the site (rear as seen from Haven Avenue). The two retail buildings will 'frame' the northwest corner of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive. The parking lot will be at the center of the site and generally screened from both adjoining streets. Access to the site will be via a new driveway at Civic Center Drive and, to a lesser extent, via existing driveways used to access the overall site including the driveway at the southwest corner of the site. No new vehicle access to Haven Avenue is proposed. The buildings generally will be conventional iw design/layout with the primary entrances of each located on the side of the building facing the parking lot. At the southeast corner of the site (northwest corner of the intersection of Haven Avenue and • Civic Center Drive), there is proposed a large pedestrian-oriented area within a diagonal 'view corridor' angled towards the northwest (as seen from the intersection of the streets) between the two retail buildings. The corridor will be punctuated by a plaza that will include a water fountain, decorative landscaping, trellises, and outdoor seating. This plaza will be similar to the existing plaza (and corresponding features) located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (northeast corner of the overall site). E. Architecture: The design guidelines and policies established by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission emphasize that the architecture of all buildings should be similar and that architectural features and details be present on all elevations, i.e. 360-degree architecture. Furthermore, when part of a master-planned development the buildings should all have a generally consistent architectural theme. The proposed buildings will generally match the existing buildings of the overall site but the details of their appearance will depend on the use of that building. For example, the architecture of the restaurant and retail buildings will be consistent with the buildings located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue while the architecture of the senior care facility will be consistent with the residential buildings located towards the interior of the overall site. The hotel is the only building that does not, at this time, closely follow the architectural theme of the overall site. All buildings will incorporate a combination of raised tower elements, sloped roofs, and undulating parapets in order to add variety to the roof line of each building. Similarly, there will be horizontal articulation of the exterior walls that will interrupt the wall plane of each building. The exterior of the buildings will be finished with a combination of stucco and stone veneer. All buildings will, to varying degrees, include details decorative canopies, metalwork, wood trim, false window • shutters, or a combination thereof. These details combined with variations in the exterior color and the shadows cast by the changes in the wall planes will provide visual interest. Also, at all building entrances the applicant proposed extensive landscaping and decorative paving. B-3 PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC MARCH 28, 2012 Page 4 There will be a significant use of storefront glass on all sides of the restaurant and retail buildings • which is highly desirable as they will be prominently situated along Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive. Arches will be a prominent feature of these buildings and serve to 'frame' the main entrance of these buildings. Staff notes to the Commission that the design of these three buildings appears to match (generally, if not entirely) the design of the two commercial buildings that were approved in March 2006. Consistent with their use, the windows on the senior care facility and medical office building will be less prominent. Nevertheless, windows will be generously provided on all elevations and there also will be small arched window and entry surrounds. Near the main entrances of these buildings will be landscaped plaza areas. The two buildings that comprise the senior care facility are connected by an enclosed corridor on the second floor. From the exterior, this corridor has the appearance of an enclosed bridge; it is integrated into the architecture of these buildings and includes windows for aesthetic and lighting purposes. The southernmost building of the two has a 'basement' floor which will be partially visible. The largest and most visually prominent building on the project site will be the 4-story hotel. This building will have an 'L' shaped footprint and will dominate the northeast corner of the project site. The footprint of the building is the result of the applicant's desire to provide hotel guests the option for mountain views while addressing the City's request to have one of the primary elevations of the hotel facing Haven Avenue. The hotel will have a porte cochere which will provide shelter for guests at the main entrance. Located in the vicinity of the main entrance will be a swimming pool. The applicant has placed the pool at this location in order to maximize the exposure of this area to the sun throughout the day. Staff believes that the use of stone veneer should be increased on • this building. To interrupt the dominance of stucco finish on the second, third, and fourth floors, stone veneer should be applied to the full height of the tower elements and the columns that support the porte cochere. Similarly, decorative details that are proposed on the other buildings, and present on the existing buildings, such as canopies and metalwork should be added on all elevations. F. Parking Calculations: The parking calculation for the project site is based on the individual uses as listed below and per Section 17.12.040(8) of the Development Code. There are numerous parking stalls within the existing commercial/retail complex. Although the applicant proposes to construct new parking stalls with the proposal, there will be an insufficient number constructed to comply with the minimum requirements. The applicant proposes shared use of existing parking stalls presently located on the adjoining parcel to the north (west of the restaurant pad building). The applicant will be required to submit a parking study that demonstrates that there will not be substantial conflict during principal hours of peak demand for the uses which the shared use is proposed per Section 17.12.040(E). Type of Use Floor Area (SF) Parking Ratio # of Spaces Required Hotel 62,800 1 per room plus 2 109 Senior Care 77,425 1 per 4 beds/units 28 Retail 12,000 1/250 48 Restaurant 4,800 1/100 48 Medical 20,000 1/200 100 Total Parking Required 333 • Total Parking Provided 279 Shared Parking Required 54 B-4 PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC MARCH 28, 2012 Page 5 • G. Design and Technical Comments: The applicant is advised that additional design and technical comments will be provided following the submittal of a formal Development Review application. H. Formal Application Submittal Requirements: The following applications/documents (and associated fees) will be required at the time of formal submittal: 1. Conditional Use Permit (required per the Town Center Master Plan) 2. Development Review 3. Environmental Assessment, Initial Study - Part 1 4. Tree Removal Permit (only required if the removal of trees is proposed) 5. Uniform Sign Program 6. Sign Permit (for Notice of Filing Signs) 7. Deposits for Notice of Filing Signs (3), one per street frontage for public notification purposes NOTE: All fees are subject to change per City Council Resolution No. 04-293. I. Special Studies: The following special studies will be required at the time of formal submittal: 1. Air Quality Study (including an analysis of the project's greenhouse gas emissions and a health risk assessment) 2. Noise Study • 3. Arborist Study (only required in conjunction with a Tree Removal Permit) 4. Photometric Study 5. Parking Study 6. Traffic Study Additional special studies may be required following the submittal of a formal Development Review application. Resp ctfully submitted, Ja s R. Troyer, AICP Pla ning Director Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Photo Exhibit C - Pre-Application Submittal Set (includes Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations) Exhibit D - Engineering Department Pre-Application Review Comments Exhibit E - Fire Construction Services Pre-Application Review Comments Exhibit F - Letter of Interest from Hilton Hotels • B-5 Y. � /Om °'� � � i � � WYNI n✓ ° � ^" pia3S �P T � '�. �._� • m � �� if � � # @ ��I °� � _�_F Z n � a @ v 1� } ���t" I � )��> ^""'�r }«,°'&e�e°i"ARC'�r +T e m PRE STTA T/ON , i ay£ J i x •, '@ r 9 AJ T. NO IN 6 ' * ate f1{ E + AIMIMN� �. 6 t f � A, °m g - st , T-11 It aewru j! i rrr7.. . - @. y 'ja^:., a o 'i aE• :e.'e j +°' P.`a ,�(�f t ' _ u @ Puu,Pmn .... -• r s t4 ! i �.F j .. } 41F PACIFIC ELECTRIC °• �' } TRAIL • I `JAS y, ..Is RRUt IF CLICAMONW SFNl RAMCNO O1; s _ 2 - y CENTRAL PARK ® wo. lFt p GMOY LEWIS GOMMIM'IIY CEHIER 'EA Yro S WEl11E XO - ` � .pp° ..__. .XAVS®- .- °��°` •r••° °° i w ARLHBALO Ll:RY "' aNCMrt o. � .__- ., ', - � ALl�R•IIY �. +. � �' I _ ___ Iti si emr Ji ..-_ �v _) PROJECT SITE FRONTIER o� t _ - m-. fi • m '_! PROJECT @ - ARE STPTNMt y f � 4 COURT HOTEL CITY MA A a LL POLICE EPICEN PPPM��RR■./RPP / STAT ION Rm owl w mu^ M■MLm •TVNmPHO FAMILYRESOURCf p j P - CENTER ■ II n '!'• it °OI° u(� n - _ ADOPTION cC 6 NIMAL ADOFTIOry CEENN TER m DUV �•� V Y- i ° w+ m . S ■ R t a FIRE STATION. j R �A iY° m G r-1 NO, ETROLINK METROLINK TRAIN m'STAM �y y ?' - EXHIBIT A f= ' - � • • • i ' 1 1 11 - - r 1, .�.` sF [! • al—' �. '. wAf Foothill Boulevard > r,: VE ' y - Civic Center Drive jw 4' 4 wmw Y e u 3 Iu �. °i t �i Ap v1-. - p 1 rl 1 3 Q e � . IL jr i INK , tr fe ' ill ® . 4T, . u ' IU n, .-M - V �I � _ Px �r rr I IN rr I IM �II t. ifs n ! d a a f a s ( 1 eta g ! I � t IF F6 I t � I. {{ep }pp5 a It •1 .t gist] �11 ;�:lulit6e �u11 te�l�!!�!!ii fill ll f .! ! I �t �{ t§tp!ltllif eltlli i 11Sili/56f , •t III. - ttti E��•1 '. � 1 ` b J `ptt IFQ $ p { t • �D� 3 �S t EE -lit, e=72 a 4 m ,E aE •E 6 u i q• a\ s: a6ii� al - O { I a a ' k � I ��iBY -_ V -- - Qywy�f 3 i - E x w 2 LE IL PIE -B44 _ ` - IF$- _log . NKi ie a l �d i r � rJ IF l i ' IAlf l � 1 �; e m O R IJK ir _ Lit rr r. i 1 ! i r t r i r 1 i 1 1 � j F •- - ' CFI $� a � - r r i i r i g`• - 1 _ _ 1 i. ro. -xi ii y r r r r r r LK1 I r � r I c s IT, t I �arli� ar e a�n _ p a ' _ Er� � � �� �_ �� � ,. _ 1 � ' _ ��' � _ _ �� �: _ � �:� , � �, J _ � ' `-, �- Ai - � �� �_ ��� � g �� '� , %��� - - � -� --' a �, s � � m �s � � �T . � � - a' � F, yS _ SS� �ali �9 � _ �!�(8� . �' 3 E's a�, !• _'� u 1 - _ � _ �.. � !ge _ _ -. - �. _ _ __ _ ! x -- � �__ - __ yQ 4 1 � a aiaaa • g • E;Fl, IF Al F9 8.19 ee( S e Vic= Ar r / 3 n x' x of ' or D _ D 4• C 7i ' so - — - � yC - ` - '/ � ,� •firr^^"_�_ ��� �3�3� 1 n i O J It V � R x • t• '� n � s a r i .a� 4 B-20 • ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT SHEET Project(s) Case Number: DRC2012-00021 Project (s) Type: Preliminary Application Review Project(s) Applicant Name: Zion Enterprises Address or Project Location: 'Nft Haven Avenue-"and Civic C--- eD�i've Project(s) APN: 208-331-40. 47 and 48 Case Planner: Michael Smith Ext.: 4317 Prepared by: Willie Valbuena E-mail: willie.valbuena @cityofrc.us Date Prepared: 1/26/12 Reviewed by: Betty Miller P/E Date: 1/17/12 i2 �t7c1 COMMENTS: 1. Provide a Detailed Site plan to include the following: a. Existing curbs, gutters, street lights, drive approaches, median, sidewalk and existing pavement within 200 feet on adjacent and across street properties. b. Typical street sections. • c. Any existing drainage courses or storm drain on across street properties. 2. Provide a Conceptual Grading Plan to include the following: a. Existing features within and 100 feet beyond all site boundaries (label to remain or be removed)—natural ground, trees, street lights, drive approaches, median, structures, drainage courses, streets, trails, slopes, etc.. b. Streets—cross sections, improvements, rights-of-way, etc.. c. Drainage and flood control facilities (size, type, etc.); easements, property lines, rights- of-way, parkway culverts where drainage is directed to streets. d. Cross sections at all site boundaries (minimum and maximum conditions). Shade pavement areas and slopes of 3:1 or steeper. e. All proposed grading —structures, curbs, walls (label height), gutters, pavement, walks, swales, mounding, slopes, open space, trails, etc. 3. Provide a Focused Traffic Study for Haven Avenue at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue at Civic Center Drive. • EXHIBIT D 10fl B-21 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Fire Construction Services PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS January 26, 2012 Zion Enterprises L.LC NWC Haven & Civic Center Dr. DRC2012-00021 Fire Construction Services (FCS) has reviewed your plans for a mix use development; following are the observations that have been made based on current state and local fire codes. 1. A fire access plans must be submitted clearly identifying the fire lane from other drive areas not required for fire department access. The fire access plans must be prepared in accordance to RCFPD standards 5-1 and 5-6. Aerial ladder access to the buildings must be provided, the design of the complex must accommodate the required ladder points. Clearly illustrate and note the turn radii, and all the specifics of the fire lane. Also, reference RCFPD Ordinance FD50 for the aerial ladder access requirement. 2. Provide a fire flow letter to proof the available fire flow at the site. 3. Provide a summary on the plans with the proposed construction types,occupancies, number of floors • and square feet for each building. The designer must also perform an allowable area calculation and the specify fire rating of the exterior walls based on their proximity to property lines (assumed or actual), all dimensions and references must be shown on the plans. 4. Clearly indicate on the plans that the buildings will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers (AFS), an automatic/manual fire alarm and the AFS's will be monitored by a (third parry certified) supervising station fire alarm system. 5. Since the parcels will be sharing access a reciprocal agreement that also favor the Fire District will be required in addition to the CC&R's. In order to expedite the planning process FCS requires that the applicant submit a letter of intent to'FCS on company letterhead acknowledging the requirement for this document. 6. Clearly indicate on the plans if the facilities will have any public funding, OSHPD review and/or inspection. Clearly note on the plans the state licensing requirements for the proposed facilities. If you have any questions, please contact Moises Eskenazi, Senior Fire Plans Examiner at (909) 477-2710 Extension 4209 or at moises.eskenaziacitvofrc.us all standards and policies are available on the web at wwvv.cityofrc.us in The Fire Construction Services section of Building and Safety Department. • EXHIBIT E B-22 Page IofI HILTON The Powell Hilton Worldwide • Director 8350 Civic Center 0r. W OR_i�VvIDG Development. Beverly Hills,CA 90210 Tel:310-205-6581 Fax 310-2053337 timAOwell@hillon.com March 14, 2012 Foothill Haven LP c/o Zion Enterprises LLC 1044 Calle Recodo, Suite A San Clemente, CA 92678 c/o American Managed Investments Ltd Attn.: Brian Hunter, General Partner RE: Hampton Inn & Suites, Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Mr. Hunter: We delighted to hear you are making progress developing a Hampton Inn & Suites at the corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive in Rancho Cucamonga. It's an outstanding location in a market that has excellent long term prospects. • Based on a number of factors, including but not limited to the performance of our existing product in the market, our development pipeline and the cost of hotel development, we feel a Hampton Inn & Suites hotel is an ideal branding solution for this site. To learn more about the Hampton brand, please visit http://www.hami)tonfranchise.com. We understand our discussions with you are preliminary in nature. However, based on the information we have seen, we support your efforts to develop one of our Hilton Worldwide brands at this location. This letter is not legally binding on either party, nor is it without expiration. If within 60 days we do not have an application, this letter will be considered expired. Any expenditure or obligation undertaken by either party to the execution and delivery of a franchise agreement is at the party's sole risk and expense. We look forward to working with you, Respectfully,. EXHIBIT F r B23 SIGN-IN SHEET `qtr PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 28, 2012 NAME COMPANY : ' ADDRESS a t • . P _ r J C - CDP s ■ !r '`I I � '♦'� �l�r ii Y 1 +� ♦ '{ , ��j":�— GPI ` � ` TyP�� •, �f Y�,4r � y � f. r e j5 C` f Y : a , 4 - ry j� E xr Y - it ^I � 1 AL a ,.- ; - �: �. , : .�, i �: �'� ��M. ,�� i � �� .: papCC .+ -'.a� e # r.. �°"� �. _ ��, �, :� y Fi c i a � � 4 ��S ` Y:.. C� 4, t �� `� rPi � _ ,_ i�ff� i _ . -i�\ i �� f - �� �' �� � i � �. i I� . 'r.. R" k" oil I � s� 4 I i I t y rr: is t. yy Y7! ski w � ull s 1 i i 3 3 r•1 i ir'� ,• ti aJ .owl% ._ a :T y.x. ( x } d�l j 'i I „rri� vv�o��a�wt�;ttt:itia � ,• � I a a n � .......... . n > O ' x I a n s I w 0 0 0 0 O p WD 94:3 a CO Q FF= o a O G �° o° � X � N i _. mn ' C4 • • • e ti vpO � � NOO O � CD � O n . • � N � � cn ' cn om ' X � � �• � �p � pN � � -• pN � NCDOn � CDp � � QNO � � � � � cn . —fiN �• mc� �, m � , . c� Coo — lvb WsHoP 31/ �L ARi a LA/ONTARIOINTERNATIONAL s - AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN CITY OF�O+roancv`� + ONTARIO AIRPORT ts I j m �rVR1 � 4� PLANNING �' _ „-� i 9 ADOPTED APRIL 19, 2011 LA/ONTARIO • • AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY - - j/4Q� Prepared for: City of Ontario a - Planning Department £a s OWN Terry L Blum Planning Director Cky Coundl 303 East B Street - -- Ontario,.CA 91764 - Paul&Leon,Mayor Principal Planner Debra Dorst-Poracia,Mayor pro Tem Cathy wahlst om Alan D.Wapner,Council Member Project Manager -. Lorena Mejla -Sheila Mautz,Council Member Jim W.Bowman,Council Member Pfepafed by' Mead & Hunt, Inc. Mead Chris Hughes,City Manager . M l U nt Otto Kroutil,Development Agency Director 133 Aviation 0oulevard,Suite 100 - - Santa Rosa,CA 95403 www.meachunt.com • Planning Commission Project Manager _ Maranda Thompson - Bob Gregorek,Chairman In association with: Richard Delman,Commissioner Dudek DUDEK Rick Gage,Commissioner Harris Miller Miller&Hanson, Inc. Barbara Hartley,Commissioner WL1Nl Fausto Reyes,Commissioner - 'Technology Associates - - International Corporation . fa4beMOgy*AnoeMaa '.funded by: ADOPTED•Y ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL Federal-Aviation Administration(FAA) APRIL 19, 2011 ORDINANCE No. 2935 , Section 160 of Vision 100- - - EFFECTIVE DATE century of Aviation Reauthorization Act MAY 19, 201.1 • 1,A/0', I ANO INTERNATIONAL g . LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The CRY bf�Ordario would like to thank the Technical Advise y Committee, their time,participation anrl-technical assistance with development of the-Airport Lond Use CompatibilRY Plan for IA/CMtatla international Airport: The -- --- .`.-C1tyr,also,thanks the Federal Aviation Administration JFAAA) for allocating the gram funds-which made the - development of thii plan possible. _ CITY OF ONTARIO - - CITY OFFONTANA - ferryL:Blum;PlortningDirector _ bebbi€Brazil Depuly City Mgncger _Scott Murphy,Assistant Planning Director. DortWllliams,Director of Community Development Cathy Wahistrom,Principal Manner - Chades!",senior Planner- - __ --- Barbara.Paine,PMcipal Planner, - - - - CITY OF MONTCUCIR - _ Chuck Mercier,Senior Planner - Steve Lustro;.Community Development Director _ - - Richard Ayala,Senior Planner - Michael Diaz,{fty Rlonnar - _ -- Lor era Mejia,Associate Planner - "' - Louis Abi-YoumnI City Engineer _CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - - _NabiiKassih,Assista City Engineef James R.Troyer,:Plannmg Director - - - nt Donald Granger,SemorPlanner _ Tom Danna,iroJJic#ngineer John Andrews;Redevelopment Director _ _ CITY OF 1JPtAN6 - Sigfrido Rivera,Homing Manager Karen Peterson;Planning Manager -Peter Witherow;ITAppllcatfons Mdnoger - Jeff Bloom,Community Development Director. _ :Robert De Casas,Senior 53'stem Analyst - - -- - • - Dale Wishner;ITSystems Manager - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Ed Cooper,Airport Land Use Commission Director. _ - ALUCP PLANNING COMMISSION SUB-COMMITTEE - Ron Goldman,'PlanningDarc;or _ - Richard.Delman,Planning.:Commissioner John Guerin„Ppncipal Pkm4' - - Fred Nelsen,Vice Chair- MEAD&-HUNT..INC '-- AVIATION ADMINISTRATION(FAA) ' - Maranda Thompson, ProjettManagn,Aviation Services- FEDERAL - .Margie Drilling;Aviation Planner,IosAngeks ADO:-- _ Ken Brad y,Senlot-Prdject11anner Keith Dowas;Senlor Planner- - _ _ CALTRANS,DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS----: Corbett Smith,=AlrPort Planner - -_Terry Barrie;Chief,Office of.Avlatbn Planning. _ `:-Todd Eroh,Senior Technician: - _ Ran BDlyard,Associate Aviation Land Use Planner .'_ = _- - Chris Ferrell,AssociatbAvladon Lana Use Planer-, DUDEK LOS.ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS(LAWAI - Shawn Shamlau,Environmental Manager - .less-:Roma,Airport Manage` - Lisa Lubeley',GISManoger,- - Paula McHargue,Supenvlsing Transportotloh Plannetlr - -ElimnSchoetww;Foiecostingond Anolysh- .-. - - HARRIS MILLER 1V17LLER.&HANSON.INC. ..Sheryl Thomas Perkins Senior{zowrnmentAfalrs Representative Robert Behr,Semor Noise Consultant - - _ -- SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. TECHNOLOGY-ASSOCIATES iNTERNATIONAL CORPORATION - - Mike N.Williams,AA.E.,Director,pjAirports -Pat Atchison,GlS TWIMonager -- Jim Squire,beputy Director- ChristneV Sarilia.LandVseSenlw"im<for Representative CITne 6E CHINO Chris Lovell,Principal Planners ADOPTED APRIL 19, 201 1 __ - NTARIU7 TABLE OF CONTENTS. - AIRPORT PLANNING • FOREWORD I CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY T s" .AJRPORTCONIPATIBILIT PLANNING ..-;: .. ..-.i ...... . =3 `_ IntrodUCtlOn .. . .. .:.. ...� .,c,-..: .... . . . . ..... -,i:, - ":.! " - - ALUCP_Five Step- evelopmegt Process - - - ' THE ONT COMPATIBILITY PLAN .. .. :.. ......... ..::: .,. . . .... . : ....:., ..... .... 1 2 ' Function of the Compatibility Plan _,,;:. .......:..... .. ... . 1 2 - -�> -' Airport Influence Area,: ' ...1-2 -- Effective;Date anti_Adpptionof`theComRahbtlityPla ...... . 1 Z - -- z - THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS - - ,. 1 3 :- State Law Requirements > . 1-3- San Bernardino County Alternative. ........ 1 3 --METHODOLOGY FOR CREATIN6THE-01JT COMPATIBILITY PLAN ...... _ .. 1-4 - - ONT Master Plan Status .., t4 _ Planning for FutureRunWay Modifications::_-....: ....'r. ....a; ... .. . . .,.. 1-4 Future and Existing Acfviry Forecasts .., -5 - • - Future and Existing Airfield Confgurations: ...... ...... :_....1 5 LAND USE PLAN CONSISTENCY .- _.. -- - .. 1-6 -'-- --= State Law t 6. ; - .Consistency Optioris , . ... .,: , ..._:: ..... . J...f. 1 7 ' BACKGROUND,INF.ORMATION� - ....,:: .. 1-8 Definifions forthls=CQinpaUbillty Plan .. .. ]$ < Table=and Map Descriptions . ,,t. 1-9 _ CHAPTER-a EXHIBITS ---_ - EXHIBIT 1 1 Airport History and Development Summary... ... ....>. ` . 1 ' --� - Exhibit 1-2 Airport Features --- Exhibif;l 3 Airporticbwty DatS-Summary ;.' 1-15 ; Exhibtl-4DNTAIA-Infonnatiorf . . . ...... .......... .:..117 Exhibit.l 5 Simplified Airport Diagram Acceptance Letter ....;... . .. ....:.. . 1 19 CHAPTER 1 MAP EXHIBITS Simplified Airport Diagram......:' ,. .., ... .... .... Exhibit 1-6 Runway Protection Zones West 6hibt 1 ,7 Gompatibdlty Factors Safety ... Exhibit 1-8 LA/Ontado international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(AdopteC-April 18, 2011) - i TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 rwaa ruwmxc -' - - Compatibility F-actdrs:Noise......: .... ........... ...... .. Exhibit f-9 Compatibility Factors.-Existing Airspa Exhibit.1 10. -,r Compatibility Factors:Future Airspace.....:::, ..........,:....... .........: .......ExMbit 1-'I1 Compatibility Factors,.CompasiteAlrspace:: EXhIt7 t 1-12 . _ Modeled Flight Routes..:.; ...:..-:[ , ....::.: ..,.... :a:........Exhibit 1'13 --_ Flight Track Altitude:All Operations(Composite) - - - - ........Exhibit 1-14 -- _- - --` FllghtTrackAlfltude:Normal Operations(Arrival) . .....,;. .......n: ......Exhibit 1-15 - -' Flight Track Altitude: Normal Operations(Departure).-. ......... ...... .......Exhibit l-1& Flight Tack AltitudeE Santa Ana Conditions-(Amlval)�...... ......: .. .::: ......,Exhibit 1 17 -- ` Flight Track Alttude:Santa AnaCnnd{lions.(Depariure)j, .... Exhib111-1$ - Existing�Land Use..,=. -- - -- -- ._....ExhltiiYl 19 -- - City of Ontano General Plan......; :..:. ..... .:. . ......: ........ Exbibit-1 20 General-Plan Land Use: Other Junsdictions.- ...... .... ,. .. ....::........Exhibit f-21A --"- GeneraLPlan Land[l)se.Junsdictions Legend ....:,.,....Exhlbi{.1 218 CHAPTER 2:PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES. CHAPTER OVERVIEW ....:.... . [:.. .....::r: ...., .. -:. ...;._:;,..2-1 . :. fntrodu¢tlon _ - --- . ,2-1 ` Section Descriptions - . ....... ...... ... ............ Criteria Table Descriptions .....:; .. .. . . . . .. .. 2-2 Compatibility Policy Map Descriptions ......: .. ., ..: ........ ..... ........:.....2-2 ' -SECTION-1: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE GOMPATIBI1_ITY PLAN-,. .., - _ -- i 1 . -;-Geographic Scope.... .... ,. . ..:. ....... 273 1.2 _Applicability of the Compat(bllity Plan. .. .. ..... 2 3 -- .- Limitations the Coptb+ fy fa .1,3 - SECTION 2,_ALUCP IMPLEMEf4TATION RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ALTERNATJVE PROCESS ........, :...2-6 . 2.1 -: Overview_bfALUCPIrpamerttationResponsllilitiesfor Affected Agencies.. ,... . &6 2.2, SpecifcResponslbiltles`ofLAWA..ii: ......,. . ' ...... ..27 2.3 ON7 lntar:Agency Notification Probers ;-:.:.. v: ..... . . 2-7 SECTION 3: Ow OF ONTARIOADOnIOUAL RESPONSIBILITIES ...... .,.... ............ - -- 3.1 Preparation,Adoption and Amendment of the Compatibility Plan .....2-8 32 -ALUCPImplementationAdminiistration » . .2-9 = tSECTION 4:_MEDIATION BOARD ROLES RESP-ONSIBIUTIES,AND PROJECT DISPUTE.PROCESSy. ......... .......2-9 --- 4.1 ' Mediation-Bowd Purpose and Composltlon................ .. .. . ..:...c ..................2 - • 41 Mediation Board Project"Dispute Process ... ..... .. 2 14 li -- - Y- I.A/Onferio lgtemetione/Aiiport Land lire Compat"ity Plan(Adopted April 99, 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 3 Oyer uling Medi I pri and Decisions 2 11 'SECTION 5:EVALUATINGIAND USE CONSISTENCY - , .., ...., -.. ....... 2 12 _ _ - 5.1 -=Evaluating Consistency of New.Deyelopment,... .... . , 2.12 5.2 Evaluation Tools .... 2-12 SECTION 6: COMPATiBILTfY POLICIES .. . ,. ..:. . ..,. --.- ....:,: ...............2-14 ' ' 6.1 ,-_SafetyPolicles . ... ,...,. ..... . .214 - _: . 6.2 :Noise Policies ;s-.,:_ ..., _..;::.: .... ....._. ..Z-26 ` = 6.3 :Airspace-Protection Poiiele5 ..:;_. - -- ....:.: 2 24 6.4 Overflight Policies .. : . . ..-.. ..-. ....::. .. . :. 2 29 6 5 S special Compatibility.Rphcies 232 _CHAPTER 2 TABLES -- - - Table 2-1 Major Land Use Actions ....,,_ .... .... :2-39 Table 2 2-Safety Cr tena .... ..2-41 ^, Table 2-3 Noise Criteria ..... ....... ........ 2-47 ]CHAPTER 2 POLICY..MAPS r Airport Influence Area .... _. .,:., ....1...Compatibility Policy Map Safely Zones ...�. ..: ..z..._; . ...;:, .,_., .. --..Compatibility Policy Map 2-2 - - Noise Impact Zones ......Compatibility Policy Map 2-3 -- `- Airspace Protection Zones_ ..i Compatibility Policy Map 2-4 Overflight Notification Zones , . ..i: .... .. . ; Compatibility Policy Map 2 5 ` ?APPENDICES APPENDIX A-STATE L 4s RELATED To AIRPORT L:AND,USE PLANNING ­11.::... ...... ........ . . ....:.. A-1 - •, Public-UtilltiesCOde - ---.. A-3 Government Code: " .: A-20 ` Education Code .:i ,...,. A 29 Public Respurces Code ... ... , ... .., A 33 Business Professions Cade ,,; . . .. .,.... .:: A-34 O vii Cotle . ;: ;.. z..... . A 35 Legislative Hlstory'Summary_ . . A-40 APPENDIX B-FEDERAL AVIATION REGGIATIONs PART 77 .....s .. ..., .,....a ..... :,....B 1 " Ex h ibit 31 -}FAR Part 771maginarySurfaces B 14 ExhibitB2-FAR PaTt,77 Notification Form:;, ;. .., ; ., ...:i:.B-15 - ' Exhibit B3 FAR Pa l77 0nline:Submittal Process ....,i. . . ...., :1'N0dtado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted-Apd/19,2011) _ - iii ,_ _ TABLE OF CONTENTS' °" • APPENDIX C-AIRPORT LAND USE CAMPA'rjm VONCEPLS....... - ' C-1 Table 01 -.Safety Aircraft Accident Risk Characteristics. ...: .. ...... . ' , ...,::...0-15 Figure C1 Noise-Footprints of'Seteeteo Aircraft ...... ........ _.,.C45 Figure C2-General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours,All Arrivals ...... ...... C'18 Figure C3-General-Aviat on Accident Distribution Contours,All Departures...:;. G39 `- - - -- --APPENDIX D-METFLODS,FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OFjPEDPLE.....5. ................ Table=D1 Occupant Load Factors _,. D$ - - APPENDIX E-SAMPLE.IMPLEMENTATION-DOCUMENTS....... :. .... ... ....., .. ..,.E 1 --. - Table-E1 -General Plan Consistency Checklist ... :.....€ Table,E2-Sample Ai port-Oveday Zone Components, ..,...:.... Table Es-Sample Avlgation Easement....:. .. ..... .......E=5 Table E4-Sample Overflight Notification.... E7 Table E6 Sample Project Submittal Information.................................. E-B APPENDIX F-LA CINTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT I,AND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DOGUMENT5.. -. F t -_ -APPENDIX G'-GLOSSARY:.....................:.. ,......;-. - ......I. ....... ,, ...:::.:....G-1 APPENDIX H-ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/INITIAL STUDY............,...... ......:. ...... :H-1 =. • _ APPENDIX I-GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ............. .......t APPENDIX J---HIGH TERRAIN ZONE&EXISTWG AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION STUDY - • IV, -'-.'t,A!tJntaifa lntamafiDna/Aftport Land Use Compatitillify Han(Aifnpted-RpH1 18,?6M} - D5PRLAjloNGmw-;' FOREWORD Aviation is an important industry in the State of California. It plays a significant role in the local and regional economy. Airports provide a means of transportation, business development, recreational aviation opportunities and educational venues to the citizens of the State, as well as visitors to the region. Communities in close proximity of an airport benefit from its economic value but are also subject to airport impacts such as noise and safety. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans are documents that address airport impacts and provide implementation techniques to ensure the development of compatible land uses around airports. This Air Land Use Cowpatibik'ty Plan (Compatibikty Plop) addresses land use impacts around - LA/Ontario International Airport. The document is organized into two chapters and a set of appendices. Chapter I identifies the background data and methodology utilized for the basis of this Compalibi/ity PAw and Chapter 2 identifies the procedural policies and compatibility criteria for implementing this Plan. __.. +�h 0 l _ G . LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) Chapter • BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY LA/Ontario Internafional QNTARI6-- Airport Land Use Caropotibility Plan NVORT PLANNING n - CHAPTER 1 NTA j lapoRTPIANNING _ $ACKGROUND AND METHODOLGY AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY PLANNING Introduction •`t'he California State"AeronauticsAct"_(PubLc UnhtiesCod'e, Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an -Airport Land Use Companbihry Plan (Compatibility"Plan) be prepared for all public-use airports-in the =- state to: .:"protect the pnblichealth,safety,and ar air by ensuring orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land nre measnnr-that minimize-the pnbk'c exporura to excessive noire and safely haZardr-within as around public airports to-the extent-that these areas,are not already devoted to incompOble land ase '1 .State law also requires'local land`rise plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Compatibility:Plans. Compatibility Plans must have 20-year horizons, taking into 'consideration regional;growth projections.and future airport'expansion plans that would increase airport activity and associated impacts. Compadbility'_PLms are-'tailored to each airport's specific land use impacts and issues. The statutes also require that local-jurisdictions preparing Compatibility Plans "rely upon" the compatibility guidance provided by'-the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published,by the California Department of Transportation (Caimans), Division of Aeronautics in january,2002. Five-Step Compatibility Planning Process • -The development of the LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan followed this five- step process; Step 1 Initiate Process and Gather Data . Conduct preliminary work needed to initiate the compatibility planning process such as idendfyiug the responsibilities of theCity`of Ckitario in preparing the Compatibility Plan, gathering pertinent-airport data such as an airport master plan or airport layout plan, and iddfying en lnotifying the different-stakeholders. + Step 2 Delineate the Airport Influence Area Define the areas that need to be considered for airport land use compatibility planning by examining the four factors" of compatibility that include safety,. noise,rairspace protection and overflight consistent_.rith the .Cahfomia Airport Land Use, Planning Handbook (Handbook). + Step 3: Identify Compatibility Concerns - `Examine the level of compatibility in the conununity'by:evaluating existing land uses and land use plans against compatibility concerns,- > Step 4: Develop Compatibility Policies Examine the various policies and regulatory documents' available. (e.g..- e.g. -California Handbook,.Public'Utilities Code, FAA guidance) to guide in the development of _ compagbility policies that will be part of,the airport land use compatibility plan. LAA�ntariolnteinationelAlrporf Land UseGomPabbilifyP/aP(Febnrary-2011PubIloOraR) 1-4 i CHAPTER 1 4ACKGROUND-ANO METHODOLOGY - OAwdff—n.v�nrc� • + -Step 5: Establish Implementation,Strategies Identify and adopt strategies for implementing•the companbilit, plan, malting local land use plans consistent with the Compahbdzly Plan and processing consistency-reviews of future development proposals. THE ONT.COMPATIBILITY PLAN_ Function of the Compatibility Plan The basic function of the Compa(ibikiy Plan for IA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is to promote compatibility between ONT and the land uses that surround-it. As'_ie required b state law, .the. _ P ty _ 9 , --Y - _ Compatibility Plan provides guidance to affected local jurisdictions with regard to-`airport land usa compatibility-matters involving- ONT. The Campalibility Plan is separate and distinct from the jurisdictions' other land use _policy documents-their general plans, -specific plans, and;-zoning ordinances-yet all of the documents are expected to be made consistent with each other through incorporation of the compatibility polices into their land use policy documents. The main objective of the Compatibility Plan is to avoid future compatibility conflicts rather than-to remedy existing incompatibilities. Also, the Comfwiih&li , Plan is aimed at addressing future land uses and development, not airport activity. The Compatibility Plan does not place any restrictions_on the present and future role configuration,or use of the airport. " Airport Influence Area The central component of this Compatibility Plan is the set of procedural and compatibility policies outlined in Chapter 2. These policies set limits Note:The compatibility •_ on future land uses and development near the airport in-response to noise, species set forth herein,: P �P specifically in Chapter 2;are safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future-- relevant to Los Angeles and airport activity. The geographic extent of these four types of impacts Riverside County jurisdictions together-constitutes the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). The ONT- and Los Angeles and AIA encompasses lands within arts of San Bernardino;Riverside and Los'; Riverside County .Tees Land P - P.-- - - - Use Commissions.These - Angeles Counties. . _However, this Compatibility Plan applies. only to agencies are encouraged to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, specifically,the County of San: adopt these policies for their Bernardino and the "Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario; Rancho portions of the ONT AIA;but Cucamon ga, and Upland, together with.an s p eci_al distric community, are not required to – college district, or school district that exists or may be established or , expanded into the AIA. The CoinpatibikoPlan does not apply to state-owned,federal or tribal lairds. The Compatibifio Plan has been prepared in coordination with the applicable jurisdictions hsted.`Above and representatives of Caltrans Division,of Aeronautics and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Los Angeles Airports-District Office. Effective Date and Adoption of the Compatibility Plan The provisions of the Compatibility Plan will tape effect upon the plan's adoption by the City of Ontario. Other affected entities within San Bernardino County have options as to how to incorporate pertinent Compatibility Plan provisions into their respective local-plans,and policies or to dispute portions of the plan,but they cannot simply opt out of the process (Public Utilities Code Section 216701 (c)): • 1-2 - CA/Ontario lntemadonal Alrport Land Use Compatibility Plan IFebluary 20t 1 Public DmM - " BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 THE "ALTERNATIVE PROCESS" • ' State Law Requirements " in most counties, the responsibiYi foj r the preparation and adoption of compatibility plans falls to the county airport land use ,(ALUC). State law also provides for-what is generally referred to as:-an "Alternative Process" wherein a county does,not have-to form fan ALUC. and the required compatibility planning responsibilities fall to local jurisdictions. _San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative;Process when this:option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation(Assembly Bill 431)._ Specific requirements for implementation;of the Altemative Process` are set forth in Public Utilities Code Section-21670.1(c)(2) as follows. - _ ..[the] county and the appropriate affected cities having jurisdiction over an:airport, subject.to the review and approval by the Division of Aeronautics of the department,shall do all of the following (A) Adopt processes for the preparation, adoption, and 'amendment of the airport land use comparability plan foYeach airport that is served by'a scheduled airline-or operated for the benefit of the general public. (B): Adopt processes for the notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, and , other public agencies regarding the preparation, adoption,anti:amendment,of the,airport land _ use compatibility plans. (C) Adopt processes.for the mediation of disputes arising fro the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility plans_ (D) Adopt processes for the amendment of general and specific plans' to ble consistent with the airport land use compatibility plans ;. ' . ' • (E) Designate the agency that shah be responsible for the preparanon,adoption,and amendment of each airport land use compatibility plan.':' Paragraph-(3)of Section 21670.1(c)goes oa to say that: "The Division of Aeronautics of-the department shall review the processes adopted pursuant to paragraph (2), and shall approve the processes if the division determines_that the processes are consistent with the procedure required by this article=and will do:all of die following. - (A) Result in the preparation;adoption,and un lementation of plans within a reasonable amount of time. - _ (B).' Rely on the height;_:use, noise, safety,'­arid density criteria that'are compatible with airport - operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,published by the division,and any applicable federal aviation regulations,including, but not limited to,_Part 77 (commencing with Section 771)-of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. - (C) Provide adequate opportunities,for notice^'to, review of and"comment by the general public, landowners,interested groups,and other public agencies , San Bemardino County Alternative Process "- Use of the Alternative Process withal San Bemardino County" was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of cities affected by airports. -Specifically the Ontario City Council adopted the-Alternative Process through; Resolution No. 95-34 utilizing the ;Airport Environs Section of the General Plan as the basis for airport land use,-compatibility planning (see Appendix F). The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San-Bernardino.,County • LA/Ontario IntemalionalAiTort Land Use.Compatibllltyplan(February2011Public"Draft) CHAPTER f BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY Alternative Process in"1996. The.approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of C3ntano as • the local jurisdiction responsible.-for leading the compatibility planning process far ONT, The policies in Chaplet 2 of this Compatibility Plan clarify and amend the process previously estalrhshad by Ontario City Council Resolution-No. 95-34 to include participation by the other agencies w thin San Bernardino-.County having jurisdiction over portions of the AIA established by this Compatibility Plan. Patticipation by these--agenctes will be accomplished througk_the ONT Inter'Agency Notification Process and creation of a Mediation Board. The roles-and responsibilities of the participating agencies and the- Mediation Board are described in Chapter 2. The matrix below identifies _the jurisdictions/entities that may be-subject to the ONT Alternative Process. METHODOLOGY FOR CREATING THE ONT COMPATIBILITY PLAN State law,(Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a)) dictates that airport land'tse compatibility plans be based upon an Airport Master Plan (AMP) or an Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Where an-AMP is not available or is outdated, an ALP drawing can serve as the basis for compatibility planning,subject to the approval of the California Division of Aeronautics- An ALP is a drawing showing existing facilities and planned improvements, A typical AMP includes an-ALP, but also provided textual background_data a discussion of forecasts, and an examination of alternatives along with -detailed description-of the proposed development: ALP's and AMP'S are prepared for and adopted by the'ennty that owns and/or operates the airport Most large,publicly owned airports have'an AMP, but- smaller or private airports do not. Special San Riverside Los Federal Native • Bernardino Bernardino American San County Matrix Required x i ,": x Informational x x x x t The Cities within San Bernardino County that are required to participate in the Alternative Process mGude:Ontario,Rancho Cucamonga,Chino,Montclair,-Fontana-and Upland "- -- - -- ' _ The County of Riverside having unincorporated lands within the noise impacted areas of VVOntano International Airport has elected to participate in the.compatibility planning process for the Airport on a discretionary basis: a .See definition for'Special on paged-9 of thiSChapter. - - -- ONT Master Plan Status ONT has never had an adopted AMP that can-serve as the basis for this Compatibility Pldn, In 2002,Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) initiated a master planning effort for ONT. A tentative proposal of the AMP involved reconfiguration of the runway system, shifting both runways south and east of then present .positions: This reconfiguration is regarded necessary to enable the runway system to _ accommodate the volume of aircraft operations associated with-Elie numbers of airline passengers and air cargo expected to use the airport by 2030. Before-the new AMP could be completed and adopted, however, the nationwide 'economic downturn, coupled with local factors, resulted-in a substantial decline in activity at ONT. With this decline, the urgency for completion of the AMP:_largely disappeared and,consequently;LAWA suspended work-on the plan development in late 2008. Planning for Future Runway Modifications The discontinuation of the ONT AMP efforts.left the compatibility planning project without a:clearl"y defined AMP to use as its basis. Without an AMP, the_Compatibility Plan could be based on the existing- 1� LAAonrano intemational AlryortLenrtUm Compatibility Plan!February 2of f Public Draft) G T BACKGROUND KND'METHODOLOGV -CHAPTER 7 nriiivay configuration or the modified configuration that was developed as part of I.AWA's master • planning efforts. Both LAWA and the City of ©ntario:expect the-new;AMP to eventually_move forward with a modified runway.system either as in dicated on_the internal draft plan or similar to it. Not considering the modified -runways in the-..Compatibility :Plan could potentially enable new ' development_f6 occur=in.a manner that would be, in conflict:with the,'future airport confguradon. =' Meanwhile, the existing'runways also need-w-be protected'until such time as they are no longer in use. Accounting for dual sets of runways in the Colnpakbjhty Plan make's the plan more complicated,but it is the approach that provides the best,assurance of compatibility between the airport and new-land use development, both in the near and Iong' terms. _Representatives of-the California Division of - Aeronautics, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), LAWA and Ciry of Ont ario are in concurrence with this approach. Therefore,; for the purposes o 'this.Campadbiki r PJan a Sunpli led Airport Diagram of the airport:layout has been prepared,emphasizing the features> Note:The Runway Protection having implications for land use compatibility in both the near and song term. Zones are confined within the The Simplified Airport-Diagram takes into account both the-existing and City of Ontario. T `r anticipated ultimate configurations of the runway system, runway protection , zones (RPZ), setback.requirements lateral to= the-=runways and the airport,property boundary. In accordance with state `law, the Simplified`irpor Diagram has been approved by the Division of -- Aeronautics as the basis for this Campatibility_Plan(see Exhibit 1-5 and 1-6).;, Future and Existing Activity Forecasts The activity forecasts LAWA generated prior to,the'discontinuation of the AMP; explored several Possible scenarios that the airport could experience. The Compakbikty Plan is specifically focusing on two ultimate forecasts that were prepared. The "no project" and "proposed project" scenarios, as • defined in the preliminary ONT AMP, represent the two levels of airport activity which- could Potentially be seen by 2030 dep ending on the ultimate configuration of the airport. The no project" forecast assumes=that the airport,configumtionwould remain as it is today. "This lack of airfield change would limit.the airport to approximately"343,000 annual aircraft.operations. The ' preliminary ONT AMP anticipated that tbis'level of demand would be reached by 2030. The "proposed project forecast is base& on the <ultimate reconfiguration of the `airport. In this configuration the airfield will be able to,"accomtnodate approximately 465,000 operations. This forecast assumes roughly 33.4 mill ion,passengers,and 3.26 million tons of air cargo enplaned and deplaned :annually. The forecast°of 33.4 million passengers is based on the assumption that any terminal expansion would be restricted to t ic'north,side of the airport provided that the airfield is capable of-accommodating it ' It is important to note that the 126 million-tons'of air, cargo expected,within the planning period includes both the off-airport.United Parcel Service (UPS)_activty;.and the 1.6 million tons of air cargo -served by the on-airport cargo facilities., UPS maintains a large sorting facility south of the airport with a through-the-fence access point. The UPS aircraft land and take off on the ONT runways but UPS cargo is loaded and unloaded at the private LJPS site. Future and Existing Airfield Configurations .The_airport's present runway system consists of two parallel runways (8L/26R and 8R/26L) oriented 00 feet loo Runway . east and west, Runway 8L-26R_is 12,200 feet in length, while..,. _ un , y 8R-26L is 10, ,2 g Runway 8L has a displaced threshold of 9W_feet. Both runways are equipped 'with High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRLs) and centerline lights All runway ends,are served by straight-in instrument • ' ._:LAIDntado Inlematlonal Airport Land Use Coinpalibildy Plan(February 2011 Public Draft) _-_ 1-5 CHAPTER 1 BA"CKGROUNO ANU METNO'dCLOGY - O+nrocno�+"+re: approaches- Runway 26L has the-lowest approach,mititnums with'a straight to ILS approach having a 200 €oot vertical ceiling:" The airport is served,by an air traffic_control tower which zapetates tweii ty- -four hours a day. The only published noose abaxemetrt procedure for the airport requires Runway 8L for-departures and Runway 26L for arrivals between 10:00 p.m:-and"7:OQ a.m.when weather conditions"pesmit. This noise- abatement procedure,is also-known a contra-119W.' The contra-flow procedures--are .aimed at reducing the number of nighttime overflights of the residential neighborhoods west of the airport. The most recent official°ONT ALP drawing is one dated February 17,2009., LAWA has submitted this ALP to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and it-is"pending approval. It show the'n`nway system in its existing configuration- Also; all runway ends, except Runway 8L, are shown having the largest size of runway protection.zone (RPZ), spedfically, 2,500 feet long,1,000 feet-inner width., r 1,750 feet outer width. T1vs size RPZ is associated with a runway having approach visibility minitnutns lower than '/. mile and capable of serving all sins of aircraft. Tlie existing ALP also shows two.RPZs West of the Runway 8L threshold.The approach RPZ begins 200.feet from the landing threshold'and is 2,500 feet long,with a 1;000 foot inner width, and a 1,750 foot outer width, The departure RPz begins 200 feet from the physical end of-the runway and is 1,700 feet long,with a-500 foot inner width,-and"a 11010 foot outer width. An ALP showing the future runway configuration was part of the discontinued AMP. That drawing hich shows both-runways bein Note: FAA recommends ( RLs) g. g Building Restriction Lines (BRLs) - -shifted south-and east of their current alignments; has been,made- on ALPS to identify suitable available for the _compatibility planning project,_ and a conceptual building area locations on airports version was made-public through: a Notice of Preparation of a:Draft (FAA Advisory Circular 15015300- 13, Section 210). The BRL shown - Environmental Impact Report fox the discontinued ONT AMP. The on the Simplified Airport Diagram • relocated runway position provides a separation of 800 feet between the (Exhibit 1-6) identifies the two,runways, compared to 700 feet currently. This increased separation approximate locations '' where and southward shift will allow for the construction-of duaJ taxiways on - buildings of 35 feet in height or the north---and a center taxiway etween the two jrunways. The taller would be Subpart C, cad On _ y _ - -_ - : FAR Part 77, Subpad C,'cntena - additional taxiway on_the north and a center two would'aid in- The BRL does not account for the circulation and efficiency. These facilities-will allow the airport to topography of the site and, thus is - accommodate the -forecast -increase in operations without significant. -depicted for informational purposes delays. Additionally,. all four runway ends would. have precision only and does not -constdute ' -ALUCPpalicy. - instrument approach 'capabilities and the ALP ."shows the <RPZs accordingly._ LAND USE PLAN CONSISTENCY State Law Requirements General Plans and Specific Plans must be made consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans. Several sections of state law establish the relationship;'between Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans and county and city" General'and.Specifie Plans. In particular, Government Code Section 65302.3 requires that General Plans "and any applicable_Specific Plans "shall- be consistent with" the Compatibility Plan.-This requirement is reiterated in local agencies' obligations under the Alternative Process (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(D))._ - A- second point to emphasize-is that the-consistency requirement pertains only to-future land use development. Nothing in state law or-the Compatibility.Plan requires that already existing development • be removed or modified to eliminate incompatibihdes`that may already exist. Furthermore, General 1 $ LAlontario-lntemadonal.Aliport Land Ilse Compatibility Plan(February 2011 PuWic Draft). 0•'ypodr RI&-- BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER t Plans and Specific Plans can show such land uses as continuing even though they would be • nonconforming with the Compatibility Plan criteria. Conflicts of this type do not constitute inconsistencies between a General Plan or Specific Plan and the Compatibility Plan. Consistency Options General Plans do not need to be identical with Compatibility Plans in order to achieve consistency with them a General Plan must do two things: • It must specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning ordinance or other policy document;and • It must avoid direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan development policies and criteria. Compatibility planning issues can be reflected in a General Plan in one, or a combination, of several ways: • Incorporate Policies into Existing General Plan Elements—One method of achieving the necessary planning consistency is to modify existing General Plan elements. For example, airport land use noise policies could be inserted into the noise element, safety policies could be placed into a safety element and the primary compatibility criteria and associated maps plus the procedural policies might fit into the land use element. With this approach, direct conflicts would be eliminated and the majority of the mechanisms and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria could be fully incorporated into the local jurisdiction's General Plan. • Adopt General Plan Airport Element—Another approach is to prepare a separate airport element of the General Plan. Such a format may be advantageous when the community's General Plan also needs to address on-airport development and operational issues. Modification • of other plan elements to provide cross-referencing and eliminate conflicts would still be necessary. • Adopt Compatibility Plan as Standalone Document—A jurisdiction selecting this option would simply adopt as a local policy document the relevant portions of the compatibility plan— specifically, the policies and maps. Applicable background information could be included as well if desired. Changes to the community's existing General Plan would be minimal. Policy reference to the Conpatibility Plan would need to be added and any direct land use or other conflicts with compatibility planning criteria would have to be removed. Limited discussion of compatibility planning issues could be included in the General Plan, but the substance of most compatibility policies would appear only in the stand-alone document. • Adopt an Airport Overlay Zone—Affected jurisdictions can adopt an airport overlay zone for the areas of impact and make reference to them within their respective General Plans or Specific Plans. The airport overlay zone would act as added layer of standards/restrictions over the existing zoning land use designation. Other than where direct conflicts need to be eliminated from the local plans, implementation of procedural and compatibility policies would be accomplished solely through the zoning ordinance. Policy reference to airport compatibility in the General Plan could be as simple as mentioning support for the compatibility planning process indicated in the compatibility plan and stating that policy implementation is by means of the overlay zone. (An outline of topics which could be addressed in an airport overlay zone is included in Appendix E.) LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(February 2011 Public Draft) 1-7 CHAPTER t BACKGROUND AND-METHODOLOGX - V � BACKGROUND INFORMATION I1iis Campklibility Plan is a stand-alotte document that aidresses airport land:use compat bility issues for ONT. Although,-this is the first stand-alone document created, the- City of Ontario perforrned airport compatibility planning for the areas around ONT-by implementing policies-4--the-1992 General Plan, Airport Environs Section. -The-City of Ontario's newly adopted 2010 General Dian refers'-- this CompatibiA.0 Plan for guidance on compatibility planning matters.--" `Definitions for this Compatibility Plan L Action-,A proposed General Plan, Specific.Plan, polity document -or individual development project-subject to review under the ONT Alternative Process defined in this chapter. Also, an airport master plan, airport layout plan, and certain -types of airport improvements proposed by LAWA for'ONT which would require amendment of the Airport Permit. -2: . Aeronautics Act: Except as indicated_otherwise, the article of the California-Public Utilities Code (Sections 21670 et seq)pertaining to airport land use commissions and atrpott land use compatibility planning. _ 3. Affected Agency:- Any county, city, or special district havirrg lands,within the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). Consistent with state law, each county:within the State of California is.responsible for its own airport land use compatibility planning efforts.,:'nus, the policies of this Compatibilitty Plan apply only to-the affected agencies of San'Beifiardino County. However, since the AIA extends beyond the limits of San Bernardino County, information about the airport impacts extending into-Riverside and Los Angeles Counties is provided for informational purposes..-That is, the affected agencies of Riverside and • Los Angeles Counties may use the Information and _compatibility policies provided herein at their discretion. (a) Affected Agencies in San Bernardino County: i Cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana,:Montclair,:Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland. San Bernardino = County, : as the jurisdiction having control= over unincorporated San Berriardin&County lands within the AIA. '- Los Angeles World Airports (L AWA), a department of the City of Los Angeles,as the owner and operator of LA/Ontario-International Airport. Special entities including school districts, community college districts; and special districts whose boundaries include lands within the San Bertiardino County portion.'of the ALA. :. (b) Affected Agencies outside Sari Bernardino County: +- Riverside County, as Ahe jurisdiction having control over unincorporated Riverside County lands within the AI A. The City of Eastvale-and-any future city that maybe incorporated within the affected portion of Riverside County: + Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. + Cities of Pomona-and Claremont,•each of wlucli has jurisdiction over • portions of the AIA within-Los-Angeles County, e mtiHy Pan(r lua 21 Public Intemehonsl Airport Land U ry Oraffl QAxi� BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY,CHAPTER f'.- •l The I os Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission ; 4 Airport `LA/Ontario Intemanonal Auport (ONT} a commercial airport m the City of Ontano that is owned an operated 15y-Los Angeles World Airports Airport Influence Acea (AIA)° At-area, as delineated°'in Map 2-1 (see Chapter 2), in which current-ox future.airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land use's or necessitate restriction on those uses. 6 Aviation-Relafed Use: Any facility;or activity direc. y associated with Lhe air transportation of persons.or cargo or the operation, storage, or tiiaintenance.of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Sucli uses'.specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protection At defined-by -the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), together with aircraft aprons,hangars,fixed base operations facilities,terminal buildings,etc. 9. Alternative Process: State law,provides for-what is-generally -_ own as the "Alternative Process" wherein counties do not have to forth an Airport Land .Use Commission - `(ALUQ.? Instead, the County-and affected cities having jurisdiction over,an airport are responsible for compatibility planning efforts, _ 8. Compatibility Plan: This document, the LA10a*o Inkmadonal Aiipost-laird Use Cv"'biko Plan. 9.1 Local Jurisdiction..Any county or•city wltbin the ONT AI-A-. -10.--Major Land Use Actiow 'Actions' elated to proposed=land uses for which compatibility with - airport;activity is-a particular-concern. -,These types of actions are listed in Table.2-1 of - - - Chapter 2. Minor actions (e..g. ministerial acts} are-not subject to compatibility reviews. 11. Special Entity: Special dismcts, school districts, and community, college_'districts owning • property or having'boundaries.within the,San Bernardino County portions of the Airport s Influence Area -- - - - Table and Map Descriptions'._ The exhibits at the end of this chapter illustrate the different eorripatibility.factors and other data which were used to evaluate and guide:the creation of the ONT compatibility policies and maps that are part of Chapter 2: Tab le Descriptions + Airport History & Development Summary -Exhibit 1-1 provides--a historical timeline of airport events and facility improvements. $ Airport Features Summary—Exhibit 1 4 provides,a tabular summary of the airfield features at ONT. + Airport Activity Data Summary Exhibit 1-3= gununa,;zes--future :"no project" and "proposed project"aircraft,activity;data as developed-by;LAWA for the discontinued AMP. + Airport Environs Information —'Exhibit f-4 provides'a summary of land use policies for neighboring jurisdictions;as well as the status-of local plans Simplified Airport Diagram Acceptance Ixtter Exhrbrt 1-5 provides a copy-of the acceptance letter issued.by the_ California Division 'of Aeronautics zegarding the Simplified' Airport Diagram which was approved on July 21 2009 _ -LAKJntarlo Intemetlonal Alrpavt Land use compatibility Plan(Februery2m 1 Public Draft) GtIAOTER 4" BAC-KGROUND AND ME"OOOLOGY Map DeSCriptims - • Simplified-Airport Diagram Exhibit 1-4 is the simplified airport diagram°which-shows the - airfield area highlighting=the existing and future runway configuration, Runway"Protection Zone (RPZ) and airport property. The simphfie -airport diagram was accepted by California Division of Aeronautics in July of 2009. �Y Runway Protection Zones: West =The Los Angeles World Airports�I AWA) employs the use of approach/departure RPZs for Runway 8li However, the -Federal" Aviation Administration's (FAA's) standard RPZ for runways with instrument approach minimums of less than 3/. mile is larger and would extend further beyond the airport property. The FAA s standard RPZ (1,000 feet inner width by 2,500 feet length-by 1,750 feet outer width) -would_ begin 200 feet`beyond the west end of Runway 8L.,Exhibit--1-7 displays the established approach/departure RPZs for Runway 8L as depicted in LAWA's AttportLayout Plan-dated February 17,2009. The FAA's standard RPZ-is also shown for comparative purposes. + Compatibility Factors:.Safety The area of safety concern is depicted in Exhibit 14 using the generic safety zones-fora large air carrier runway. These safety zortes are taken from the Calijoriva Airport Lmrd l7tel?lannin_e Handbook(January 2002} published by the.Gahforriia Division of Aeronautics". Consistent with the-Handbook;Zone 1 is adjusted to match the RPZs-reflected _ " - in the Simplified Airport,Diagram (see Exhibit 1-6). d' Compatibility Factors: Noise—Two sets of noise contours are shown in Exhibit 1-9.These two sets of contours reflect the "no project" and "proposed project activity.levels of 343,100 and 445,000 annual aircraft operations respectively. -- + Compatibility"Factors:'Airspace = Federal Aviatiorr Regulations (FAR) Part 77 airspace surfaces for ONT are depicted in Exhibits-1-10 ExirtingAirspace, 1-11 UltlmateAirtpace,and 1-12 . Composite Airspace. The height notification surface boundary is based on the combination of the existing and future runway configurations. *Y Modeled Flight Routes --Exhibit 1-13-d epicts the flight tracks-which were modeled while creating noise contours for.the airport. The flight envelope is shown to visualize the standard flight routes to and from the airport,including those that-are infrequently flown".. + Flight Track Altitudes: Arrivals and Departures . Radar tracks by altitude-and a flight track envelope are included for:Exhibits 114 through 148. The radar tracks shown reflect several days' worth of aircraft;operations of ONT^The radar tracks were recorded during times or normal east to west operation as well-as contra=flow operations. These tracks did not, however, record many instances of-west to east operations which_occur when-the-Santa Ana winds are blowing. 'The'flight envelope is provided to help visualize the areas that are commonly overflown by aircraft. Existing Land Use—The existing land uses for the areas within the vicinity of the airport are shown in Exhibit 1-19. - " '- + General Plan Land Use: City of Ontario - The General-Plan Policy Plan was adopted in January 2010 as depicted in Exhibit 1-20. ^) General Plan land Use:-Other jurisdictions — Exhibit 1-21a di the-neighboring jurisdictions'adopted General Plan land use designations: The land_ use legends are shown in - Exhibit 1-21b. • LA Onfa io Intemational Airport Land Ilse Gompa66ilit Plan(February 2011 PuW2 Draft! : - ,0 - BACKGROUND AND METNODOCOGV CHAPTER t Exhibit 1-1 -_ - - • Airport History and Development .Situated in the southwest comer of San Bernardino County along':the southern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains, ONT originated in 1923 as a dirt landing strip east of its current location serving the agricultural uses of the region. Throughout the years the airport has seen significant changes - In 1929,the City of Ontario purchased additional land for the,airport and.it became known as Ontario Municipal Airport. Y In 1942, with the escalation of World War II, two concrete runways were constructed along with an air traffic control tower and an instrument landing system. In 1946, in recognition of the transpacific cargo-flights originating from the airport, Ontario Municipal Airport was renamed Ontario International Airport.' + During the 1950s, Lockheed, Douglas.and Northrop all had facilities at the airport throughout the _postwar economic boom. 3 In 1967, the Los Angeles City Department of Airports co-signed a joint powers agreement with the City of Ontario and the airport became part of Los Angeles'regional airport system. In 1985,the City of Los Angeles became the official fitle holder for the airport. In 1998, service at the new;terminal complex began .In 1999, the new ground transportation;center opened, including six on-airport car rental companies. + In 2006,the Runway 8L-26R reconstruction and lengthening project was completed. - • + Today, the airport is managed by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA).'_The airport is currently served by a multitude of airlines, including several dedicated cargo airlines.' The airport frequently sees activity from all sizes of aircraft ranging from small general aviation aircraft to 747-400s. y = • LA/Ontario Intemational Airport Lend Use CompaWlNy Plan(Adopted April 19 2011) kNAPTERt BACKGROUND AR.6 METHODOLOGY - 'ONT Thir}age War kft mfeentionally blank - IA2.-- - LA/Ontei©lntemaMonal:AirporlLand.Usa Compe6Wldy PJan-(Adopted,4pi 1.19,2011) - - O - _ 'BACKGROUNDAND METHODOLOGY CHAPTERt Exhibit 1-2 • Airport . GENERAL INFORMATION --- TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND APPROACH.PROCEDURES a Airport Ownership. 3 Airplane Traffic Patterns. - ' Los Angeles World Airports(LAWAy,; -• Runways.SR and 26R Right traffic _ "Year Opened as Publio-Uso Airport:`1929 currenClo - • Runways 8L and 26Li:--Left traffic - cation;1923landing strip;east:of current location - +Typical Pattern attitude: Property Size: - - 2,000 it MSL . 1,741 acres - -• Large aircraft RjMSL +Airport Classification. Commerdal Service Primary i-Instrument Approach Procedures(lowest minimums). -+Airport Elevation: 9448.MSL - `• Runway 8L(ILS): -- - "' Straight-in: 200 fl ceiling,2,400 R'Runway Visua l - AIRPORT PLANNING DOCUMENTS Range(RVR)(1/2 mile) -- a Airport Master Plan: none „-, . Runway 26R(ILS): ' _ - - -- Planning effort discontinued December 2008 - ' ' Straight-in: 200 ft.ceiling,2,400 ft.RVR(1/2 mile) •T:Airport Layout Plan Drawing, -; __• Runway Bt-n: 284 ` 9 . Straight m: 284 ft.ceiling,5,000 8 RVR(1 mile) -• Approved September 12 2003 by FAA > - . Runway 26L(ILS): ` Revision dated February 17,2,009 pending approval -_ Straight in:,200 ft.ceiling,1,800-ft.RVR(1/3 mile) • Cat II and III provide lower minimums with spa dal RUNWAY/TAXIWAYDESIGN --_- --- ,certification (both runways except as indicated) _ _ +'Wauef Approach Aids:- - - - -- Airport Reference Code: D-V = 26Rr 4-light PAPI on left - + Critical Aircraft: -Boeing 747 - 8R:'Pulsating/steady burning VASI on left -. d Dimensions;.- - - 26L:`4-light PAPIon right . Runway 8L-26R: 12,200 ft.long;;150 ft.wide +-Operational Restrictions/Noise Abatement Procedures: • Runway 8R-26L 10,200 ft long, 150 ft,wide _ -• rhino Noise Mitigation Measures(May 15, 1991);detailed - - d Pavement Strength(main landing gear.00nfiguration) - Information available at City of Chino(see Exhibit 1-14) • 30,000+lbs.(single wheel) _ Runway 8 departures and Runway 26 arrivals between _ ':•.200,000 lbs.(dual wheel) �._`_ __ 10:00 pm and]:OO.am - 560.000 lbs.(dual-tandem wheel)- `850,000 lbs.(double dual-tandem wheel) _-APPROACH PROTECTION < - +Average Gradient: • "RUrnvay`Proteeflon Zones(RP27. - - Runway 8L-26R: 0.2%•(ri sing to the west)` !;. Runway 8L Approach RPZ(Existing): Mostly on-airport, 1.. Runway 8R-26L: 0.1%(rising to the west)-.--- - ,southwest comer off-airport •►Runway Lighting: Runway 8L Departure RPZ(Existing): Mostly on-airport, High-Intensity Runway Lights(HIRL) _ _ _, -southwest comer off-airport --; - '• Centerline Lights Runway BR(Existing): Y.on-airport,southwest comer off- . a Primary Taxiways: airport _. -. Full-length parallel Taxiway N on:north side c:-_ Runway 8L(UIdmate):'Onairport,future casement or • Full-length parallel Taxiway S on south side `' property acquisition - - Partial parallel Taxiway M between:runways Runway 8R(Ultimate): On-airport-future-easement or - _ - Prope rty acquisition "- BUILDING AREA Runways 26R 8 26L(Existing 8 Ultimate): On airport - - - " + Terminal Area: _ _ +,Approach Obstacles: . North side of airfield - _• Runway 8L(Existing): Road 600'from.Runway end,250' --$General Aviation: - - -right of centerline,clearance slope 20:1 - - Southwest end of airfield, _ :• Runway 26R(Existing): Pole 2050'from Runway end, j+Other Facilities: - - --, 400`.right of centerline,clearance slope 46:1 -" Air Traffic Control Tower(ATCT) _; _ Runway 26L(Existing): Pole 2050'from Runway end, -.;U.S.Border Patrol 400 leitof centerline,clearance slope 46:1 UPS(on adjacent property) _ - - +Services: PLANNED FACII.M.(MPROVEMENTS -• Fuel: 1OOLL,Jet A,Military Fuel(upon request) ; - +Airfield: - • Other: airfreigh4 avionics:cargo,.charter,aircraft - - ;,. Relocate both runways south and east ::- rental and sales _ --Construct additional tad ys,including center parallel -" taxiway__ _ ;TProperty::.; _ - Easement or acquisition of remaining RPZ area = _ L"nfatio lntemaffona/Airport Land Use Compalibillty Plan(Adopted Apol 19V2011J 1—a 3 . - -: :CHAPTER AND METHODOLOGY 3h' f age.ruat kft intendohady blank 1-14 -- LAlonterio Intemgtibnal Aitport Lend-Use Compatibility PlanfAiiopted;4pril18,20fl)_- - - - BACKGROUND'.AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTERI Exhibit 1-3 Airport Activity Da a Summary AIRPORT MASTER PLAN ACTIVITY RUNWAY USE DISTRIBUTION f - - -'.Current° 'Z040 2030°, ; ::`. -.. 'Day E~Mg N/ght ' Aircraft Operations- - -152,870.- _ _ _ . Takeoffs 2006 �_ - " AHArroaft - _ Runway BL - 3% z-2% -41% Air Passengers(millions) .> 8.8 N/A :':334 "Runway 8R %:2% -2°k 41% _ - -'Runway-26L 34% 44% 19%_ ArCargo(thousand tons) 605 `N/A -'3;260° Runway26R `:62%. .52% -0°A Tolel ='- Landings-2008:`- - - - Aircraft - - - - Runway BG --.3% '3% '2°A NOISE CONTOUR ACTMTY e- Runviay 8R 2% 1% 2% _ - ` Runvray 26L 35% 'S5% .:- 2006 (No- Prot)` Rumaay 28R - -56% 61% 41% (� )° _ _ _ Takeoffs-2030(No Prof), Operations AN Araaft - Total nuas '133,590 .343,00V = Runway 2°A 2% 10% " - Runway SR 2% 2% . 24% 465,000 - Runway26L 31% 46% 32% --Average Day. 366 _: 940 T,274 ;..Runway 28R 65% '-50%- , --- 35% , Distribution by Arnett Type° - Landings-2030(No Prof) Ali Aircraft. - _ Air Carrier 52% `60% 63% Runway BL-- 3°A 3%- " . >2% - .Air Cargo -23°h ,Runwa BR °:y% , .2% '3% General Aviation 21°h - 18% .14% • _ y -:�Rumvay26L 34% -40% 66%. , - _ -,Runway 26R 62%. 56%. 40% Takeoffs-2030(Proj.) _ • All Aircraft Runway BL 2°k 2% 12% - '. Runway 9R- -"2°k- _2% =26°� _ Runway 28L -21% --35% 27% - Runway 26R 74% .62% :- 35% - - Landings-:2030(Proj.)V - - - - -- AN Aircraft < :Runway BL ;'-3% - -,_3% 2% - - Runway BR" -`-.2% 1% . `:3% Runway 26L .27% '.27% '- '44% ' Runway26R 68% 69% ;.51% Notes ' Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast—Operations data is consistent with LAWA information. - ° Source: HNTB Technical Memorandums,Ontario International Airport Master Wan Unconstrained Forecast(November 2005) - - and LA/Ontano International Airport Facility Constraints Analysis(December 2007)and SCAG 2008 RTP..- - _ - -- " No Project(No Pmj.�Assumes existing runway configuration is maintained Proposed Project(Project�Assumes reconfigured runways - _- ° .Air cargo tonnage includes both off-airport UPS activity and 1.6 million tons by on-airport cargo facilities. '.. Source: Integrated Noise Model(INM)study prepared by HNTB Corporation,June 2008.INM data does not include touch-and-go - or helicopter operations. INM aircraft types manually categorized into basic aircraft categories of air carrier,air cargo,etc. Source: HNTB Technical Memorandum,Noise Contours for-LA/ONT Environmental Impact Report(June 2008)._- ° Percentages may not add up to 100%due to rounding.- _ - Annual operations rounded to the nearest thousand - _ - • LA/Onteno International Airport Land Use Compatbility fan(Adopted April l9,2011) 1-15 - CHAPTER BACKGROUND MVX-mETHOQOLOGY.'- • :; _ '�hrJ pugs u+uJ kf(f)ftcptroffully 6ignk. - - 1-16 `-. = LA/OnteriOnlemallonal Airport Land:Use Compatlbillty Plan(Adbpted AprV 2011) _, 05 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER i Exhibit 1-4 ONT Airport Influence Area • • AIRPORT SITE AFFECTED AGENCIES GENERAL PLAN STATUS - 4 Location - +:City of Ontario " • Southwestern San Bernardino County •Ontario General Plan adopted January 2010 - Within city limits of Ontario --4 CRy of Chino - .35 miles east of central Los Angeles •General Plan adopted in July 2010 <1 mile south of Interstate 10 -+City of Fontana _ *2 miles west of Interstate 15 - - •General Plan adopted October 2003 - + Nearby Terrain 3 City of Montclair •Airport situated on valley floor south of San Gabriel •-General Plan adopted in 1999 - -Mountains and Mt.San.Antonio(10,049 MSL), - - + City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan adopted May 2010. ONT AIA AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS _+ City of Upland "+City of Ontario "% General Plan adopted June 1982;revised in 2001 Airport within city limits of Ontario - • Update in progress _ i Other Jurisdictions(distance from nearest pointof run- -T County of San Bernardino - -way to city/county limits).; •'General Plan adopted March 2007 •Chino 3 miles southwest. - •Update in progress Fontana 3miles east - - - a County.of Riverside Montclair 3 miles west - •General Plan adopted October 2003 ;. ..Rancho Cucamonga 1.5 miles north •Update in progress -t .Upland 2 miles northwest - Unincorporated lands of San Bernardino County 4 miles • east and 3 miles west _ GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN AIA • Unincorporated lands of Riverside County 2 miles 3 City of Ontario southeast- North:Mixed-use areas allowing commercial-residential uses: EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN ONT'S IMMEDIATE VICINITY •South and East:-Industrial ?City of Ontario General Character - •West Industrial and residential +City of Chino .Highly developed in all directions;industrial uses to ,Within CNEL 60 d8 noise contour south and east;residential uses to west;city center 2 miles northwest - ,West: Residential -T Runway Approaches 'r+City of Fontana •West(Runway 8): Residential and industrial uses •Within CNEL 70-60 dB noise contours -- .East(Runway 26): Industrial and commercial.uses; •East:- Industrial and residential -- landfill to southeast - •T City of Montclair -_ - Within CNEL 60 dB noise contour - .,West: Commercial,industrial,and residential 9 City of Rancho Cucamonga - - .-Within FAR Part 77 Horizontal and Conical surfaces :..Northwest: Residential,industrial,and mixed-use -^T City of Upland - Within FAR Part 77.Conical surface Northeast Industrial,residential,and school - +County of Riverside°. -- - - :.Within FAR Part 77 Horizontal and Conical surfaces 6 60 dB noise contour ..Southwest: Industrial,commercial and rural desert LAAOnterio International Airport Land Use Compatlblliry Plan(Adopted.April 19,2011) 1-17 CHAPTER 7 8AEKOR0UN0-ANO-METH000LOOY E,hibit 1-4 ONT Airport • ESTABLISHED AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY MEASURES' Ontario General Plan(201.0) - Collaborate with all stakeholders in the preparation, - date and maintenance of airport related plans, (ku-&V - _- Coordinate with airport authorities to ensure TheOntano. - - Plan is consistent with airport law,adopted airport plans, - -' and airport land use compatibility plans for ONTzand _`---Chino airports.(LU5.2). - -_ - Work with agencies to mitigate impacts and hazards re- "lated to airport operations. (LU")_- - - - "Comply with state statutes regaidirigCity-admmist-ad ` - - - :Airport Land Use Commission for ONT:(LU&4J - r Support and promote.ONT to accommodate 30 million - - --.annual passengers and 1-.6 million tons ofcargoper - _ - ' year;as long as the impacts associated wfth;thaCleyel Of - --operations are planned for and mitigated,fLU5.5J 1-18.:. LNCnbvla lntarnationelA rport Lan?f Use Compatfbflify Plan(Adopted April Yg,20Y f} BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 1 Exhibit 1-5 Simplified • s • Diagram Acceptance Letter - ,arenD' — ____ -naaaD wstarg2ar�yaa® DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOnaATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS MS.9W' 1120N STREET - - P.O.BOX 942873 rraJ'��•�+••• -SACRAMENTO,CA 94271-0001 .. De aa�44Miea' '- PHONE (916)6544959 7: FAX (916)653-9531 - TTY(916)651-6927 - July 21,2009 Ms.Maaoda Thompson Airport Planner ' MEAD&HUNT,Inc.`- 133 Aviation Boulevard,Suite 100 Santa Rose,CA 95403: Dow Ms..Thompson: Request to use airport diagram a a basis for updating airport land use aompau-bility plan: The California Public Utilities Code § 21675 (a) (PUC) requrhes that-airport land use - • compatibility plans (ALUCP) be based on adopted airport master plans. When no airport _ master plan exists,or is not current, the ALUCP should be based on a current airport layout - plan(ALP). It is not necessary that a formal ALP be drawn and a more simplified diagram of the airport may be used for planning purposes. The only components essential to show are ones which may have off-airport compatibility implications-sprecifically. Runways, nurway protection zones(RPZ),and airport property lines. .'.:.The Division of Aeronautics (Division) ha reviewed and supports the Airport Diagram, - dated June 2009,to be used for the purpose of updating an airport lad on compatibility plan - for the LA/Ontario International Airport. Our recommendation remains in effect until such time as any of the following occur: 1)anew - -airport master plan is adopted;2)there are significant changes in the existing airport conditions or the proprietor's expansion plans for the airport over the next twenty(20)yeasts change in - such a manna as to have off-airport land use consequences. The pmposed runway relocations will require an amended State airport permit. Detailed information regarding State airport permit amendments can be viewed on-line at http://www.dol.m.govfhq/planning/aeronaWair}orlpermit.htmi. The applicant should also be advised to contact the Division's Aviation Safety Officer for Sun Bernardino County, - Patrick Miles,at(916)654.5376,to request a State Amendedicte eeted Airport Permit-..: - . Application package. - Whim the official Airport Layout Plan is sakmitied to the Federal Aviation Admioianrtion, for review and approval, the Division would like the opportunity to discuss certain Mails about the concepts shown on this disSram. '��4��•osiaq•mm Cayb•1•' • LAA7ntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND METKQDQL OGV • We look f wwwd to continuing to.work V4 the City of Ontario,and Mad Hunt in- connection with approval of this important ALUM Mmar-let m kww if we cart be of any --additional assistance regarding this matter. - - - RON BOLYARD- ' -.-Aviation Planner - - - - c: Fermodo Yenez-FAA,Jary Blum-City of Ontario - --"Y:oIWulTprow�uiab(tYymiaw Cei/Frnie' -- - - Exhibit 1-5,Simplified Airport Diagram Acceptance Letter, continued - - .. 1-20 - - LA/Onterio mtemasonalAirport;LandV$&CompaBbitlty plan(Adopted=19,2611] S � E t � � v CL yB f - r3 Nz Im a I I I z ,I 91 I I I itl F6 jiL Sy 9 I d > Idol �i 3 I a p Q II g : e1 15 bq g Q Hai �LL Aq g e 'm m m \ ! } ) < \ 00 o |k \ �- § ❑�� ! § � - . . . ! . . � 2� - \ !§° zo Ck f - � » - > � \WWI! . . � ��� � • } � \ , . � �;» ; ;��] � .� ° . . ^ N nuirmu III 1 n W V W!7 C �J 11 7EI11°��==iF�11El� IIIIII ,,��"Illllronunnu I yysJeE�n �!li��le�lllllllllllllllllllll'����� lul 0I����iil',L���II�1.; KIN 11•IIIIIYIII' 1�;�.����®.®111� '11111 ��O�c® .y 1 j•n® ■® ,e;,.,..se IiIIR IIIIIM.� i�l Illli 11" u owe N -IW4'1 P€Ilal r fnF.L� tla �r"'SYiI■ hFEI bl-_'�- I ii1f11� MERMII Fill IIlIF,=I1�C� 'r' ilia �J4 N111r,1111P'4tV°ILJIE�Jti R 411 IIIoI III IfIII 111-11 JIL11W11Lhii 1'AF, Q ,:- W,'1'�.I'a� IIIIILI I��■EL•61t2°.� €I,�. W .g[6. . ..... 11� J/ilk -1R■�GJI■�■� II 9:L'�!1®' Elr4 iltl�W `a � ��• � 1!!®Illgm:iil° 1 If Cr:'., -■f■IIiiL®11 ,,►�d rms-MA' l[I01111I Cllr l7RlllC OI( ®In, CII"U€ISOM II1=C"n,z 1 1ow Illu :/Ij'.I)•ElkCa�llilHilllli: ll�'l1/ �' � e®�� 1 L�m.u.�an.UIIP!illTl 7■111 S L.. ., G Ilk F n 71i'��isFu��r61/e! �I�OIr�vl€1■11N ■ c. � �l�B��s�q ��� tFU €r-t1=Er �rn �a�JI�lE�IC1.rI1W■EI � ®�1l6t1 , I . ;, . IhFitSIP Fg� 1lri 311AI�11r'e�■11111 [ ®!<o Yae` nl 1114F!iFIF(if r [HI11 IIalTi�lEFl1■11 tl 1111 nB 'Ii■In II l�I^If1111111 r ( � 11s �® yr ■�sIW ® I!WWI ii�Nf11■I! `�,�►' ;:'I'1 els s�s F, � ,1 � ■II 1 1 �I�V��- xlfi5■ �1� ..u, �c�IiiWt Mill ni f,w ::. pij mill �: ;1 11111 ■■�/' 4t J fill C'W1;dgLnN Mal I I'apel q [[■IgGm-7mil1^L Ill 1- III ���f .�c- •e l: Ea -pro •1 L�1-L1 Ids 1' _ilk €rr WLI_ r°7r 1 I IIII L.�y[i�I�r�F_.9 ffd M-1 ALW�LJELIIEW I-J •11E1WPI illy L1 r3rsFU,lr�,li ! .1 "P1elI'7L 4 u? c{ J1 iL 1'1- Fy r7Lli\ter q®� wlA / C,11 1 i7id® tfE €��111n17i1111 �Wi-� � nY !■l4T !■■�'! � V u�F �IJY• `%Lr ��!a6111q �,YL 1 \ @�m,�Sfi� ®1 I° mm,m,n/ � IIrILu : �■r L9i�� •Gilj-�III IIWIe� 11■1®2 I® -nin uii^yr;, ni°ate NF'�€`�r 11111 iI € 1 1 II 1 11,I„ 4€1 �� mu1R j"irs•I" Jlm, •. u( �. �Iglu i illw.r 3 1 '„Irll '. iiil!911YrCn€ 'Ir , S L.Ef= - a 1a1�; 1 LCO■ 1i�6"'eiuE:� r 1;11u.,.P9 k16.�. 'Fill1 lf�l,liil,lU li: Lk� ri ■ ■f Y■,� rd ; ■7ci 11171.111: n�i L E1rR "1 m °ill��lli■\1■r m. ICs�■Jfil el� III. - 'I"-®1P \lll� I!ILrcr llIffRi fi irr(i �T4 !L I■ ' I LLi I' '4 e1■® �E� ' �� S" Yn8 M IIII rr!EIrOl7.id�lr oi/ �ff ffNC � 'yr4lll1v. nll�.° G,J',■tI 7`:t■}i.',11■1LJL`..I��/in+•�F I nic1E .. nn Il1h 1Si Jrdru�nlr, _1 d; n r — {J'' ,....IS.►1EIGIIII u„��C� cC_'IL S7■ ;W R2 . �HIII s m e e Q o a {g I y � o � w p a fill r 111.51 Iya ro 9 CL Imp $ff��g £y aq ¢\ £S lit yg t ui ffi Ida I tm t � o F I c I - < a I `Sy I • P a a7 0 r "t a LL EF CL . Ila - 1 - J f1} all fl i LL •' j AMU '/ _ J �Zgg�� I YY 6 e O L1 L it 9 yl L O U $ - per . n 4• I 1 I � 1 � i 1q \ r � 4 � IJ ��;4/ I � . � V Atgg$p L1 LL T3 0 a - - CL F a 18 q £ $ 0 aa* � o r — E � R V C- V 0 s E I I � r_ �� �'�$'yA' -\ y •� _ oz - r I w� �9L�9 �. in€1 VxPp�IIIOt9 h 'IV re rx.ri "i9r 3: rF 'rll�� I JI1-Illrrll 4 LL d i a 111:1 e6 Il 1"F - VI . ro"umur c c��.lif`' !IJI+ C-� •• YIL �NP' ��Ilr�t y - W�� A ,�..�']■r i1�Y1Y1. 11 YI` h ►i� r►■Jr ® '\'. .t - �'� Rily ®M�, JIIJIIIIIYIfI,II i/x II YI.r1 � '! '� !�VIp3 Il it - .� r -brill l YII L '.■ \ r�Atld'I f\1JIe6 I rU1��yp . 1,1 111��L 5-■i IFV Ik 7L 1�L l 1€L_-_%rIl I1 I�III I�iI t 4i1.l�C'z+♦S,'�II�R f€pl rIlL�■rFll(Ill CL.�I l'11I'1u 1 I /r�a IJ I I�r/I•'�1�r.-r-�.,`�.`',l a44�..t��j�1 ", > ig/L!�I/i 1 2 VL GP Ir�t � N,r..l it�ll►\IIV�I�w rR l[�r hjy `c tvl, F'.. L 1.- 1-117 11 lH� ll .Ft'. nA'1•o W",�IQ! EIIIII} U -. i l l r'rllr■E\II -� 6 qn- 11 11 Et IAl,r�tl.l\1i1 1 1 1 f I. �f/��IF tE�nIr�•'! A�l.t 1 '01 Al mwc TJIII IIeV ■Gnl■IIv Iu. .♦np nF e W;, I°lI�i r,u" - r F i . . �I'■I�j Ie/.„+. O ■� TILtI 'All 1��rl r Al; Fq .ed AI` 6 it ®Alr A Au�� y` t■ . II'/a o ,0 .911��.'�Ilel■yl. q a�t'ar`.\� � 1 Lt�• owns Ell II CAF ►yr,:y - A. S■.riR 'r' r�;�O/I 1L.\1ki1:1i I 2-_ % 111 /NI_11�_�t:e1_Ele��al iVn . .. RINI t�S1 \�II�I�ill��' Olw I�/// •, ' T 1. ' N', ■ ■. �� ►�� C� • VFIIII�� ulraY �fNt- W.I. .i. . '5.,111\I�.V►R(I�" 11+ : r1_• G�1`! ■n�rl��Ii nIt�i Willi X- R. 1. 'it w1, 1,7 y\f/r J\ Q ,I��� ' I"rr11 /i�h 14 ,■1 JF -slr�. ►�i ��"ll;" tram 14su�i=a ',���F.��,�if, ,�I ` -. t*ll IIII r - ll i T� •• AIr •IP ! 4 - �ca Il rr I rl�r iLlr � rlllli[s�!�IJ�I,. �ilVI w InJFF,,e .F€ �1 I 4 • 1 rl 1 , Eei�M.l O.c tl■c-■ .JI f'I pi I�� IIII�� �� F� ��w�l\I 1.�pIt1r f, E �Vf- -/i'�'�`n ''"r�Clf❑.71WI\Wp V l L-u 11►'i 'M ►,t E r�KW �� i��,111�i�,C �d■'�"qt I re ntuel dl. 1 sn r� I 4 ,• I Mie ! N"" IIIIIIIt 1 , I�Ff�I°II x •41 ��� ��1 il��J�4 Ilu FJCL�Il� i►\tni l'I�y�l►�1�11�\ Jeelllh 'c F t r� IIInA ��� G! pl A -f, ��I �alexum T 1■�r .. !Iri■■s�rl ■ �yA - .'�\��E€ .L 1 F"�iI� 911 1 11 � 1 i � . �1�11■ •Il¢� I\0 i■yI 1■=:va Lllsufl«LEJ I•. �y�(, 14. ULI �'Yf91111�4;1111 Y191ie'®tl�� Ir ies .® 1f T^ i 1 + - J.6 "1■R 7 0 •r°I/Ir./l i11Oi'1■ F IEI�I F 1aYl�re +15iI111►.J�■h �_� 1 S a U r 'Oi v1.11 !! ra■I 1 r li 1 rpa""z�d�'Lir �.t�I�l1�f11®I AAA�p �jj- ) 'F�� k: 1�• A I II-lip � =151 nr -.,u sA■n. rra rw.I_,r- rr� ts. e11{'IgFle°Erl 1 .. rl Irl t`:r1- �A -- ;iri�IC F�CI I 1 Iii I'i (IIII I - at *F rF) €114 e ��S !I� �� a'�_ �rA II IY II f. ■ �I \ 1 �.ii% I�� I it^Irvw 1A�11 iAla gAnl� F 1!" iL �'el �',\`vtM1llf, ,► 111.=' 'A i11�1W -Jt� Y ix Nf F.- :9ilY�►Yl�tII twA I 4E is gi1u/-j ( r Nnlp)��111' hA tii,� 1 . 11t �.' 1 F -rim. 1�.3 p R ell r :r- ♦ �• ���� I� �YIr1 Ml II IIIa, +_i �,t■� Rr �� ll ,1'G 1' y li AvIl '1 ��I -rmn l'I erR.■ Ym►1,�`�1/ ` '4' Vlt rl'�'' X11 /r \ +WS;' -:f•1n✓j� ;� w'3,1u IrrL F.=.�i���lr�ll'11f1y ,. p lli;<%i♦hT�w"l�LA�.�r� �� �iwl'i n slnrlG�lifl��irS9•.. ill ! n . -L -_IiV f i JY7Yl�1lg11F.11 ���(� IIZ•i � I ®■7 JII!IIIIR91F11�•n�Jl@ILIY rirJllt'll I•►rErL� �� Aln ���S iiti� B1� >I�y"a 'L��` 11�PI £'r J■LAIR II 7r7� 1 AL.' II _ 1i I 1��'��'��"''iii E1 Y r II C fl [Y 111111FT III 19 1 u€!IIP wfi�n n lll'- el t I r' S7 1II1 sN I!I its] lit JIIF4!t Ilkt�r 711d1R�llau's-!I�AS t1 Ilrl II&I i 7 1■ IR!il1lFlri 17 ,- �I �I,t 7'�I11® •� r�IEI \ ` 'u, ►71 R +i11.,• �i r yi :L70Y7d e`—c,P1P ■. F' �611d�: nt R►S aI1117YLtC' f �,,11Y#®i 1 3' X111 Fr.EGIBM`Iltf�� 7Fale. 1111 i �E� � Au iiln Ilrfa tA111A11! • l 1' 11=— �,�„_ mail ��■F r YIII7A.. d + �tG . 1111 x ®Nr, tin X11■ r/� r119W011A11,61 , 1 '� nos q k � 7 Al A ' rkLN� Z#■ M r y��n1" Rael_aO �.. III■iii 4 "Ran ON -� ■ v+n.te�� � q�ty . i� •�_1G i�/!i� i ��Y �n�.�� ll'rYY�rli r�`L77■�G�i1\`'I NL� Lal!l■�IYi: 1. gwoM NNINMEPPeR HP! wu jo _ t_r y.�I1.�L�rtr pCN R _yjp�l�ll I1 UN A, !1r aY It ,nL clf2�n �1Jr►WN�F�"I .\IfI:I.It- .Also Loco Ii'91•���IU PI ill. si I _i Rw 'Y'L le�l l'r^F"ti L- t IG ' AIR TMii■ �� I , Rq t .1..Cl�fkl!1 1 ZINOW d ri,a"' s I■Y,tkNl` IED'�C�i�11. 11Rn- �R�1-.1 �I rtl I .9 '. 's I1■1 Cre:.�„ffEL Lirl v '(t� ■ �'e IL11`fl; l€JI 1 ) • 11 9e=f11[ Yt371r mmsmlII fl11110 ' Fill vl irl' u •LNn tests M■11■1 111+111 lanr iM■1 ■ IFI S' v�f'."M■1 ■IF�..f n ntylll up viillml■16 t W ANSI ���! !!'1 ��d. �L R �-'ft�llllll�u'E. ` -.�.. •►4� ��t�". ���� Q t ��fl -ilk 1IY11#' gg - -ilk f■� P11,lY_ Lip It'l , I •71#.II� I�r ■! r��11�I I rl 1 9y1EFllr �..� 1G IIIIIYI- r �9■L111 ��r 7��`/f Eji lY ��mdCLJ1` F J _ �0, �`y►', - u � - lip(. t �.r 1ji ltd�e • n 1 l �ti��(`� 1 .Y� uP."fiUlr;; ` ..I;P '� er €i .r�ltx�lrl/!1`��1cY•"._ ."�:7GiiR�♦ •d a� L - 1 wL-127 NOW�1 Zt� 7 "1•I'f• /� ff'1W'I','!. C eiRUS1Ari i ii '1141 ti,I5If■I ABOOqu maca81Yl 11lYIItF10° •1 1`,0` C$EEG121n9i:NUi UOR � r Lynlll€I� 3=Jil!IIIIIIL'IM!&i�iiYIL11Y'.116 ' ���W�__ wll2S AeNIffi MC;C U." 4Q r.kiNTM/Sidle/ ;€Ih_-Q�r�1 .Lt,III ® ®�IIIiYCICI°°�='-II?C�':`milli 11&11! YI: li i®R�AM[Y€!IL�II� IliG11n Inr d11i - '11J 1®1:\MM 1111111.1 1111h �Ilk'j°�EIMCL�rrltllfA`11 M i MOul Ito" �1 .�mu..�.n.11r9l'RLRMK7110111 1 I .9/ 1 I}__EI 111111111 .��i 11�1.hk� '�110L-' I'�I ll 0->=tE�®r4�it�lt�wii�io� e'�.tz . (Ihll 11hiF'F'Jim, 0 rsY1lu11r,i1rm\ c�►, „, � jot mo INJ pa �n►�l�n��llsa ���il a •: L I y . V,R. � ■sue R L Ie11111 I1 •.� -mow\ i MAXIM ' ® S `fie �VAki@°fR®f'M!"98"44,1 �! .���� �1r,•11r i €. ! ■ .eLe ®°' 1 (sr � I � � tip. klr�lh" EE I Im ® t1 ® p IIII F. -1� 74�i.u� �wl�llffllrl�yy� ll `Hr'.IIIWfI11nw Ltil`F��n III frMRjII ,`IECai . �°:�lllllil I.rp�,r7� ®� • �- � ® 11111+ LL i€JD• ,,,fir- ! ut ye 1 rll® ! mm_mxn■ e:Lli i i=ruf■A A LA ®r11r11 1 � 1�4`•\,—i{r ,/_uui II l Iii°' 11 e Xli IyiF '` 1+c m I",�^°IEtia�Rlrl�mr �'�■1� Iln ,�'y`el�!4�i 'V 1' l°�.�I 1'�Y'LLInG.��. rt:WlWi `CIS rgl ®j 111111 l'e IIII��meC1 X37 7 11111'®ian - ON IPIIYRiE�{ Ie�I®yLl`11�1 �R[Iel p'19 E�ilLrcieil ckne _ _ f■ 1►O'SaL■'7�i!@�IIIIII�piESi�GlIPIIR-' I®rSll €7 1111�I1:�� cLElLI l! II �1�'1°I lFlki`rnlYhillRll::�I'�.III=!I® lrflw �lill�n.� �a'It MEN .I '�2 �r 1€v_ pet+.n I-�■11®li11,r.7 !i►1,!�!� F° llr �i®'� I�lE mt714lS li!® // 1€11. llhd'FIF` 11�i' IIdIM lYc�ll�® !1'cNONE 1 1 Fc I•Po- Knil n1. ile°I®fl\ �!•�����li as MNAM,tem n��!_arrllllnll®� 3 gars �.cr�l,■ . '1440 f=SAllllill'illNRleI 11 SIM {I L•Y: . ���(��,a�3 `lu �� ti210Rol111��� dl�r1aN•�1°� t` ®�0Y=C® YtsYlYe®s _ !'�LIYYlgilrw`�� �i �y s'YII�IY.IE�:_ J1 AI i VIL �IILI Or- IPL' � �•r. :ell, rt /E [fife rl • ■ . .t,,J �®�1� `i ((j�■■®® ■ dlr'ar1C,\ilia �} ne l4c��1 @ �� €€IF' .r te',1�:'1�1�1141■1��\�' "{!!Illia w �E � ���fl�t IE1lPIlYIM�c�%C3%ciiil=F1111� �/.si �` _ F11P�1^�...�..c:� cl T i®®�� AI,� �[fl:�.fi I _�G. ' �f='• ■t�`L ■�Li1 � ��.F wINAIJI®/ •^JCR 'i/frd/!�' AM <��LIE GIJII• � -.,rte •�N Iq�� � n 1 9,�ii[ .il P ■ �En�M F 'iNit 's:�� NN •�c � mmmun! , Ulf t,.. i1'rIt'rn•I /Y� � ��E I nmiiiii lu i. .' • � .•R� � t Ji� ply .OIIIIII"IIIIii %I�0® I Fy RV)1 ^��S d'�M rfllPllllllfll:li e'�pn �cc t{�ZI_ �'® u uu i(u luck IJI UI t 1�.JlryllcJ! I (�I�unIIILm1 S !��rJ!�:�■�F�i1�911Y'�6.yIy1'. �/E 1lf11E � bE 7 ®1 �� 1[•�(1 r{t■Ns'•l�F 'For lYl11 ilJ 71 11r1_�. 11 111,1TITTLIF w . � E? 7(14. usi M uV' lip UN I —®IIM Kr9 1. nnIIYA .i }r■ +y�■�� I[ .`]C_ 51i1►!€®mil!*1•, 1 HYIyF,- r i LIWl:�IE�n,r r11111L.i�`f . �F!® n , �S1 I mc1Ei:1, A+St7tIL1 i`n... JS�..1-iF11., �. 1 __ ll=ry9lrrlf�i SHIM,a ��E�Gm 1 u a „lL�f f�elllfla t '€ :igC�T `■Ikl1�'�'(,'1� :3c11 Ii.t �i`��j1N. yll�la!®EI �rV t c Y � � ■ w ' �''F ((L F•i+I �[r� FAR . �lll,��yl■�agl �€1\ �� �/^ �fuFU� Yyy °1„�, I b°i_ Elli�r. l all nl - r n �®R«` a-PIE SI m'..� p��■Y�r nom;\� �9.r. /..,eil;all GCrEleL-a.M FR7�mmmmJnlO'e � w■`IiF�``�l R"y�iv/ IS'i, ® c����cq� 1 \ J � �111Efircy. ....M M 1,r1'J'!alY►W"1' !EL I - ii� I�?e r ' ' ®kf�WsIm c� ij� '�40r'm IEc �n:rc . IF E � rn- Isf=�IIEi�E'y°°1111 `II ra I rr ar Ir •`LX-SBB�I l vit��S®.lr' WIA / V�k�F1C ,�itsF]•d1E GX�1f111�IFnl�yF,�I/uk.�i a Ih /���■pI ullmi = R %i� +J��9l111111!��JCY u! .J�€Ylli s..�r� '��■� II nl � �� =_ ■ Iii 'awl RI 71 N:pit ��"' t mm T �■rr ll� .I'I'llll�ll°Il�liir 'm IC �Lt. lR�x..Ff t. kun`iurlllll� r EiviIII p� •'' ' . III i3rf 1 J - _ O VIII.-14/fi•... Irll rr r ■ �llll IY�F � Iw.�- ®i •E��m.511�^y'l '� :°I�r� �r,'I��rr , w cer��mr. 17i..� � Lr Fes, JI��7 I 'll• f ��II!IIIYs � -��n ur !! ITY■ om Vrr ,\i'IuQ,i. `i117LL111■ i v ERIE ".per ►._\`. � � I 6�.r �,r .►� Evl!m�i "TAY. a�7 oil � �I 1 ►:1�� pr - r rr, .rr .Iaq .. E II�F'.I SIC .J�Ii I '�r� //V� vrnl fl�Ilj l :�J/��n�(�1�• fE >. ra _ _ J dl6i1=_II='YZ° a ■■I�.r.�: Mill I 7E1[II€!11111I`__°■Ei■17 11['��; • n� � � �� 1®c".!ill"= 7"8111111--" "• 1 —M zfi�ILi 11 d • , �1 1'I�W-Alfn IR11111111r01 1 OT-211'll Yem=.cor�.m '7 I}-�1(,�.A 111.9►RIL-!ILl\Ili.v k ■` Y \ .r .. cl�l„�l Y lhla�KKlm'nkl �=i\I1Ml� Ic a• - S �IJ� �N� lllr Ir1��iF u1�Lfi .1€1111®MM! .taa,. y� G I:It�E; :.i6�®��LI lE—,�F`,a111®IElie �IIM6� � '■ ° r�� 11yr fi,F, C� IA= II'JIM�Yc_CM.61 IMM® MMY!!E■11'® �' pE� 1MA '6+11M II°€EI 11117111®!I€® 13 • gK I 11'TJI Ui!•+INIII■111® , `i'I CIC -"a b� ;°._Ira 1 � �. 1■IY Mill WERE pl r r— a M1�M1 �� xusa all, ■ � 'lri913r II' I9�mtl� Y' ® ilil�.lillB M M MMMMM M lily► 1 6: i'G --•,-- �� �,.. ME r r�1 I/ 11'L' s�00� Fl F �y 4!u�. 1.■ 7I1 {ry �G1.IE�€ual�• �pI�r��Y:RRi�r���ra c lfff€` 911111""_S.€Ji�♦�� :,, \ CET I ` II IW� M -- F 'I w_ l� •�Irl' '1' 10 x R ''IIyR I yi;r j�E l�I"u�nlll"IC Sir lr�m> IEIIII lll► L3rYF1d—r 11 .f �c > '�O! r'1 iel r�1-�d cn®�:/wRII■`� �fiiC tr® f111n� �1� ,aa <y� rt1' il•NII®`IIIICl1MT€�I €lie IYlfl �, 11� ! 191C.= Ln �®¢®\\f•■i fecal/ Vu.V41 rFw �P��rl Rllgl�ll�i�lE(• Fh®ISI! !'� :F- �sr�uiii;ll; . 11�I�IFi saw r Icy l!1i�rrr 1 I- . IY IIIYIk°111'11 •iiiu� r11E n1yt S "r ` - Y •r• 1111;2."iLl f ''111�Im1 ail 0: � Iel fF.l `) ��.w � �� 1 d i� x.111 131f IrEI■■.a t!'y \�'Lam._ ®1� J IC• •y� :�I {r Bull,..II III IC rlllL�• IL F T ��i 1tn 1�C "i� ll �� �J 11 1 .i61�I1Y11111 1.111 II Y It11 LF u'¶xll ii f —• \ p 111. ItP 91x 1W I��E G- wLI rL,ll r E lrryt� QQF33 I RI�mYlhnr11 nl r E 4`�� ,� •!j+3rl��.lx1 �iI11111Y'�tlpnx \� cam t■�IP I�� •nn Elm;,ai ."1'.Vr��LI:I�■iii•��"n�II ��■I■l�\��"1,yl1�ii i r1^Y Ic'j'/Ii Id II1 1 I 11I1!19■1_Sk Y17v■G'1i'�►d�7n�7\Pl'Y"I■sII,��77 1 1--51 L�II5 '5111!T-2 ■�I 1 VnulG'"I_ o[a Vu6RMNiN EINIA F_�I Y°fF Yii N�!■ sy IIIIIM6dlyne "�`� 1 �\�ILI`11117'I��� al1i Y�I, 11 11711i1r 1 �............. , Ili�wv EIrEy♦1lylL�—.3MI1�1� /"�61( 1 NHfy! ill �ifi hula• ells ' ��1 �)11 �/11YI:IL'€ms�Ec 1 nrcj• n. II'�.6 J1i6u`mlri 1 mGIL�1}7�x�i..$1fd , I _ Rpptt �, 1 x 1-- ilfl 9t 11 '1'►�I+I ��t 11.11p����\�� u r wwr...>•—r� �'�, �YIY��/YA�r�luU, Ilk' ''• Ire r�@tai111u1i`_111IIltMI+^x�iaR=-i� i �; � a �� �j ,-12_n;_-. 11.•1 -�v! r-,q,ll_..II,...1;":IIIIIF. -'" s �,rEY' ����� a:��K ,• ■� �� " try �� ' e�iaatr its m_� I I rYART�A�I g Y.P4 t.d r _F h illy I t Ir `6 d •1•nlll. '€� h11114[�� zrtlrl!t1.19M->�'I111�; "' F r:� :;�IL''171�€�F4i`ra7111111L111y'FII" Fl�ll�fi 1[•rf ?� . ��. � - utO% TY"'la�n� � KT .!>>s■e-rI 'rte. � � JAY -, 4 orallt 'gum"' Mllf. t..€L t •�-- �'- �i��j`f f, ' tw Ul OR legI , Mill �rc+i`�nl 1,,1 JI-1kO�q't ""M l'ruC�0,11 + ICrllr "n7� 11 II FI sfil It6U1�[ II' �!I.dL^dIF IaF'� = w t 1 i all raw fir� aUfi•.� L�P .' tttt�l7\�� a�'" R ��t� -C! �V� ' � �� j �C11' �/,!( 1111■ G � Taz ! -IC��_iilit WE., a 7 mm 1K a-T- nib Old. ct� km 9i , I 1 u< �, X17 1 � 1- ! • n � 4. 'w.,Y' %I, �1■��y .� I •N • ill:, 1� -P 14'1 ee-.c •^� ku iU Pd IIj 'P'4" / IL- " ■L rill - IIIIIR •� �iTr I �� HIM., I ,•,� ti� 11 yY..a F f I fifmllllllll�N!' l IM 1 �€ o� ! i II Iln I I `YY1M1: uW.E �' I✓V I Ek ljl Jlml.�. 1 .I filP, I�Illli n T'",E J X I '""II"€ !". "III 11111.1' I •� - u 0 D i'I x W ;h'lM IIII�' I "71ir�=+-11"'rPs-_-'-k 1"f REM s I ni E� 11�if'£�.(Yu 4f1r1� 7i � -°rc� a �'•P ill / ��_ ��II - c� 1111 t..r. J���►��•pp ,,`s �f' 1- IF�' -t'�c� � nlGl.f' s"1� I Fir '��j,.t+' � fi - I•r 1�{elt�" c-tl�ll�l'iin -{.o .I.L�I-k I Y 10 %11�9�(},rr_�3�ILN LL EIIP 1w'� .:I. I-�grE_-1y+YTl . .nu.. i u_r rI =- 111 tYC 1 =;ImEiI=JI'_Q3!�r®' p�lllliRllll°:1==11_ECC.�G■■®®I/ms ® ,►1 _ /�I4�Grir".11[11€!1111 �Cfi 1711:IIFM ®IlYll"1=� � IIIY �� iC€-1L1r1111fl�! ' � �1111k1` 11i1111111�MEIM li IYllleMf ' I� mmn+■a.rliO IlLM!l7■!111!1® I— I-j-,I I!T1lpctl=_'�=■1■11l1® a1 1!71 gg MV IA �u ��rll -llli' 1i3 -1E'/.!1 Nl�l�i�■r€1■ 1!®k .fin i •Ir r .... �.�cl_IlE=acd�11n� ®t "f GI iduFrF� �= B1AI�YmG�1111�! 16YI®1■c'■ Ise���j4 IILE�d61. -�-' 1KIIY1IInlrilE°IL11'\!! �- ®s-•.: a¢ '�+1 �1i■11111'�Z'1^IIIIil1i1111111®! � �. 1�\�Y� °,�ii° R_i111IPl11%+i1NA111111®1f. II �Ir 1101111'�IIIkIIIrt- : 'Ifi�■ ■1 ■!II " 1�11�® "iJlil t'I'm tiC�Yr ' E y�i c !•IE1��� `Ilk'4>• 1�®I■■iNr rte'_ •1.�iriies■ fAt IN �tffrl��3�..yyl.11"1! _ 11 4.1 Y■Tt°J■!1!1 �11 � !% �■SAC■' �I LL�w" it 1 1 11 , vas ®YLY1_�IYttttt■�����1� 1 4r•ryl UR 4 I .. ,Y m Ar °e"lhip ■,r yam, r Ls� 1 R:e' .. !f ii I � 1��� LN b RAN, G ml lr 1 r€!.�■ �°Ie�I�■AIR' 1■ R� vrll I m�nll� J'1u1�Yllp EL;liew.� Ingr:: I �� illl'�c��:.�> EI11' fll� -r- 3■Fmlj■ � u IL. ,-- f - �. - 1. n _' all k"RE ' . EN €Ihp-� IYRILIE� s�lilll qq €Jlli ilfl 2 � l - �,� ,I I'M U, vv . ■Ny+II ■� F 1Rr€ -111 C.I!lu C� htn r *w _•al folk, m 141R! JC'�■}J��� 1LI!.. I ! IY y I IIYEII1sY c�nd` L InNcH1IEJ`Z'�,�.g€ �n�.l III�llAnk1lTM'L I��!' ��y1.I tt'�E��l iI 1p lxLl%/'f1JL'1 @l��r`714�SS■i IN! .2 P'l,tLu1, , ►IEIGII�� wII� a a�l nxn�l�l.elll��r�.: !�� ' VII 111 Jar'' +t {4y7 t1f. ��G ROOM � I1o'n ff 'S .��'O rr.!�•i ,. cap r s �� I ,o'�IYI' H ' InlTiilE-11 L �n• u� �„ I2! Inrnlr �' Alp r �. 'h" �' T kk'fEi��� a '@r ...I II X -fPl ( � „Y �2�1�����1®ra����;:� '. `if,•.� 'men:�� ILT - ■'+L 1 `. .�y�e ' f{l�i:��lltAf 6��L-1irFgj-,Y•� I� �4i MY ri KEW 'ILol F>IC ci®� Ip�lc ml i ` ®IIIIClRRPEN®tf�11Sf! A FA a[In. i�� I� �. >eYnel net»II ■€ Elk Ills ¢ 1 IIII Er�1�Af1E bSN® 1W� Tr I %L. ps�i !�1 ' I r r J �- ,(9j FI1.4 Fr I I-r,l0l rII :n:II r✓� IUa JJ � IIIY�__ '�: ••'�IL1, III-Mq�n l�ii�I ' \ 11111YIL�1 '�.� r1 Lr ��aW ��i777 ►� E�I'1 �, ;` BI Elr4u7 ,c HYio ❑gip : 1'll�l' '— A. :17i� ��F 1L���mcm:'ilwlf'.GY�&ICe=t=��! ¢ �1u'riPl{:EA111if'!a'"E"Jlidi�=F'µu �1 WR`.rye" C.ih �Efni its [Imr-,! IYr:�r • ,(` o �-2..:z=11:1' ?Ii: �� :����G' v � v 8 p _ m • d d L 3 9 gy ]k8 fie` L = _ � aaao 11� if 110111LINo g uou�iui�u��r��u �i a� ll: F`s11�11"Itl! 111 1'111 000 111 I 111iieiii'ii `a [e[ iiai sags � aq_ g Wgill gill 11HIMMINgh aj giaIoeYeluss t=�anti®3eam� 1il� m� 8 o1ionNpn11onu11nn111�1�11s1k1 a E 3 a � s 8 rp � a�F: o88y $�g. } sa @ aa9 $ g;sn�s`FS�,y a6rc � rc a°assg # F$ °jcEduiu = E,� ;g gE JUMIN &' 'I- 'I d- IIGIt1!. 11111 s �t ----------- _ _ u Chapter_ ° PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITI' POLICIES LA/Ontario Inhernatronnl Airport Land;Use CampaRbihfy Plon 0 P CHAPTER 2 RTPLA"j"INS PROCEDURAL AND • COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER OVERVIEW Introduction Chapter 2 ''focuses on procedural policies, compatibility policies and compatibility criteria. The procedural policies modify the Alternative Process Note:State law provides for what is generally known as previously established for LA/Ontario International Airport (ON l) in 1995. the'Alternative Process" The modified Alternative Process provides for participation by ' all wherein counties do not jurisdictions in San'Bernardino County impacted by existing, and future have to form an Airport Land airport activi and for the optional artici ation of Riverside Coup Use Commission(ALUC) P ty P P P ty' Instead,the county and Representation by these jurisdictions will be accomplished through inter- affected cities having agency collaboration and the formation of a Mediation Board to mediate jurisdiction over an airport disputes. - - - take on the compatibility planning responsibilities The compatibility criteria in this chapter provides the foundation for compatibility policies: Affected:agencies will use the compatibility policies and criteria to evaluate future airport and land use plans, as well as individual development proposals, for consistency with the ONT Compatibility Plan. The compatibility policies address four types of airport land use impacts: • safety,noise,airspace protection and overflight. Section Descriptions The content of each section contained within this chapter is described below. + Section L• Scope and Limitations of the Compatibility Plan This section provides details regarding the geographic extent of the airport influence area, the jurisdictions affected by airport impacts, the applicability of the Compatibility Plan to the affected agencies and the limitations of the plan. a Section 2: ALUCP Implementation Responsibilities This section'identifies'the responsibilities of each agency in implementing the CompafibiAo Plan. It also identifies the process by which projects are reviewed through the Alternative Process. + Section 3: City of Ontario Roles and Responsibilities This section'stipulates the roles and responsibilities of the City of Ontario in implementing the Compatibility Plan, facilitating the Alternative Process, and assisting affected jurisdictions with the Compatibilty Plan implementation. + Section 4: Mediation Board Roles, Responsibilities and Dispute Resolution Process This section stipulates the role and responsibilities of the Mediation Board, composition of the Board,and the procedures by which the Board will review disputed projects. Procedural policies for overruling decisions of the Mediation Board is also included in this section. • 'LAIOntedo International Airport Land Use CompadbilRy'Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-1 CHAPTER 2PROGE DURRC AND EQFIPATIBILITY POLO CIES - Qs- --- - _ ` • Section 5 Evaluating Land Use Consistency This section describes the evaluation tools_(tables,maps,policies inSecaon;6).to be used by affected agencies iii evaluating the consistency-of land use proposals with the Comfiahbilit* Plan Section 6: CompatibilityPolicies This section-is'divided into five.sub-sections: safety, noise, airspace protection, overiltght and special compatibility policies. With the exception of special policies, each section contains-general information regarding the factors considered in,establishitig the policies and delineating the compatibility.zone.boundaries. - Criteria Table Descriptions - The compatibility'tables at the 6nd:6f this chapter provide the following information: ` + Table 2-1: Major Land-Use Actions' -_ ' This table identifies types of development projects and land lase,actions that are subject to the_.-ONT Inter Agency Notificatiipti Process: _ d' Table 2 2: Safety Criteria The safety criteria table provides'a list of land use categories and identifies the acceptability of spedfic land uses within each of the five safety zones. Intensity limits for nonresidential uses (i.e.,maximum number of-people per acre) and other safety considerations within each -safe are also noted. =Tablet-3:, Noise Criteria The noise,criteria table provides a list of land use categories and identifies the acceptability of specific land uses within each of the noise impact zones;_ The interior noise level requirements-.-Within each zone.- one aCe also noted for residential and nonresidential uses. Compatibility Policy-Map Destriptlons The geographic extent of each compatibility:factor is depicted in the compatibility policy maps within _ this:chapter Map 2-1:.Aitpoit Influence Area(ALA)_- The AIA boundary encompasses the geographic extents of all the companbili factors: ty safety,iioisc;.airspace protection,and overflight. Y Map�-2. Safety Zones This policy map displays a single-'set-of of safety zones reflecting the existing and"ultimate runway configurations-:(i.e., shows the most restrictive-set of safety zones). `The safety-zones for-ONT are based upon,the generic safety zonesvprovided in the CW&rxiaAirJmrt L�xd Use Planrting,FFaiiilbook(January Map 23:: Noise Impact Zones The noise impact zones' represent a composite of.two sets of project noise contours reflecting kwo_ forecast scenarios for 2030.=The "No Project"=scenario assumes 343 OW annual operations on the existing runways system and the "Proposed Project -scenario reflecks465,400atutual.operationsbn the-ultimate nmway configuration, + Map 7,.k Airspace Protection Zones' The airspace protecuon zones-are-a composite of the various airspace surfaces prepared in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation Pars 77 the Vnited States Standard for 2-2 iA nlano(ntemational A1rpoR Lend Use Comp.e86iIHy Plan(Adopted ApM !_9,2011) 09M 1te PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Terminal Instrument Procedures '(PERPS), and applicable obstruction clearance standards • published by the Federal Aviation Administration. The airspace surfaces reflect both the existing and ultimate runway configurations and have been merged into a single set of Airspace protection zones. + Map 2-5: Overflight Notification Zones The overflight notification zones were delineated by identifying the areas overflown by aircraft 'flying at altitudes of less than 3,000 feet above ground level. , The overflight notification zones also encompass the areas underlying the airport's critical airspace surfaces. Section 1: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPATIBILITY PLAN 11 Geographic Scope 1.1.1 Aitport Influence Area (AM: In accordance with state law, the ONT AIA encompasses all lands that'.could be negatively impacted by ONT's present or future aircraft operations or land uses that could negatively affect ONT's airport operations. The AIA depicted in Map 2-1 encompasses the geographic extent of,four types of compatibility impacts,referred to as compatibility factors. They are: (a) Safety: Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground (b) Noise: Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise. (c) Airspace Protection: Places where height and certain other land use characteristics, • particularly uses that attract birds, need to be restricted in order to protect the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the airport (d) Overflight: Locations where aircraft overflights can be intrusive and annoying to many people. 1.1.2 ' Other Airport Impacts: Other impacts sometimes created by airports (e.g.,air pollution; automobile traffic,etc.) are not addressed in this Cempatibih'y Plan and are not factors to be considered when reviewing a project for consistency with the compatibility criteria of this Conipgafbiby Plan. 1.2 Applicability of the Compatibility Plan 1.2.1 Affected Local_ Jurisdictions: The ONT AIA encompasses jurisdictions within San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. Each jurisdiction is impacted differently as the geographic extents of the four compatibility factors vary in size and shape. Exhibit 2A lists each jurisdiction within the AIA and indicates the type of impact they are affected by. 1.2.2 Affected Agencies in San Be County: The C000al biki v Plan shall apply to the following agencies in San Bernardino County: (a) Cities of Ontario, Chino,Fontana,'Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga,and Upland are the local jurisdictions impacted by ONT. (b) San Bernardino County has jurisdictional control over unincorporated San Bernardino County lands'within the AIA. • LAIDntario Intematlonal Airport Land Use Compatibift Plan(April 18,:2011) - 2-3 t:HAPTER Z P-"CEDURAL AitD Ca91PATl BILITY POLICIES (c) 3 os Angeles World,Airports 0-WA)is a department of Ithechy of Los Angeles and is the_owner acid aperatot of ONT. (d) Special entities Including school-districts, community college districts,and :special districts whose boundaries include lands within the San Bernardino count y;porLon of the AIA. 1.2.3 Jurisdictions of Los AWles and`Riverside Couaues: The=ONT AIA extends beyond - the'San Bernardino County borders and into parts of adjacent Los Angeles and Riverside -Counties:' For the jurisdtctioris-dE Las Angeles grid Riverside Counties, the Complaftbifrty Plan is informational-only. these.jurisdictions are not sublec,vto the requirements of this. Com�atrbility Plan. Tlie Coiurty of Riverside has jurisdictional control ovei unincorporated lands within the noise-impacted areas of ONT and has elected to parricipace-an the Alternative-Process on a'discre-tionary basis. Exhibit 2A: Affected Jurisdictions �r Overflight Prmection - - Xityof Ontario X_ . -_ X X --- X All policies:apply 1 - City of Chino X X X _- -City of Fontana - -- X _ - X X City of Montclair X X X • -City of Rancho X X Cucamonga City of Upland X X County of San X X X Bemardino- Policies are informational; Participating in Alternative Process -_ County oFRivxsitk X X X on discretionary basis (see Section 1.2.3) _ City of Pomona, - X -=Policies are informational Los Angeles County '(see Section 1:2-3) - City of Claremont Policies an informational Los An eles County X g ty (see Section 1.2.3) 1.3 L' itationsof the Compatibility Plan- 1,3.-1 =Aimort Operations:- State-Jaw explicitly precludes-airport land use cotnntissioits from having jurisdiction over the operation. of any airport (Public iltihties Code Section - - 21674(e)).-'The carne limitation also applies under the Alternative Process. - (a) The City of Ontario,affected localjurisdtetions and-the?Mediation Bpard have no authority.over'theaperation of ONT. This authority rests with LAWA and the Federal Aviation Adtninistration(FAA) (b) The only actions of LAWA subject to the Alternative Process and the policies of this Compnkbryi y Plan are the adoption or amendment:of the airport master plan • or airport layout plan, or approval o€ certain facility development plans that 2-4 L4104ario IntemekonstAiryoR Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,26111 - PROCEDURAL AND CO MPATIBIL tTV POLICIES CHAPTER 2 would have off airport cbmpanbilrty unphcations`(eg, runway alterations, • -improved instrument approach' procedures), and 'approval '-of on-airport ,.'development that is not an.aviati on related use (e.g., commercial or industrial ' faalides). '. 1.3,Z Exi sting Land Uses: The Compat:bikl -Plan applies only to new development of future land uses within the AlA. In accordance with PublicUtilities Code Section 21674(a), the ;policies of this Compatibility R do not apply to existing landvses,whether or not they are, consistent;with the Gompatibikty Plan. (a) Quaflfying'Criteria: A land is considered to be 'existing" when one or -. more of the below conditions has been met prior to the approval date`of the Compatibility,Plan by California Division of Aeronautics. The determination as to whether a,;specific project meets-the criteria below is made by the responsible jurisdiction or special entity involved. The development and/or land use physically exists. - -` ' T `A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map=has been approved and all discretionary approvals have been obtained ~}_ A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect. a.°A final subdivision.map has been recorded. •? A use permit or other discretionary entitlement has been approved and not yet - expired. A valid building permit has been_issued. - l Substantial investments n.-,physical construction were made by the property • owner prior, to the_approval'date of this Compatibility Plan by the California _ .`Division of Aeronautics and such investments make it infeasible for the property to.be utilized for"anything other than its;proposed use. Substantial investment:is determined by the responsible agency. ? Prior to the approval-date of this Compakhko Plan by the California Division of Aeronautics, substantial public funds were expended for land acquisition of a " "project site and the responsible agency-had publicly indicated support for a proposed development or development concept, even though all discretionary _ approvals had not yet been obtained by that date. (6) E7dsting Nonconforming Uses: Existing land uses that are:inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan are considered to be "nonconforming" land uses. n.cse uses are not subiectjto`the C_ompatibikty-Nvr unless changes` to the'use are: proposed.. �-Any type of construction,renovation, or other redevelopment activity that would demolish 80% or more of the existing;structure's floor area would change the nonconforming status of the use and be-subject to die. Compatibility Plan and any .other requirements'setby the local jurisdiction. ^T A structure that has been fully or partially destroyed as a result of a flood, fire ' r and or natural disaster may be rebuilt and re-occupied_ by the same _ nonconfomnng use and is only" subject to requirements,-,set by the local jurisdiction not the Cory pa hility Pon..- - ' LAAOntano International Airport Land Use CompatIbiliV Rlan(April 19,4011),-, :-, - 2-5 CHAPTER a PRQCC:CIURA4 AND CCM PA I L L LITY Ptyi lCJS � - Section 2 ALUCP _IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILCfIES UNDER =THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS -2.1 Overview of ALUCP Implementation�Responsibilit es for Affected Agencies- 2. -1 _ Adopt Compatibility Plan: The City of Ontario is responsible"for leading the_ preparation of -the L A/Ontarra Iirternalioaaf Air�iorY Land llrt Compakbilily Plan and any future amendments in coordination with affected jurisdictions-(see Section 3.1). Affected Agencies are responsible-for adopting the Compatibility Plan or specific policies that apply " to their portions of the AIA.The compatibility.policies in Section 6 of this C©noatibih'i -Plan are structured in a manner that recognizes that the City of Ontario's laird use authority stops at its borders. A-s such,policies applicable only to the City.of Ontario use the word"shall." Policies applicable to the other affected agencies; as well as the'City of Ontario, use the word "should." In the both instances, the policies are considered"-shall" for the City of Ontario. In accordance with the provisions of the Alternative Process,the _ other affected agencies are encouraged to adopt similar requirements for the portions of the AIA within their respective-jurisdictions. 2.12 Attain Consistency with the-`Compadh ty Plain Consistent with state law,-Affected Agencies=are responsible for=mod£}ring_their respective 'general plans; specific.plans, zoning ordinances;and other policy documents to,be consistent with the compatibility :policies and criteria set forth in this CompatiWi iPlan or requesting whearing before the ONT Mediation Bo.ard to resolve disputes. 2.L3 .-ALUCP Consistency Evaluations: Affected Agencies are responsible for conducting their,own consistency evaluations for new development and/or major land s ,uae action within their portions of theONT AIA. Major Land Use Actions.(Table_2..1),are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notificatian Process. 2.1.4 -UNT Inter-Agee"Notification Process: Each Affected Agency is required to notify the Ctty of Ontario-of proposed Major Land Use Actions within its portion of the AIA. The City of Ontario is then responsible for forwarding information regarding these proposed Major Land'Use Actions to other Affected Agencies for comment. Major Land--- Use Actions are listed in Table 24 of-this Chapter. The_Inter Agency Notification =Process is discussed further in Section 23: 2.1.5 =_Referencing the Compatibility Plan in CEOA Documents: - -The California' Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires Affected Agencies to utilize the Ca4fnrnia Airpari Land Use Planning Handbook and this Compatibility Plan as a technical resource for analyzing the environmental impacts of new projects located within the AIA. Projects - -_ -situated within the AIA should.be evaluated to determine if he project would expose people residing or working in the.project area to excessive levels of airport-related noise -or to airport-related•safety-hazards (Pybl c Resources Code Section 21096) 2.1.6 Establish a Process for Mediating Disputes: State law pertaining to the Altemauve Process requires that a process be established for "the mediation of disputes arising the preparation,'adapnon, and. amendment of in airport land use compaubility plan -(Public Utilities Cone Section-2d670.tic�(2)(C)). This Conipwibidly Plan fulfills-Statel.aw . requirements by establishing a Mediation Board. The roles, responsibilities, process and membership of the Mcdiation Board,are described in.detail in Sectioir of1his ehapter _ 2-8 L4Mh1a a Intomeffmal Airport Lend Use Compabbllffy-Pan(Adopted Apni 19,20111_ - PRO=CEDURAL AND COMPATi BILITV POLICIES CHAPTER T 2:2 Specific Responsibilities of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) • 2.2.1 - suhiiiii Certain &Ujgrt Actions Th_romgh Alternative Process: The LA/Ontario International Airport compatibility zones delineated on Maps 2-2 through 2-5-are based upon the existing and .ultimate airport configuration and projected aircraft "activity . --.summarized in Chapter 1.-If, at a future-time,changes in the configuration or use of the airport are proposed and those changes could result in expansion of the airport's impacts beyond the impacts identified in this Compatibikty Plax, the proposed changes,shall be " subject to the ONT. Inter Agency Notification Process described I in Section 2.3. Specifically, the following types, of projects" are-_subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: (a) Airport Plans: Adoption or amendment of the LA/Ontario International Airport . Master Plan or `Airport_Layout Plan (Public-Utilities Code Sections 21661.5 and 21664.5). (b) Aviation-Related Development Proposals: Any proposal for modification or expansion'_of,airport facilities requiring amendment to the Airport Permit issued by the Califomia,Division of Aeronautics.Airport_development projects in _ + Proposal to acquire land for.ninway protection zones or airport development, , `-+ •Construction of a new ninway; " �T : run,or realignment of an-existing w EVan sion:of the airport's physical facilities. (c) Nonaviation-Related Development Proposals. Any, proposal for the construction of new nonaviation-related development (e.g., commercial or industrial) • requiting action by the City of Ontario. 2.3 ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process 2.3.1 ONT Inter-Agc= Notification Process Each Affected Agency and LAWA shall participate in the ONT Inter-Agency Notification`Process rfor the purposes of providing technical assistance,information and.oversight.for the implementation of this Compatibility„ Plan. (a) Affected Agencies required to participate in the Inter-Agency Notification Process include LAWA and the Cities of=Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho ­.Cucamonga;Upland and the County.of:San Bernardino. The City Manager of each Affected Agency shall designate a,department responsible for participating in the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process, (b) The County of Riverside'has elected to participate in the Inter-Agenry Notification, Process on a discretionary;basts (c) Special entities as desctibed in 1.2.2(:) are subject to the development criteria of this . Compatib * Plait and shall participate in the-'Inter-Agency Notification Process by submitting Major Land Use- Actions to the City', of Ontario' for consistency evaluations = - 2.3.2 Project Review Process -The ONTO Inter--Agenry Notification Process includes the steps listed below. , • LAiontwo IntematomI MW Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19,"2011), - 2-7:; CHAPTER 2 -PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES a For each projector land use action subject to Alternative Process, the Submittin - O P 1 1 g Agency shall complete a Project Comment Worksheet and forward it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies,The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment _upon the ;project's consistency ith the Co adbiti Plan for See Appendix E for the c of cy - - PP ?YP information that should be included in the Project Comment Worksheet. Items shall be submitted electronically to the City of Ontario (preferably in PDF format): (b) Commenting .Agencies will have 15 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet Agencies that -do not-respond within the 15-day period would be considered to have no comments and subsequently agree with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. - Commenting Agencies shall limit their comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the Cw0atibi6ty Plan and forward their comments-electronically to the City of Ontario. (c) If the"Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments-received on the Worksheet, staff-of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the commenting agency and/or commenting agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with-the Compatibility Plan. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Worksheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consistency remain, the Subriitting,Agency or any Commenting Agency may request - a Mediation Board hearing to mediate the dispute. (d) If no comments are submitted on the Project Comment Worksheet as provided in- subdivision (b), or if'coinments-are resolved-as provided in subdivision-(c), the Submitting Agency-shall indicate in its own"public notices that the project is within-the ONT AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluation and found -to be consistent with this Compatibility Plan. Section 3: CITY OF ONTARIO ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Preparation,Adoption and Amendment of the Compatibility`Plan - 3.1.1 Prepare and Adopt the Compatibility Plan: The City of Ontario shall be the lead - agency= responsible for -preparing the L AIOntano International A€rport Land Use Cowpafibiky Plan and any amendments that may subsequently be proposed_The City of Ontario shall also be responsible for coordinating these efforts with affected jurisdictions. 112 Adoption Authorial for the City of Ontario: The Ontario City Council has the authority to adopt the Compatibility Plan or any amendments to the:Plan as they apply to the City of Ontario. 3.1.3 Adoption Adoption Autho��for Affected Each`Affected_Agency has the authority to adopt the Co#*afibilify Plan adopted by the City of Ontario or the specific policies that apply to their portions of the AIA.- 2-8 - - - LA/Ontario-Intemadonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan_fAdoptedApn1 19,3011) - Omer PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 - 3:2 ALUCP Implementation Administration • 3.2.1 Mediation Board General Administration:' The City of Ontario shall perform general administrative duties for the Mediation Board including,but not limited to:,, (a) Arranging meeting places and schedules; preparing agendas, and recording meeting minutes. - (b) Issuing required public notices for meetings of the Mediation Board. (c) Providing an annual report to the Mediation Board and California Division of Aeronautics on the compatibility planning actions reviewed over the course of the year. 3.2.2 Administration of the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: The City of Ontario shall coordinate with and assist Affected Agencies with implementing the- relevant policies of the Compatibility Plan by: (a) Developing, maintaining and ,distributing the Project Comment Worksheet, when necessary; (b) Providing affected agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; (c) Serving as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the AIA and proposed on site.airport development;: (d) Reviewing,proposed major airport and land use actions for consistency with the policies set forth in this Compatibility Plan and preparing written consistency • evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; (e) Soliciting input and comments from the Federal Aviation Administration, California- Division of Aeronautics, pilot groups, and others regarding compatibility planning matters;when necessary;and (f) Encouraging Los Angeles and Riverside Counties to adopt compatibility planning policies and criteria for the portions of the ONT AIA located within their respective jurisdictions. Section 4: MEDIATION BOARD ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROJECT DISPUTE PROCESS 4.1 Mediation Board Purpose and Composition 4.1.1 Function of Mediation Board: The Mediation Board for ONT is a voting body established to formally address disputes that-are not resolved at`a staff level. The Mediation Board will only review matters appealed to it by Affected Agencies 4.1.2 Membership of Mediation Board: The Mediation,Board shall be comprised of elected or appointed government officials of the participating agencies and two members representing the public. The members representing the Affected Agencies shall have land use, planning, ,and/or public hearing- experience (e.g., county • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19,2011) - 2-9.-. - CHAPTER i PROQEDURAI, AND QOMPATISWtY POLIC1Es _ - supervisor, dty, council—member, plaiinirig/airport commissioner). Ivlernbets of the ." Mediation Board-shall be appoint - asfoYlows»< ' {aj City of Ontano» Taco members representing the City b€Ontario, appointed by the Ontario City Council. . (b)"IA' _ . -One member representing the I os Angeles World Aiipotts (I AWA), - the I.A/Oittatiri International Airport Manager. - (c) Public: Two public representatives (at -least one having aviation'expertise), appointed by the Ontario--City Council with recommendations from th€;other Affected Agencies. - (d) dthet Affected Agency: Two member"s representing the agency with ehe = disputed project, appointed by the agency's governing body. If the agency-v th- the dispute is either the City of Ontario or I.AWA,the two members-shall_itot be appointed and the Mediation Board shall consist of a-five-member board. " 41:3 Mediation Board-Decisiomg; When actingupon a disputed action(c.g.,consistericy evaluation or preparation; adoption or amendment of die Cwatibiki Plan) the Mediation Board shaft: (a) I3o1d a pubic hearing on the action underconsideration, (b)Provide the opportunity for public input (c) Issue formalfindings on the disputed action: (d) Make decisions liy majority vote. ' 4.2 Mediation Board Project.Dispute.P_rocess -- 4 2.1 Actions Open to Mediation: state law pertaining to the Alternative Process _ requires that a process`be established_for"the mediation of disputes arising from the ` , - preparation, adoption, and-amendmene of an airport land use compatibility-plan (Public_ Utilities. Code section 21670.1(c)(2)(C)). This Compatibility P/ex allows mediation to occur over certain _land user_actions-specifically, general al p an amendments, zoning ordinance modifications,_airport development plans (5ccwin 2.2j,or major land use actions. 4,2.2 Convening the Mediation Soaid:-The— Mediation,Board shall convene on an as needed basis,_ to resolve disputed Matters brought to it by an Affected Agency. Meetings shall be canvered witbin_30 calendar days from the date the Affected Agency requests iii writing a Mediation Board-Bearing date to resolve a dispute., Additionally, the-Board shall-convene once per calendar year to receive an annual report from the Ontario Planning Director. All meetings shall ire pubiicly.itotrced consistent wltla Ontario's public bearing procedures, 4.2.3 Mediation Board Actions for Non-Airport Projects: .When deciding whether a proposed project is consistent with the Compatibdty Platt, the Mediation"Board has three action choices: (a) CoiurttcnF—Find that the proposed project is consistent with :this Canpotibiiiy Pli h 2-10 Z LA/QnWo inte.mational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted AK[I 1 Q. 20 f1) , PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 (b) Conditionally ConsutenFmd that the,proposed project is consistent with this • Compatibility Plan subject to specified conditions or modifications. (r): that the proposed project is inconsistent with this Compahbrkty " - Plan 4.2.4 Mediation Board Action Choices for Airport Proposals: When making consistency determinations on a proposed planning and/or development action pertaining to LA/Ceitario,Interrational Airport (ONT),the Mediation Boazd has four action choices: :.'. (a) Connrtent—Find that the airport plan is consistent with this Compatibility P16.. (b) Conditiona,y` Consirtent--Find that the airport plan is consistent with this .Compatibility,Plan subject to specified conditions or.limitations on the airport plans or use- -a (c) Pncomistent—:Find that the airport plan is inconsistent with this Compatibility Plan. d Conri tent U on Co ahbik Plan Revi ion—Modi the Co atibilr Plan after duly _ ,noticed public hearing) to reflect the assumptions and proposals in the,airport plan—thereby making the airport plan consistent--or establish an intent to modify the Compatibility Plan at a later date. 4.2.5 Overriding Considerations The compatibility criteria set forth in'this Compatibility Plan are intended to be applicable to all locations within she ONT AIA. However, • there may be specific situations.where a normally incompatible use can be considered compatible because of,terram specific location, or other extraordinary factors or, circumstances related to the site.. -After due consideration of all the factors involved in such situations, the Mediation Board may find a normally incompatible use to be 'acceptable. In reaching such a decision, the Mediation Board shall document the nature of the extraordinary that warrant the policy exception and make the following specific findings. (a) That the proposed project will neither create a safety findings- -hazard to-people on the' aground or aircraft in flight nor.result m excessive noise exposure for the future occupants of the proposed use: (b) That the granting of a_special condition exception is- to specific and shall not be ;generalized=to include other sites. 4.3 Overruling Mediation Board Decisions 4.3.1 =General: If the Mediation-Board determines that a proposed project.is inconsistent with the Compatibik6v P4=,the Submitting Agency shall be notified and the governing body of that agency has the.option under state law to overrule the Mediation Board decision. To do so,however, the Submitting Agency must make specific findings (see - ' Section 4.3.2). 4.3.2 Findinp: The agency must make specific findings that the proposed local action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, as stated in Section 21670. Such Endings may not be adopted as a matter of opinion, • LA/Ontario Intemationel Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 18,2011) CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATMUTY-POLICIES- ft- - • but must be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the governing body of the Submitting Agency.must make specific findings-that the:proposed project will not:. (a) Impair the orderly, planned expansion of LA/Ontario International Airport - (ON3); adversely affect the utility or capacity of the airport(such as by reducing instrument approach procedure minimums). (b) Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. 4.13 Notification and Voting Requirements: (a) The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date,to the City of Ontario and California Division of Aeronautics, as required by State law (public Utilities Code Section 21676). (b) The governing body of the Submitting Agency must bold a public hearing on the matter. The public hearing shall be noticed, consistent with the Submitting Agency's established procedures. (c)'A decision by the governing body to overrule the Mediation Board must be made by a vote of atleast toes-thirds of the body's members. (d) The Submitting Agency must include any comments received from any Affected Agency, Mediation Board, Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation - Administration (FAA)in the public record of any final decision to overrule the - Mediation Board. Section 5: -EVALUATING LAND USE CONSISTENCY 5:1 Evaluating Consistency of New Development 5.1.1 Evaluating Corn ap tibility of Proposed Development: The compatibility of proposed projects within the ONT AIA shall be evaluated in accordance with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection, overflight policies,and special compatibility - policies set forth in Section 6, including the criteria listed in Table 2-2. Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria, and the compatibility zones depicted in Maps 2-2 through 2-5. 5.2 Evaluation Tools 5.2.1_ Safety and Noise Criteria Tables; Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria list general land use categories and indicate each use as being either "nominally compatible," ..conditionally compatible," or "incompatible" depending upon the compatibility zone in which it is located. -When evaluating a proposed development, each land use component of a project shall be evaluated as. separate developments and must meet the criteria for the respective land use category in Table: 2-2 Safety Criteria and Table 2-3:Noise Criteria. 5.2.2 Evaluation Considerations: (a) Land uses not specifically listed in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria'and Table 2-3: • Noise Criteria shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar listed uses. 2-12 _ LAA7ntado Intemational Airport Land Use Compati611Ry Plart(Adopted April 49,2011) " - 00vnaa PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES- CHAPTER 2 (b) Multiple land use categories and the compatibility criteria associated with them • may apply to a single project (e.g.,-mixed-use developments). Each land use component shall individually satisfy the criteria for the respective land use category in Table: 2-2 Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria (see Exhibit 213). 5.2.3 Land Use Compatibility Determinations: (a) Normally Compatible means that common examples of the use are compatible with the airport; uncommon examples of the use may require review to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria, (b) Conditionally Compatible means that the use is compatible if the listed` conditions are met: (c) Incompatible means that the use should not be permitted under any circumstances. 5.2.4 Policies Pertaining to Special Compatibility Concerns: In addition to satisfying the compatibility criteria defined in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3: Noise Criteria, land use actions must comply with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection,overflight and special compatibility policies set forth in Section 6 Exhibit 2B: Mixed-Use Development Example In this example, the proposed mixed-use development includes four distinct types of land uses. Each land use component must be evaluated against the criteria for the respective land use category in Table 2.2:Safety Criteria -• and Table 2-3:Noise Criteria: W Resqurartt �p Residential Use jj Residential Use .9 with density greater than 8 dulac V i 45% ithin I 65dBCNEL 5 10 65 *sound attenuation j required co Retial rant Retail • LA!Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19,2011) 2-13 - -- - CHAPTER ND LI a PROCEDURA6 A COMPA7tatLITY PO CtE S- �Alm G Section 6. COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ' 6..1 Safety:. 611— oligi Objective The `intent af'--the safety compatibility policies is to mimmi�e the risks associated with an off=airport Note See Section 63, aircraft accident or emergency-landing. The policies €ocus an Airspace Protection,for land use features that reducing the potential"consegyerices of such events when:they;- can pose hazards to PC 'The potential risks to people'and property within the aircraft in flight _ ONT ALAS and' o°people-o a board the aircraft are considered. " 6.1.2 Safely Affected.Aa.M: The sarc ty:compatibility policies and criteria of'ihis section apply only to the City of:Ontario.since the safety zones are located solely witltiri Ontario's city limits. 6:1:3 actors Considered iri -Establishing Safe Zones: ' The -principal factors considered in setting the polities applicable within each safety zone are: (a) California Airport Lind Use-Planning Handbook The_CakfnAia Airport Land Use Flannixg Handbaak January 2002) provides;risk information, accident - data, and analyses for air carder'airports. The Handbook identifies the locations, delineated with respect to the airport runways-, where aircraft accidents near air carrier airports have;-historically occurred and the relative -concentration of accidents within these locations. These concentrations represent hkely-future risk levels. Furthermore, the Handbook recommends applyitig the most stringent land use controls to the areas with the greatest potential risks. The safety zones utilized for :ONT reflect the Handbook's suggested zones for Large Air,Carrier Runways. (b) Specific Airport Features: The existing and ultimate runway conflgriranon, approach categories; normal flight patterns, and aircraft fleet iris for ONT are factors reflected in the safety zone shapes and sizes. (e) Measures of Risk'Exposure: For the_purposes of this-Corir�akbrkiy]%n, the " risk that potential aircraft accidents pose-to lands'_around 01VT is defined in terms of the geographic distribution of where accidents are most.likely to occur.-- Because aircraft accidents are infrequent occurrences,the gattexri of accidents at any one airport cannot be used to predict where future accidents are most likely to happen around that airport. Reliance must be placed on data about=aircraft _ accident locations -at similar _airports=`nationally, refined with respect to information about the types and patterns of aircraft usage at the individual = - airport. Thus methodology, as further described in Appendix , is'uset to delineate the safety zones for ONT shownin Map 2-2eSafety;2ones. 6.fl4 . Factors Considered in Setting Safely Poficies: To rmmmJze risks to people and property on the ground;the safety compatibility criteria in Table 2-2: Safety Crttena set lirnits on: (a) Residential Uses: The density of residential development is measure by the number of dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the Caafornia t4irpw CTsc iolamm�g Handbook (2002) guidelines : a greater-degree_of protection is warranred for±esidential uses 2-14 L.WntadO lntemational Airport Land Use Cornpefibility Plan.fAdoptedApd/19,2011) = - PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 .... (b) Nonresidential Uses: The intensity of nonresidential development is measured • by the number of people per acre concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents. 6-L5 Safety Zones for LA/Ontario International AiWott: The five safety zones depicted in Map 2-2: Safety Zones,are a composite of existing and ultimate airfield configurations, the methodology for this approach is explained in Chapter I of this Compaubilfty Plan: (a) Safety Zones 1- 5:- A composite set of safety zones were created for ONT to reflect both the existing and ultimate airfield configurations.The safety zones for each configuration were combined to create one set of composite safety zones utilizing the most stringent conditions. The ultimate runway configuration shifts both runways south and east of their current alignments. (b) Safety Zone L Safety zone I reflects the airport's established Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) as shown in the Airport Layout Plans prepared by Los Angeles World Airports (IAWA) and the Simplified Airport Diagram accepted by California Division of Aeronautics on July 2009 as the basis of I this Conpatiln/ity Plan(see Exhibit 1-6 in Chapter 1). (c) Overlay, Safety Zone 11: Overlay Safety Zone 1A was created to reflect the FAA's standard RPZ (1,000 feet inner width by 2,500 feet length by 1,750 feet -outer width) beginning 200 feet beyond' the west end of Runway 8L:, (See Chapter 1 for additional RPZ discussion and Policy S5). 6.1_6 Safety Standards for New Developla= To minimize risk-sensitive development in high-risk areas around ONT, the safety compatibility of new development shall be evaluated in accordance with the safety,policies set forth in this section,including the criteria listed in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and the safety zones depicted on Map 2- 2: Safety Zones. Other policies,may be applicable to uses of special concern (see Policy S4). SAFETY POLICIES Sl Residential Development: New residential development is incompatible within all Safety Zones (1 through 5). Policies Sla and S1b are exceptions to this policy, if applicable. Sla Single-Family Home: The construction of a single-family home on a legal lot of record is allowed in Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario's land use regulations. See Policy SP2 with regard to development by tight. Slb Second-Unit: A second-unit as defined by state law is allowed within Safety Zones 2, 3 and 4 if the use is permitted by the City of Ontario's land use regulations. • LA IOntarto Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibift Plan(April 19,2011) - 2-15 - CNAPTER,2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES Slc Family Day Care: In accordance with state law, a family day care home • serving 14 or fewer children may be established in any dwelling by the policies of this Compatibility Plan. Sld Residential Mixed-Use Developments: New mixed-use developments will locate the residential component outside of all safety zones. S2 Occupwgcy Limits For Nonresidential Development: Table 2 2: Safety Criteria indicates the usage intensity (number of people per acre) limit for each safety zone. The usage intensity limits represent the safety criteria for new - nonresidential development. The usage intensity limits measure intensity in two fortes: 1) Sitewide average intensity which sets intensity limits for the entire project site; and 2) Single-acre intensity which sets intensity limits on any single acre within the project site (see Exhibit 2C for a graphical example). As a condition of approval, all new nonresidential development within the Safety Zones shall comply with both forms of intensity limits as described further below. Exhibit 2C: Land Use Intensity Calculation Example In this example, both the stewide and single-acre intensity of a proposed Research & Development (R&D) / warehouse facility is calculated using the common occupancy load factors [number of square feet per person] information in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria together with project-specific data. The results are then compared with the maximum sitewide and single-acre intensity limits to determine consistency of the project with the safety criteria - - _ TTAU 1:/dw CeYla - - SMple Ace takulatlms fow on mast nxenea ' �0Wr1arN 5 MwnM Llrtiattanr .: use of 0»project site wit.Sltewlde Average InenWpr:lMpeepk*.re Ipex.Single-ACre mten Wy:210 peoplo" p� Common Occupancy Load Fstl01 ' Warehouse:1,000 sq.Riper psrepl-` _ Research&Development Amearch S DwNopea t200e l fluiarper - 25.000 sq.k I ftoW Infotlnatloit _ _ tand Use-111 SSM,MO st}R _ Reee�tlr&GMaleP 20Ms4n - Total Bldg.sq.ft.=110.00 all.R` - - - - Sin Acreage=lacrea - - I Safety Zone=1 "- _ Calculations.- _ Warehm"= 1S.600 OL R -•"Pomb- - - - 1,000 w.ft per penen- _ 66.440 sq ft I Warehouse• 86.110 so.ft •"pio* _ IWsq.R pergngfi - _- ReaarM O • =25.100 ea.R -•Ups@*_ _ _ - I Development 2"sq.ft per prwn _ - - She Wide -< - owwtA Total 0 of MIN •:- 1p •Mpeepb - _ — — ----i s0eacreage tae peraela Mr -- ■ Sinale Acre Avaras8-= Bsbwtlw -- Total a of Reads• _ML a 1"psOple " Single ace Ia. ywams - - 2-16 '= - U10nfat7o-Intema6met Afryort Land Use Compafflift Pion(Adopted April-f 9,2011) ONTARIOPROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 S2a Sitewide Average Intensity is calculated by determining the total number of • people expected to be on the site at any given time under normal operating conditions and dividing by the total number of acres of the project site. S2b Single-acre Intensity of a proposed development is calculated by determining the total number of people expected to be within any one-acre portion of the site, typically the most intensively used building or part of a building. The 1.0-acre area calculations represent building footprints that are generally rectangular and not elongated in shape or, for buildings larger than 1.0 acre,represent a portion of the building. S2c Usage Intensity calculations includes all people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors) who may be on the property at any single point in time during normal operating conditions, whether indoors or outdoors. Table 2-2: Safety Criteria indicates the normal occupancy load Exhibit 2D: Intensity Limits factor (number of square The interrelationship between Intensity limit, feet per person) and Floor normal occupancy load factor and Floor Area Area Ratio (FAR) for many Ratio(FAR)is indicated in the two examples nonresidential uses. These below.The examples reflect Zone 3 criteria: numbers are interrelated intensity limit of 100 people per acre,occupancy load factor of 200 square feet per person,and with the intensity limits 0.46 FAR. (number of people per acre) and can be used to calculate example r the usage intensity Of a 200 square feet per person(occupancy load factor) • proposed project (see x 100 people per acre(intensity limit) Exhibit 2D). Note that the 20,000 square foot building safety criteria are the + 43.560 square feet per acre sitewide and single-acre 0.46 FAR intensity limits (number of exampte2 people per acre). The 43,560 square feet per acre occupancy load factors and x 0.46 FAR FARs are provided as 20,000 square foot building methods for Calculating the - 200 square feet per person(occupancy load factor) intensity of a proposed 100 people per acre(intensity limit) project. 1. Occupancy Load Factors: The occupancy load factors (minimum number of square feet per person) provided in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria vary from one land use to another. As shown in Exhibit 2C, the sitewide average usage intensity of a project having multiple uses can be calculated by: • Dividing the number of square feet of each component use by the number of square feet per person (occupancy load) for that use as indicated in Table 2-2; • Adding together the number of people for each component use;and • Dividing the total number of people by the total number of acres of the project site to get the sitewide average intensity. • LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19, 2011) 2-17 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES OWNS • + Where occupancy load factors are not indicated in the table or if the assumed occupancy load factor for a particular proposal or component thereof is not applicable to the project, then the number of occupants is estimated in another manner – for example, the number of seats and employees at a restaurant or the number of parking places times the vehicle occupancy for an industrial plant. 2. Floor Area Ratios (FARs): The allowable FAR is indicated in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria for a particular safety zone and vary from one land use to another. Each component use is calculated as occupying a share of the total project site equal to its percentage of the total floor area in the project. Mathematically,this means that the FAR for each component use will be the same as the FAR for the entire building. 3. Alternative Intensity Calculations: An alternative method for measuring compliance with the usage intensity limits is acceptable. For example, a method based upon the City's parking space requirements may be used together with an assumed number of people per vehicle as a means of determining the number of occupants for uses that are vehicle oriented (this method would not be suitable for land uses where many users arrive by transit,bicycle,or other means of transportation). 4. Mixed-Use Development: Each component use within a nonresidential mixed-use development shall comply with Table 2-2: Safety Criteria unless the use is ancillary(less than 101/6 of total building floor area). • 5. Ancillary Uses: Up to 101/o of the total floor area of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use of another type, including a use with a higher occupancy load factor that is shown as incompatible in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria. Ancillary uses may be excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations (but not the sitewide average intensity limits) provided that the ancillary use is neither. • An assembly room having more than 750 square feet of floor area (this criterion is intended to parallel Building Code standards) and a capacity of more than 50 people;nor •t A children's school (grades K-12), day care center or other risk- sensitive use that is "incompatible" within the safety zone where the primary use is to be located. 6. Uncommon Land Use Considerations: If a particular development proposal is uncommon—that is,there would be more floor area per person and lower usage intensity—the local agency may consider that information in determining the safety compatibility of the proposal. In considering any such exceptions, the local agency shall also take into account the potential for the use of a building to change over time. A building could have planned low-intensity use initially, but later be converted to a higher- intensity use. Local agency permit language or other mechanisms to ensure continued compliance with the usage intensity criteria must be put in place. 7. Parcels within Multiple Safety Zones: For the purposes of evaluating • consistency with the usage intensity criteria set forth in Table 2-2: Safety 2-18 LA/Ontarto Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER .21 - Criteria, any parcel that is • split by safety zone boundaries shall be Exhibit 2E:Transferring Usage considered as if it were Intensity multiple parcels divided at the An example of transferring usage intensity to safety zone boundary line. the less restrictive safety zone is provided ° However, the intensity of below nonresidential development Zone 3 intensity limit:100 people per acre allowed within the more Zone 4 intensity limit:160 people per acre restricted portion of the parcel can (and is encouraged Proposed intensity in Zone 3:80 people per acre to) be transferred to the less -- restricted portion. This full or Proposed intensity in Zone 4:loo people per acre partial reallocation of intensity is permitted even if the The proposed intensity for Zone 3(80 resulting intensity in the less People per acre)is encouraged to be _ transferred to Zone 4 for a total of 180 = restricted area would rheas people per acre,even if it exceeds the Zone 4 exceed the limits which would intensity limit of 160 people per acre. otherwise apply within that safety zone (see Exhibit 2E). S3 Laud Use Event Exceptions: The City of Ontario may make exceptions for "conditional" or "incompatible" land uses associated with rare special events (e.g., an air show at the airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be • taken as appropriate. S4 Land Uses of Special Concern: Certain types of land uses represent special safety concerns irrespective of the number of people associated with those uses. Table 2- 2: Safety Criteria indicates the criteria applicable to these uses. In some cases,these uses are not allowed in portions of the safety zones regardless of the number of occupants associated with the use. In other instances, these uses should be avoided—i.e., allowed only if an alternate site outside of the safety zone would not work. When allowed, special measures should be taken to minimize hazards to the facility and occupants if the facility were to be struck by an aircraft. Land uses of particular concern and the nature of the concern are: S4a Land Uses Having Vulnerable Occupants: These land uses are ones in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled— people who have reduced effective mobility or may be unable to respond to emergency situations. These uses include: + Children's schools (grades K-12). + Day care centers (facilities with 15 or more children, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code). + Hospitals, health care centers, and similar facilities, especially where patients remain overnight. + Nursing homes. + Inmate facilities. • "' - LAIOntario International.Airport Land Use Oompefibiilty_Pfen(April 19,:2011) ' =' -_ 2-19 .' CHAPTER a PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBI LITV POLICIES • - S4b Hazardous Materials Storage: Materials that are flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic constitute special safety compatibility concerns to the extent that an aircraft accident could cause release of the materials and thereby pose dangers to people and property in the vicinity. Facilities in this category _ include: + Facilities such as oil refineries and chemical plants that manufacture, process, and/or store bulk quantities (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons) of hazardous materials generally for shipment elsewhere. + Facilities associated with otherwise compatible land uses where hazardous materials are stored in smaller quantities primarily for on- site use (tank capacities greater than 6,000 gallons). S4c Critical Community Infrastructure: The damage or destruction of public infrastructure facilities which would cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility. Among these facilities are: + Emergency services Facilities such as police and fire stations. + Emergency communications facilities,power plants,and other utilities. S5 Overlay Safely Zone ]A New development proposed within Overlay Safety Zone lA is encouraged to locate buildings outside the overlay zone, when feasible, otherwise utilize the intensity limits of the underlying Safety Zone. S6 Avigation Easements: The City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement as a condition for approval of all proposed.development situated off airport within Safety Zones 1 through 5 in accordance with Policy SPI (see Section 6.5).The Safety Zones and this policy affect only the City of Ontario. 6.2. _.Noise 6.2.I Policy Objective: The>purpose Of noise compatibility policies is to avoid the establi`_shment of noise-sensitive land:uses itf the poritotis of the ONT AIA that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise.._ 6.2.2 Noise-Affected Akcncies The-noise impact ones for QNT affect lands within the- -z - Cities of Chinos Fontana, Montclair, and Ontario and unincorporated areas of the Counties of San- Bernardino and Riverside. The noise_compatib7lity policies and criteria of this section apply only to the jurisdictions and special entities {eg.;=school districts)in San Bernardino County: - 6.23 Factors Considered in Establishibg Noise Impact Zones: The factors considered in setting the policies w thin each:noise impact_zoneare (AY__Measures`of Noise Exposure:` The magnitude"of the airpostselated=noise to-- i- which progenies +near ONT are exposed muse be ineasnred in t5titrs `of Community Noise Equivalent Y:evel (CNEL. . (b) Noise Contours: In accordance:with state law, the plannin -time frame utilized _ in this Compakbality_Plan extends at least20 years into the future The,--noise ' contours depicted herein represent the:_greatest annualized noise impact, 240: -LANntaiio Intemafiagal Alrywt L@iad Use CompadbllflyPlan(!ldopted April S8,2011) - - PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POL)CIES CHAPTER 2'_: measured in terms o tNEL, anticipated to be generated by the airport over the • planning-time frame.? 6.2.4 Factors Considered in Setting Noise Policies: The factors considered in the noise policies for this-,section and the criteria in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria are descIIbed below. ' These 'factors must also be considered when conducting compatibility assessments:of individual development projects (a), Noise Regulations:: State 'regulations and guidelines, 'mduding' noise compatibility recommendations in the Cakfomia Airport Lund_-Ure Planning _ Handbook'(2002) provide the foundation for the noise,pohde$. (b) Ambient Noise_levels: Ambient noise levels influence the potential _ intrusiveness of aircraft noise upon land uses within a community. Ontario is . characterized as an urban community with higher"atnbient noise levels than that of a suburban community.' Highway and rail noise contribute ignificandy to the ambient noise levels in the community. = (c) Noise-Sensitive Uses: -•The extent to which noise would intrude upon and _ interrupt the activity:associated with a:particular use affects whether the use is compatible with a particular noise exposure. (d) Noise-Generating Uses: Land uses with operating conditions that generate noise are`typically more compatible with high external noise exposure than uses that are internally quiet (e) Outdoor Uses: The extent of outdoor activities associated with a particular land use, especially activities for which quiet is important, is a key determinant of • noise.exposure compatibility because the sound attenuation'that a structure would provide does not exist. Outdoor activities are particularly susceptible to aircraft overflight noise in thatsound walls and other devices-that can serve as. - shields from highway,railroad,and other ground-level-poises are not practical. (f) Sound Attenuation.: Indoor uses associated with a particular land use that would otherwise be-incompatible may be made consistent with thisCompanb:kty Plan with the apphca_tion of.sound attenuation standards-in accordance with Policy N-4.-- .,- (p� -Single-event noise levels: Single-event noise levels are taken into account in :Table 2-3:.Noise Criteria with respect to the acceptability of highly noise-, sensitive land uses: Single event noise.levels are considered when assessing the compatibility of highly noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, libraries;=and outdoor-theaters. Susceptibility to speech interference and sleep disturbance are among the -factors that make certain land uses noise sensitive. Single-event noise`levels are especially ,important in areas that are regularly overflown by aircraft, but that do not.produce significant CNEL contours (helicopter overflight areas area particular example). Flight patterns for ONT must be considered in the review process. Acoustical studies or on-site noise in could also be required to assist in determining the compatibility of sensitive uses. 6.2.5 Noise Impact Zones for ONT: The noise impact zones depicted in Map 2-3 were prepared for ONT,in-conjunction with the master planning efforts conducted by Los LA/Ontario Intemational Airport Land Use CompatbNW Plan(April 19,--2011) _ 2-21 CHAPTER Z PRCYCEDURAL Af4 C GiAR(y7 fB IL17N=P,01J Ct�3 Angeles World Airports (L.AWA) ixr the mid 2000s. the noise exposure contours represent a composite of two sets of projected noise contours reflecting two -forecast scenarios. The`"No Project" scenario reflects.the existing.runway corifiguiation and a 2030 forecast of 343,000 annual operations. The."Proposed Praject scenario reflects- - the ultimate runway configuration acid a 2030 forecast of 465,000 annual operations. Aircraft activity-data upon Which the;contours-are based ace summarized in Chapter,l of.tivs Compatibility Plan. The City of Ontario, as the agency responsible for this Compatibility P,4n, should periodically review the projected CNEL contours and, in-- conjunction with LAWA,-update them as necessary to:ensure that_they continue to have-a future time horizon of at least 20 years. 6:2.6_ Noise Standards for New, ,Development To-- minimize; noise-sensitive development in noisy areas around ONT, new development should be_evaluated in _ accordance with the policies set forth in this section, including the criteria listed in Tablet 3: Noise Criteria and the noise impact zones depicted on-Map 2 3:Noise Impact Zones_ NOISE POLICIES NI Residential Development: New residential development is incompatible within the projected CNEL 65 dB contour of ONT except as described in Policy N2 and SP3e. N2 Residential Development Exceptions: The following types of residential developments are allowed within the CNEL 65 dB contour, if the structure is • capable of attenuating exterior noise from all noise sources to an indoor CNEL of 45 dB or less. N2a Multi-Family Residential: Multi-family residential is allowed within the CNEL 65 dB contour if the development can achieve a density that is greater than 8 dwelling units per acre and incorporate interior common space and recreational facilities. N2b Caretaker's Unit: A caretakers unit that is ancillary to a primary use located Within the projected CNEL 65 dB contour should be deemed compatible with this Compatibility Plan provided that there is no more than 1 dwelling unit. N2c Existing Residential Lots: Exceptions are provided for existing residential lots (see Policy SP2 with regard to development by right). N2d Composite Industrial/Residential Use: A single-family residential use combined with an industrial land use should be deemed compatible within the projected CNEL 65 dB contour due to the high ambient noise levels generated by the industrial use. However, new structures developed for residential purposes should achieve noise attenuating standards consistent with the California Building Code. _ N3 Non-residential Development: New nonresidential development is incompatible in locations where the airport-related noise exposure would be highly disruptive to the specific land use. The applicable criteria are indicated in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria. - Z 42 - I.Nontatiti International Airyat Laiid{ISe ComPati6il(I�Plan(Adoptedtlpril Y9,2011) __ - WWPROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 N4 Maximum Interior Noise Level; To the extent that the criteria in Table 2-3: • Noise Criteria and other policies herein permit the development, land uses with interior activities that may be easily disrupted by aircraft noise should be required to incorporate exterior-to-interior noise level reduction (NLR) design features for all new structures. The land uses listed in Policies N4a and N4b are considered acceptable if proper sound attenuation standards are applied and the maximum interior noise level indicated in Policies N4a and N4b are not exceeded. N4a CNEL 45 dB Interior Noise Level • Any habitable room of single-or multi-family residences. • Hotels,motels,and other lodging. • Hospitals, nursing homes, and related uses where patients remain overnight. • Places of worship,meeting halls, theaters,and mortuaries. • Schools,libraries, and museums. N4b CNEL 50 dB Interior Noise Level • Offices and office areas of industrial facilities. • Eating and drinking establishments. • Retail centers and stores. • Miscellaneous other uses as listed in Table 2-3: Noise Criteria. N4c Noise Attenuation Criteria: Where Table 2-3: Noise Criteria indicates that buildings associated with a particular land use must be capable of • attenuating exterior noise to the specified maximum interior noise level, acoustical data documenting that the structure will be designed to comply with the criteria should be provided. The noise impact zones depicted in Map 2-3 should be used in calculating compliance with these criteria. The calculations should assume that windows are closed. N4d Noise Attenuation Exceptions: Exceptions to the interior noise level criteria set in Policy N4a may be allowed if evidence is provided that the indoor noise generated by the use itself exceeds the listed criteria. N4e Parcels with Multiple Noise Contour Ranges: When a proposed building lies within multiple CNEL range zones (e.g., partly in 60-65 dB and partly in 65-70 dB), the higher range zone should apply for the purposes of determining sound attenuation requirements unless less than 25% of the building floor area is within the least restrictive zone. In such case, the lower range zone may be used. See Exhibit 2F for graphical example. NS Avigation Easements: The City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation casement in accordance with Policy SPl as a condition of approval for proposed noise-sensitive developments situated within the City of Ontario portion of the CNEL 65 dB. Affected Agencies that have authority over lands elsewhere within CNEL 65 dB contour are encouraged to establish a similar requirement for development within their jurisdictions. • LA/Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19, 2011) 2-23 - "CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND OOMPArlsit1TY POLfC1ES Exhibit 2F: Interior Noise Limit Requirement Example In this example, the proposed buildings with less than 25% of the building floor area ratio in the 65 dB - - CNEL contour does not require noise insulation. Interior noise limit requirements are provided for each - - land use category in Table 2-2:Safety Criteria. _ Not within 15%within -_ 8 - - BS noise contour 5 noise contour sound attenuation - - sound attenuation NOT required _ -- - NOT required 65dB CNEL 45% 55 00�'Ys' 'sound atteniWion - - - required \ i. " 6.3 Airspace Protection 631 Pow Obiwim; Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent cieation of land use features ihat can be.hazards to aircraft in flight and have the pote d;a for causing an atrezaft acadent to;ocetir. Such 'hazards may be physical, visual, or. electronic. 6.3.2 Affected A' eiricies: Considering the -topography within the AAA, the airspace protection zones for NT pritnarily affect lands wi O thin the Cities ofOntaria,Itanclr0 Cucamonga, and Upland- T'he„Cities of.C-hino, Fontana, and Montclair and unincorporated'.areas of-San Bernardino County, are affected to a lesser extent.. Portions of the airspace protection zones also extend into the Counties of Riverside and I os Angeles however Airspace protection policies ire:only informational. ' 6.33 factors Considered in Establishing Airsjjiice Protection Zones. The principal factors considered in setting the airspace protection zones are. (a) Federat Regulations: Federal"Aviation _Regulations (FAR) -*art 77; 06ear Afferiing NaingabkAirrpace;set the requirements for notice to the.Federal Aviation' Adnunistration (FAA) of certain proposed -construction or alteration polr cts (Subpart B, Notice of 6ftShatiaa or ATeratiox)=and ,establisk standazds fztr determinitig._obstrucdtons-to navigable airspace (SuliPart C, bbctructiom ftandardr ' The airspace protection zones for ONT also considered the-Unitid States S&p dard for Terminal:Inrmrment Pmiedxns, (I'ERPS), the Onen gene Irioperauve:(CSEF) 2 24 LAXibtatio International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April l S,4011) - PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAP T ER 2 obstacle identification surface -and `other applicable obstruction clearance , • standards published by the FAA in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 15. Appendix B provides_a copy of FAR Part 77, (b) Specific Airport Features: The current'and ultimate runway ahgrnments with precision appro aches..,to all 'runway ends; OEI obstacle identification surfaces ' associated with the existing and.future departure procedures, and the TERPS surfaces for the,existing approach procedures at ONT were also considered. The TERPS surfaces for the ultimate runway are not considered as the FAA establishes these surfaces for specific instrument approach procedures. (c) High Terrain Zone: Objects in high- terrain-areas are closer to the airport's airspace surfaces and thus have a greater-potential of creating airspace hazards. In accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, a proposed structure which would penetrate- the Parr 77 airspace surfaces- would'be considered an airspace obstruction and thus requires an aeronautical review by' the-FAA. However; °.Section 77.15 of the regulations stipulate that FAA review is not required for new. structures that would penetrate She airport's airspace-'surfaces -if the proposed structure,would be shielded by existing structures of a pem�anent and substantial character of equal or greater height. In 2010,the City of Ontario . surveyed the heights of existing structures within the High Terrain Zone area to establish a.height threshold for future objects (see Appendix n. The survey revealed that existing structures within the high terrain areas Borth of ONT have heights of up to 70 feet above-ground. . This information is considered when delineating the High Ten-ain Zone described in Section 6.3.5(d): , 6.3.4 Factors Considered in Setti%kg Airspace Protection Policies: The factors - • considered in setting the,airspace protection,policies in this section are described below These factors should also be considered when conducting compatibility assessments of individual development-projects.`The factors are: (a) Federal and,State Regulations: The airspace protecti on policies outlined in this section are based upon and intended to help implement the regulations enacted by the FAA-and the State of California. ' State airspace protection standards mostly mirror"those of the FAA. A key difference is that state law gives the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and local agencies the authorty to enforce the standards. (b) Flight Hazards: The FAA has well-defined standards by-which potential hazards to flight, especially airspace obstructions, can be assessed. However,the FAA has no authority-to prevent-creation of'such hazards. That authority,tests with state.and local,governments. There are three categories of flight hazards: physical,visual,.and electronic. 4 Height of structures and other objects situated near the airport,are a primary -determinant of physical hazards to the airport airspace. •1 Land use features that have the potential to attract birds and certain other wildlife to,the airport area also need to-be evaluated as a form of physical _hazard. < + Visual hazards of concern include certain'-types of lights, sources of glare, and sources of dust,steam, thermal plumes or smoke.- LAIOntario Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19,2011) - 2-25 a CWA- tiiR 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBPLITV POLICIES: •, > Eiet:tronic hazards are nnes that ;nay cause interference with aircraft ` communications ornavigation. (c) Airspace Obstructions: The cnteria for detetnvning the acceptability of a project with respect to height are based`upon the standards set'forth iii:- - - =Federal Aviation Regulations,=.(FAR) Part 77, 'Cybjects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpatt G;_Obstruction Standards, the United States Standard fbi Fermtnal Instrument.Procedures (I _RPS); the One-Engine Inoperative (CtEI) obstacle identification surface and otber applicable airport design standards published by, the FAA. (d) OEI and TPRtPS Surfaces: The OEI and TERPSssurfaces associated with the Z. current instrument approach and departure procedures at ONT are a sagrficant airspace protection:factor; In locations, these-surfaces establish height limitations lower than the TAR:Part 77 surfaces used by the FAA in evaluating airspace obstructions;' (e) Local Topography: The topography"underlying the airports airspace surfaces is>a significant factor in deierm ning the allowable-height of_a structure: The. terrain north of ONT s'lope's upwards towards fhe"San Gabriel -Mountains, thereby reducing the_-allowable heights of objects -iii those areas. In the high =terrain areas north of ONT; the heights of existing structures (natural or manmade)`that are of a permanent and substantial Character are considered itt establishing the allowable Heights of future objects: llppendis_J documents the heights of existing structures within tht1 h Terrain Znne. 5.3:5 Airspace Protection Zones for'ONT: The airspace liratection zones depicted in Map 2 4 were prepared for ONT in:accordance with FederaLAviation Regulations TAR) Part 77,:Objects Affecfltig Navigable Airspace; the;United State`s Statiiatd far, T-emiinal Instrument Procedures (MRPS),-the One-Engine Inoperative {OED obstacle identification surface and other applicable obstruction clearance standards published by. -the Federal= Aviation- Administration (FAA) in Advisory Circular. 150/4300=13,Change 15, (a) FAA Height Notification Surface- Established in-accordance with FAIR Part 77, Subpart B, this airspace slit€ace extends outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a hotizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the airport_runways. . (b) Airspace Obstrucdaa Surfaces: Includes-the controlling portions of the FAR Part 77, Subpart C, TERPS, and OEI surfaces extending out to a point where. these surfaces terminate at the outer lin5its of the FAA Height-- .Notification _ Surface. Objects which penetrate these"surfaces are subject to airspace evaluation by the FAA and the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process Objects_which .penetrate the Approachfpepamue Surfaces which extend beyond-the-FAA Height Notification=Surface require evaluation by the FAA but would not be subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process. (c) Allowable Heights: ,To deterinine the allowable heights of future 6 jects, the underlying ground elevation is compared with the elevation of the controlling portions of:the FAR Pa�k'77,TERPS, and'OEI surfaces..These arg depicted as color bands in P6hc'-lvlap 2-4, each color band represents a range of distance, measured iri vertical feet between the ound and over l ' surface. _ 8r Ymg -2-28.-: _ L41 0ntadolntematlona lA'rp4rtLandVsaico a66ilityPlan(Adopted., pol1S,2014, - M " PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER a (d) High Terrain Zone: Based on a height survey conducted by the City of • Ontario in-,2010, eausttng objects within the high terrain areas north of ONT have heights of up tq 70 feet (see.Appendixn.Therefore,the High Terrain Zone "s-delineated to include portions of the FAR Part 77,Subpart C,aitspace surfaces where the ground either penetrates or lies within 70 feet of the airspace surface. " (e)-.Airspace Avvgatioa Easement Area: Includes portions of the-FAR Part 77, Subpart C approach;acid transitional airspace surfaces and the T 11PS and OEI surfaces extending out to iv point where these surfaces intersect the horizontal surface,which is situated 150 feet above the airport elevation of-944 feetMSl 6.3.6 Airspace Protection Stnndarde for t Development: The airspace proection compatibility of proposed land uses within the AIA of ONT should be evaluated in accordance with'the polities in thissection,including the existing and future airspace protection surfaces depicted in Map-2-4 AIRSPACE PROTECTION POLICIES Al FAA Height Notification Surface: Except as provided in Policy Alb,if a project contains proposed structures or other objects that would penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface for ONT, the project proponent should submit notification of the proposal to the FAA, as required by the provisions of FAR Pan 77, Subpart B, and by the California Public Utilities Code,Sections 21658 and 21659. The FAA will conduct an "aeronautical study" of the object(s) and determine whether the object(s) would be of a height that would constitute a hazard to air navigation. A copy of the • completed FAR Part 77 notification form submitted to the FAA and the resulting FAA aeronautical study findings should be supplied to the local jurisdiction by the project proponent. The results of the FAA aeronautical study should be taken into account by the local agency when conducting compatibility reviews of the proposed - project. A copy of the FAA notification form and online submittal procedures are provided in Appendix B. A requirement for submitting notice to the FAA does not necessarily result in a requirement that the proposed object also be reviewed under the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process. Proposed objects are subject to the ONT process only as specified in Policy A2. The FAA notification requirements apply to the following. Ala Penetrations to the FAA Height Notification Surface: With limited exceptions, the FAA requires notification for all objects which penetrate the FAA Height Notification Surface,including structures,antennas, trees,mobile objects,and temporary objects such as construction cranes. Alb Structures in Excess of 200 feet: The FAA requires that it be notified about any proposal to construct or alter a structure that would be taller than 200 feet above the ground level regardless of the structure's proximity to ONT or any other airport. Alc FAR Part 77 Notification: FAA requires project proponents to submit notification of the proposal where required by the provisions of FAR Part 77, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659. See LAIOntano Intemational Airport Land Use.Compatibility_Plan(W 19,2011) _ 2-27 - NTAW CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O * • Appendix B for FAA notification requirements and online submittal process of Form 7460-1,Notice of Proposed Conttme ion orAkeratian. A2 ice Obstruction Surfaces Obstruction Surfaces: Except as provided in Policies Ala and Alb,no object should have a height that would result in a penetration of the Airspace Obstruction Surface depicted for ONT in Map 2-4. Any object that penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surface and is located outside of the High Terrain Zone should satisfy the conditions set forth in Policy A2a. These requirements apply to all objects including structures, antennas, trees, mobile objects, and temporary objects such as construction cranes. Ala Airspace Obstacle Criteria and Review Process: Except as indicated in Policy Alb,a proposed object having a height that penetrates ONT's airspace obstruction surfaces is subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process and should be allowed only if all of the following apply: • The FAA conducts an aeronautical study of the proposed object and determines that the object would not be a hazard to air navigation. • FAA or other expert analysis conducted under the auspices of the Los Angeles World Airports (f.AWA), as the airport owner, concludes that, despite being an airspace obstruction, the object would not cause any of the following: • An increase in the ceiling or visibility minimums df the airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (a planned.procedure is one • that is formally on file with the FAA); • A reduction of the established operational efficiency and capacity of the airport, such as by causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced;or • A conflict with the visual flight rules (VFR) airspace used for the airport traffic pattern or en route navigation to and from the airport. • Marking and lighting of the object will be installed as directed by the FAA aeronautical study or the California Division of Aeronautics and in a manner consistent with FAA standards in effect at the time the construction is proposed (Advisory Circular 70/7460-1j, Obstruction Marking and Lighting,or any later guidance). • An avigation easement is dedicated in accordance with Policy SPl to the LAWA as owner of the airport. • The proposed project complies with all policies of this Compatibility Plan related to noise and safety compatibility. A2b High Terrain Zone Exception: The High Terrain Zone is confined to portions of Upland, Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga (Map 2-4). A proposed structure of up to 70 feet in height (subject to local agency zoning limits) is exempt from the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process, even if it penetrates the Part 77 airspace surfaces and thus constitute an airspace obstruction, as the object would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character of equal or greater height. Submitting • notice of the proposed project to the FAA for an airspace evaluation in 2-28 LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) -PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 '> accordance with FAR Part 77, Subpart B, is at the discretion of the project • applicant. Dedication of an avigation easement is required in accordance with Policy SPl. A3 Flight Hazards: Land uses that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft in flight or taking off or landing at the airport should be prohibited within the AIA consistent with FAA rules and regulations. To resolve any uncertainties with regard to the significance of flight hazards, local agencies should consult with the FAA, California Division of Aeronautics,and/or ONT officials. Specific characteristics to be avoided include: + Sources of glare(such as from mirrored or other highly reflective buildings or building features) or bright lights (including search lights and laser light displays). + Distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights. + Sources of dust,steam,or smoke that may impair pilots'vision. + Sources of steam or other emissions that cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air. + Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation. + Any proposed use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations including,but not limited to FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-33B,Hazardous 1P/ildlife Attractants On or Near Airports and 150/5200-34A, Contraction or Establishment of Landfills • near Pub& Airports. Of particular concern are landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract large flocks of birds which pose bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight. A4 AAv'gation Easements: In accordance with Policy SP1, the City of Ontario shall require dedication of an avigation easement as a condition of approval for proposed development that either penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surfaces (see Policy Ala) or is situated within the High Terrain Zone (see Policy A2b) or Airspace Avigation Easement Area (see Policy SP1). Affected Agencies that have the authority over other lands elsewhere within these airspace protection areas ar e encouraged to establish a similar requirement for new development within their jurisdictions. 6.4 Overflight 6.4.1 Policy Ob' cte five- Noise from individual aircraft operations, especially by comparatively,loud aircraft, can be Note: Overflight policies and intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the criteria are informational for .. Ym$ ey Riverside and Los Angeles noise impacts addressed by the policies in 'Section 6.2. Counties Sensitivity to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another. The purpose of overflight compatibility policies is to help notify people about the presence of overflights near airports so that they can make more informed decisions regarding acquisition or lease of property in the • WDntado.Intematlonal Alrpwt Land Use CompaHWlRy-Plan(Apdt 19,;20tj) 2-29 - JC HAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AHD COMPATIBILITY POLAr affectcd areas. Overhight compatibility is Particularly unpartanf_with re-gatd to residential land uses. 6._4.2 Affected Local A Hies: The overflight zones for"ONT affect the Cmes of Chino, Fontana, Montclair,,Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland-and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Portions of the Cities of Clarenseni and Pomona,in Los Angeles County and the unincorporated areas of Riverside-County arealso-witlun the overflight zones. The overflight polices of thiss sec4orP apply only to the jurisdictions and other entities in-$aq Bernardino County. : ° bj4.3 Factors Considered in Establishing Ove 'ght Zonesi (a) State Lawn "State statute`s (Business and-Ptofessioi s Code Sectron 1-1010 and--' Civil Code Secnoris 1102.6,=1193.4, and_1353) define an AIA,as `the area in which current or future airport related noise, _overflight;:-safety or airspace protection factors may significantly affect-land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land:use cornti fission!' (b) hfeasures of Overflight Exposure: Tlie loudness of'individua3 aircraft noise events is a;key determinant'of where airport proximity and aircraft overflight notification is warranted. ,The FAA has detexmined_thit overflight exptisure is not significant where airc€aft-are flying at an altitude of 3;000.feet or more above , ground level. The bgiujdw-of tlie'overflight area for>ONT`. as depicted 4ri 11�ap 2-5, is drawn to encompass locations where aircraft approa4hin— and departing the auport_tygically fly at an altitude of 3,000 feet or less,together with location s underlying airspace,protection and height notification sur€aces 6.4.4 Factors Considered in Setting Overflight Cornpatib Criteria: Factors _ include: " (a} _l imitation of Local Agency;Authority r over Existing Uses. To he most effective, oveitliglit policies should apply`to transactions involving existing land uses, not.just future development. However, local agencies have little authority -to-set-requirements-for existing"development. Vie:uitenf o£ this policy is to define, on an advisory basis,"the boundaries witbin-which-required read-estate transfer disclosure under state-law is appfopriate. Ixiplementrrg the real estate transaction disclosure requirement is e.responsibility of the:property;owner and real estate agent:The local agency is responsible only'for providing a map to a'property.owner or real estate agent that defines the a_reas within which the-real - estate disclosure requirement should be applied (b) Limitations of California steal Estate Transaction Disclosure Law:`: State law applies to existing development,,but not to all transactions.---Specifically _-- California state statutes (Business and Professions Code Segtion 11010 and Civil - Code Sections 1102.6;-1-103.4, and 1353) require that;as part of_many residential Teal estate'transactions; information be disclosed regarding whether the property is-situated within an`AIA. The Business and Professions Code applies .the disclosure-TNuirement to, the sale or lease of newly 'subdivided lairds and condominium conversions and to the sale of certain existing-residential property. ,- 1be Civil Code applies-the disclosure requirement to existing residential Property, transfers only when,certain natural conditions (earthquake, fire,or flood hazards) • warrant disclosure 2-30 -.- LNOnW b/ntematbned AlrportLand Use CompaNkOify Plah(Adopted Apd(tS,20f 11 __ 0�w10A 11 W - PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY.POLICIES - CHAPTER 2:.: (c) Need for "Continuity of Notification to Future Property Owners and • Tenants: To the extent that this Compakbifity Plan sets notification requirements for new development the policy should ensure that the notification runs with the land and is provided to prospective future owners and tenants. These types of notifications are described in Policy Sn Avigation Easements and Policy Ol,' Recorded Overflight Notification. (d) Inappropriateness of Avigation Easement Dedication Solely for Buyer Awareness Purposes: Avigation easements involve conveyance of property rights froth,the property owner to the party owning the easement and are thus best suited to locations where land use restrictions for noise, safety, or airspace protection purposes are necessary. While avigation easements also provide a form of-buyer awareness, property rights conveyance is not needed solely for buyer awareness purposes. 6.4.5 Overflight Notification Zones for ONT: The boundaries of the overflight notification zones around ONT are shown on Map 2-5 and include: (a) Avigation Easement Dedication The boundary identifies the high-risk,noise- impacted,and critical airspace protection areas of ONT. Although not strictly an overflight notification boundary,the Avigation Easement Dedication boundary is established in accordance with Policy SP1 and reflected on the Map 2-5, (b) Recorded Overflight Notification: The boundary identifies the primary overflight area for the airport The policy'boundary matches the CNEL 60 dB noise impact zone depicted on Map 2=3. The Recorded Overflight Notification boundary encompasses the traffic pattern areas where aircraft typically fly at • altitudes of less than 2,500 feet above ground level. (c) Real Estate Transaction Disclosure: The boundary,which reflects the ONT AIA, encompasses areas underlying the common aircraft traffic patterns where aircraft are typically flying at altitudes of 3,000 feet or less.The AIA also includes the areas underlying the height Notification Surface and Airspace Obstruction Surfaces defined for ONT in Map 2-5. The policy boundary follows roads and government boundary lines where practical. 6.4.6 Ovet ig_ht Policies: Unlike the function of the noise,safety, and airspace protection Compatibility policies in this Compatibility Plan,the overflight compatibility policies set forth in this section do not restrict the manner in which land can be developed or used. The policies in this section serve only to establish the language and recommended geographic coverage for notification about airport proximity and aircraft overflights to be given in conjunction with local agency approval of new development and with certain real estate transactions involving existing development. OVERFLIGHT POLICIES Ol Recorded Overflight Notification: The City of Ontario shall require the recording of an overflight notification running with the land as a condition for approval of new residential development that falls within CNEL 60 dB noise contour, as depicted in Map 2-5. Affected Agencies having authority over other lands elsewhere within this • UVontario Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility.Plan(April:18;2011) 2-31 CHAPTER 2- PROCEDURAL ANO COMPATtEMr-re PO.LICfES • noise contour are encouraged to establish a similar requirement. Other conditions include: Ola Notification Language: The overflight notification should contain language dictated by state law with regard to real estate transaction disclosure (see Policy 02a) and should be formatted similar to the example shown in Appendix E. Olb Property Deed Recording: The overflight notification should be evident to future purchasers of the property by appearing on the property deed. Olc Avigation Easement Exception: A separate recorded overflight notification is not required where an avigation easement is provided in accordance with Policy SPl. Old Nonresidential Exception: Recording of an overflight notification is not required for nonresidential development unless the project is a mixed use development containing residential uses on the same property. 02 Real Estate Transaction Disclosure: Airport proximity disclosure information should be provided in accordance with state law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353. See Section 6.4.4 (b) and Appendix A for information on these laws. 02a Disclosure Language: State Law provides the following disclosure language: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances,if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. 02b Airport Influence Area: Consistent with state law, as the entity authorized to prepare the Compatibility Pion for ONT,the City of Ontario in coordination with other affected jurisdictions deems airport proximity disclosure to be appropriate within the AIA identified on Maps 2-1 through 2-5. The AIA boundary is identical on each map. 02c Responsibility of Local Jurisdictions: Local jurisdictions should make available to property owners and the public a copy of Map 2-5: Overflight Zones depicting the AIA boundary in which the airport proximity disclosure is required 6.5 Special Compatibility 6 5.7 Stkdal Com adbili Pohctes. These pohcies are mteiided to address unique lan d _ - OSe Concerns. - - - 2-32 EQ[bntaifo IritameBonel Airpor!•Land Use CompeNbttlty-Plan(Adopted Apn(18,2611) '-- - O _.v..x•:�ns PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 SPECIAL COMPATIBILITY POLICIES • SPl Avigation Easement Dedication: An avigation easement should be dedicated to the owner/operator of ONT for new development as specified in Policies SPla and SP1b. An example of an avigation easement is provided in Appendix E. SPla Avigation Easement Dedication Requirements: Within portions of the ALA inside the City of Ontario, avigation easement dedication shall be required for new development requiring discretionary as described below. Affected Agencies having authority over comparable affected portions of the AIA are encouraged to establish similar requirements. However, an avigation easement dedication is not considered necessary for ministerial actions as defined by each jurisdiction. Map 2-5, depicts the locations where an avigation easement dedication would be appropriate. ti• Safety Zones. All new development within Safety Zones 1 through 5 as depicted on Map 2-2. (Safety zones contained solely within the City of Ontario) • None Impact Zones. Development of new noise-sensitive land uses within the CNEL 65 dB noise contour depicted on Map 2-3. Noise sensitive land uses include residential, schools(public and private), places of worship, hospitals and convalescent homes. (The projected CNEL 65 dB noise contour extends into portions of the Ontario, Fontana and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino County.) • Airspace Protection Zones: All new development in locations beneath the • critical portions of the approach and transitional surfaces to where these surfaces intersect with the horizontal surface. (Located solely within the City of Ontario, see Airspace Avigation Easement Area on Map 24.) • High Terrain Zone: All new development within the High Terrain Zone as depicted in Map 2-5. (Applies to portions of the City of Ontario, Upland and Rancho Cucamonga. SPlb Avigation Easement Purpose: The avigation easement should do the following: •F Right of Flight- Provide the right of flight in the airspace above the property. • Noise Impacts.• Allow the generation of noise and other impacts associated with aircraft overflight. • Physical Hatiards: Restrict the height of structures,trees and other objects in accordance with the policies in Section 6.3 and the airspace protection surfaces depicted on Map 2-4. • Obstruction Marking: Permit access to the property with appropriate advance notice, for the removal or aeronautical marking of objects exceeding the established height limit. • Other Airspace Hazards: Prohibit electrical interference, glare, and other potential hazards to flight from being created on the property. • LAIOntarlo Intematlonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(April 19,2011) 2-33 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES O.W,.#-- • SP2 Development by Right: Other than in Safety Zones 1 and 5 and within the projected CNEL 70 dB contour of the airport,nothing in these policies prohibits the types of development specified in Policies SP2c, SP2b,and SP2c. SP2a Residential Uses: Construction of a single-family detached home,including a second unit as defined by state law, on a legal lot of record as of the date of adoption of this Comparibiht i Plan is acceptable if such use is permitted by local land use regulations. SP2b Existing Uses: Construction of other types of uses is permitted if local agency approvals qualify the development as an existing land use (see Section 1.3.2 for definition of an existing land use). In accordance with Policies N4, sound attenuation should be required. SP2c Lot Line Adjustments: Lot line adjustments are permitted provided that new developable parcels would not be created and the resulting density or intensity of the affected property would not exceed the applicable criteria indicated in the Table 2-2: Safety Criteria and Table 2-3:Noise Criteria. SP3 Infilh Within the AIA, infill development of nonconforming land uses should be allowed to occur provided that the following conditions and restrictions are met: SP3a Safety Zone 1 Restriction: No type of infill development should be permitted in Safety Zone 1 (the runway protection zones and within the runway primary surface). • SP3b Safety Zones 1, 2 and 5 Residential Restriction: Residential infill development should not be permitted within Safety Zones 1, 2, and 5. See Policy S1 for exceptions. SP3c Safety Zone 3 and 4 Density Residential Restriction: For infill residential development in Safety Zones 3 and 4, the average development density (dwelling units per acre) of the site should not exceed the median density represented by all existing residential lots that he fully or partially within a distance of 1,000 feet from the boundary of the defined infill area. SP3d Nonresidential Development: For nonresidential infill development,the average sitewide usage intensity (the number of people per acre) of the site's proposed use should not exceed the lesser of the two intensity results (See Exhibit 2G for example) : • Option 1: The median intensity of all existing nonresidential uses that he fully or partially within a distance of 1,000 feet from the boundary of the defined infill area;or • Option 2: Double the intensity permitted in accordance with the criteria for that location as indicated in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria. SP3e Residential Noise Restriction: Residential infill development should not be allowed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels equal to or greater than CNEL 70 dB. SP3f Other Applicable Policies for InSll Development: The single-acre • intensity limits described in Policy S2 and listed in Table 2-2: Safety Criteria are applicable to infill development.Also,the sound attenuation and 2-34 LA/Ontano intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - PROCEDURAL AND COMPATi BI CITY POLICIES CHAPTER'i avigation easement dedication • requirements set by Policies N4 Exhibit 2G and SPl, respectively, should Nonresidential Infill Calculation Examples apply to infill development. Example 1: - Option 1:Median intensity of existing - _ nonresidential uses=150 people per acre _ SP4 Nonconforming Uses: The policies Option 2:Double the intensity permitted within this Compatibility Plan do not in zone 3=100 x 2=200 people per acre apply to existing land uses even if those "Theintensity limit for the proposed - -_ uses are not in conformance with the development is 150 people per acre(the compatibility criteria set forth in this lesser of the two results) Compatibility Plan. Local jurisdictions Example 2: have limited ability to cause reduction or removal of incompatible land uses from Option 1:Median intensity of existing nonresidential uses=225 people per acre the AIA. However,proposed changes to existing uses that would change or result Option 2:Double the intensity permitted in increased nonconformity with the n Zone 3=100 x 2=200 people per acre compatibility criteria are subject to the "The intensity limit for the proposed -provisions of this chapter and the development is 200 people per acre(the _ P P lesser of the two results) _ requirements of the Alterative Process set forth in Section 2 of this Compatbility Plan. Specifically, proposed changes to existing nonconforming uses (including a parcel or building) are limited as follows: SP4a Residential uses: A nonconforming residential land use may be continued, • sold,leased,or rented without restriction or review. SP4b Nonconforming Single-family: A nonconforming single-family dwelling may be maintained,remodeled,reconstructed (see Policy SPSa) or expanded in size. The lot line of an existing single-family residential parcel may be adjusted. Also, a new single-family residence may be constructed on an existing lot in accordance with Policy SP2. The above noted property improvements may occur if improvements do not increase the number of units and lot line adjustments do not result in allowing for additional dwelling units. Examples include: + Any remodeling, reconstruction, or expansion must not increase the number of dwelling units. For example,a bedroom could be added to an existing residence, but an additional dwelling unit could not be built on the parcel unless that unit is a secondary dwelling unit as defined by state and local laws. + A single-family residential parcel may not be divided for the purpose of allowing additional dwellings to be constructed. SP4c Nonconforming Multi-family (> 8 du/ac): Nonconforming muld-family residential dwelling units may be maintained, remodeled, or reconstructed (see Policy SP5a). The size of individual dwelling units may be increased, but additional dwelling units may not be added. The sound attenuation and avigation easement dedication requirements set by Policies N4 and SPI, respectively,apply. • (April 1 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use gompaBbility Plan 9;.20-1,1)- -,:. :}. -` ' 2-35 - z CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES nrv1 • SP4d Nonresidential uses: A nonconforming, nonresidential use may be continued, sold, leased, or rented without restriction or review. Nonconforming, nonresidential facilities may be maintained, altered, or, if required by state law, reconstructed (see Policy SP5). However, any such work: • Should not result in expansion of either the portion of the site devoted to the nonconforming use or the floor area of the buildings;and • Should not result in an increase in the usage intensity (the number of people per acre) above the levels existing at the time of approval of this Compatibility Plan by California Division of Aeronautics. SP4e Schools: Children's schools (including grades K-12, day care centers with more than 14 children, and school libraries) may be continued,reconstructed (see Policy SP5),expanded with the following restrictions per State Law: • Land acquisition for new schools or expansion of existing schools is not permitted within the CNEL 65 dB contour as depicted in Map 2-3.Land acquisition for new schools or expansion of existing schools is not permitted in any safety zone (see Map 2-4). • Replacement or expansion of buildings at existing schools is also not allowed in any safety zone, except that in Safety Zone 4 an expansion that accommodates no more than 50 students is allowed. This limitation does not preclude work required for normal maintenance or repair. • SP4f Other Applicable Policies for Nonconforming Development: As a condition of local agency approval, a proposed modification of an existing nonconforming development is subject to the sound attenuation and avigation easement dedication requirements set by Policies N4 and SPI, respectively. SP5 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Uses: An existing nonconforming building, structure, or use that has been partially or completely destroyed as the result of a fire, flood or natural disaster may be rebuilt under the conditions listed in Policies SP5a through SPSc so long as it does not violate local ordinances. The requirements listed in this policy do not restrict normal maintenance and repairs as defined by the local jurisdiction. SP5a Residential: Nonconforming residential uses may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not result in more dwelling units than existed on the parcel at the time of the damage. Addition of a secondary dwelling unit to a single-family residence is permitted if in accordance with state law and local zoning regulations. SP5b Nonresidential: A nonconforming nonresidential development may be rebuilt provided that the reconstruction does not increase the floor area of the previous structure or result in an increased intensity of use (i.e., more people per acre). SP5c Reconstruction Requirements: The reconstruction of nonconforming uses listed in Policies SP5a and SP5b should comply with the following • requirements: 2-36 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) OSVpatw PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 3� E + A permit to rebuild the structure should be obtained by the local agency • within twenty-four(24)months of the date the damage occurred. + New structures should incorporate sound attenuation features consistent with Policy N4 and California Noise Standards. + The property should be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) as the airport proprietor, if required under Policy SPI + The new structure should comply with FAR Part 77, TERPS, and -72 applicable airport obstruction clearance standards published by the FAA. F' LA/Ontario Intemational Airport Land Use Compet&W Non(April 19,'.2011) _ - 2-37 CHAPTER Z" PROCEDURAL-ARD COMPATIHtLITY Pfl LLCIES T bir page unr ieft rntentronai#y blank - 2-38 ' iA/Ontar oantemational Airport land Use Compatibility Plan(AAopted ApdHB 26f1) ONTOPROCEDURAL-AND COMPATIBILLTY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Major Table 2-1 • Use Actions subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process 'The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process:'! if located anywhere within the Airport Influence Area (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): + Expansion or creation of the sphere of Influence of a city or_:district{e.gi,annexation or meorporatron). - a, -General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning Amendments, - +_ Major capital improvements(e.g.,water,sewer,roads)that would promote urban development in undeveloped"or "agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not reflected in a previously reviewed general plan or speck plan. - _ i Any proposal for acquisition of a new site or expansion of,an existing site by a special district,school district;or community,college district' + Any proposal for construction or aftefir ion of A structure(including antennae)taller than 200 feetabove the ground. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the-ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within a safety zone (Applies solely to the City of Ontario); Any-proposed land use wdhin-Safety Zone I that Is not an aviation-related use. - + Public agency acquisition of sites'intended for;institutional"uses including hospitals,-schools,jails or prisons. _ - ' + Any discretionary development proposal for projeds'having a building floor areaof 20,000 square feet or greater _- - -<--`unless only-ministerial a roval e.g., a building permd)'`s required. - - _ is Proposed development of airport property if such development is not an aviation-related use or has not previously -been Included in an_airport plan or community general plan reviewed under the Alternative Process. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only If they are located within a noise impact zone of 65+dB CNEL(Applies to the City of Ontario, City,of .Fontana and unincorporated areas of San,Bemardino County): 3 Residential development,including land divisions,consisting of five or more dwelling units or individual parcels. _ ".d Any nonresidential use having outdoor dining or.gathering-functions. -< + Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses Including-hospitals.schools,jails or prisons: The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within an airspace.protection zone (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): + .Any proposed object(including buildings,antennas,and other structures)having aheight that requires review by the _ Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77,Subpart B. Any proposed object(including buildings,antennas,and other structures)that would penetrate the allowable height as '.i defined by Map 2-4 or conflict with the Airspace Protection policies. : -+ project having the potential to;creatii electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight,including: _= .- Electrical interference with'.radio communications or navgational signals.. - - ? '. Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting..:_ . Glare in the eyes of pilots-of aircraft using the"airport: - `.` Impaired visibility near the airport "- _- T- Any project(e.g. water treatment facilities'waste transfer or disposal facilftws,parka with open water areas), plan _ (e.g.,Habitat Conservation Plan)or proposal to acquire sites intended for lakes,ponds,wetlands,or sewer treatment - -. ponds which would have the potential to cause an increase in the attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be, hazardous to aircraft operations in the vicinity of an airport: x WOntand Intemaaonal Airport Land Use ComPeBWM1y Plan fAdopted April 19,2611) _ - 2739 CHAPTER,2, PROOCEOURAL kHD CffMPATIBfL1TY PpUCIf$ This page was left intentionally blank �. - z-=40` ta�rrorralo��remaao�a�.vr�wttakduse cor�aaebriny wen(gdoaredAantts;�o�al_`.; OW PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Table Safety Criteria • Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg.2-46 of this table) Conditional Land Use(FAR) •A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions. • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feel per person] indicated for that use The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity(number of people per acre)of the proposed development(see Policy 152c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations,but not the average sitewide intensity limits. Land Use Cateoory I Safety Zone Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and Note: The numbers below indicate zone m which compatibility diteria may apply to a project condition applies. Max Sitewide Average Intensity(peoplelacre)720 60 100 160 160 . Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms of intensity limits. Max Single-Acre Intensity(peoplelacre) 120 260 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally applicable to all nonresidential development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Outdoor Uses(limited or no activities in butidin Natural Land Areas: desert, brush lands 1: Objects above runway elevation not allowed in Object Free Area (OFA) - Water:flood plains,wetlands, lakes, - 1-5:Objects above runway elevation not reservoirs 3 allowed in Object Free Area(OFA) Agriculture(except residences and 1-5; Not allowed in Object Free Area(OFA) • livestock):crops,orchards,vineyards, pasture, range land 3 Livestock Uses: feed lots, stockyards, breeding,fish hatcheries,horse stables 3 Outdoor Major Assembly Fadlities: spectator-oriented outdoor stadiums, amphitheaters, fairgrounds,zoos Group Recreation(limited spect ator stands): 3,4:Allowed only if alternative site outside athletic fields,water recreation facilities, zone would not serve intended function picnic areas - Small/Non-Group Recreation:golf courses, 2-4:Allowed only if alternative site outside tennis courts, shooting ranges 3 zone would not serve intended function and intensi criteria met Local Parks: children-oriented neighborhood 3-5:Allowed only'rf altemative a outside parks, playgrounds zone would not serve intended function and intensity criteria met Camping: campgrounds, recreational 3,4:Allowed only if intensity criteria met vehicle/motor home parks Cemeteries(except chapels) Residential and Lodging Residential (<8 d.u./acre): individual dwellings,townhouses, mobile homes, bed &breakfast inns e Residential(2:8 d.u./acre) Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights):extended- stay hotels,dormitories • LA10ntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-41 CHAPTER 2', PROCED11RA4 AND COMPATIBiLIrY POLICIES Table 2-2 Safety Criteria • Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2-46 of this table) Conditional - - Land Use(FAR) - _ •A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other - listed conditions. _ • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use The FAR limit is based on the common _ - - occupancy load factor [approx number of square feet per person] indicated for that use The FAR and/or the common - - - occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity(number of people per acre)of the proposed development(see -- Policy S2c). Up to 10%of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations,but not the average sitewide intensity limits. - - Land Use Cateslorv' Criteria for Conditional Uses Note. Multiple land use categories and Note: The numbers below indicate zone m which _ compatibility crilena may apply to a project condition applies. -_- - Max Shewide Average Intensity(peoplelacre) 10 60 100 160 160 • Nonresidential development must satisfy both fortes of intensity limits. _ - - _ _ Max Single-Acre Intensity(people/acre) 20 120 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally - -- applicable to all nonresidential development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Short Term Lodging.(s 3Q nights): hotels, 3. 4. FAR limits as indicated motels,other transient lodging(except 0.46 0.74 cor ference/assembly facilities) - - -- _ -'-[approx.200 s.f./person] Congregate Care retirement homes, assisted Irving nursing homes, Intermediate care facilities and Institutional Uses Famil day care homes(<14 children) - _ . -Children's Schools:K-12,daycare centers 4: No new sites or land acquisition;Bid - - _ (,w14 children);school libraries- - - replacementfexoansion.allowed for existing schools;.expansion limited to 550"students_ _ -Adult-Education classroom space: adult 3,4: FAR limits as indicated;also-sea - schools,colleges, universities individual components of campus facilities [approx.40 s.f./person] 0.08 0.15 (e.g., assembly facilities,offices, _ - gymnasiums) Corrf_munity Libraries ' - -- - 3,4. FAR-limits as indicated- - - approx. 100 s.f./person 0.23 0.37 _ - Major lndoorAssembly Facilities 4: 'auditoriums,conference centers,concert halls,arenas__ Large indoor Assembly Facilities.':movie 3,4:FAR limits as indicated _ theaters,places of worships cemetery 0.06 - chapels,mortuaries _- [approx. 15s.f./person] - Indoor Recreation:.gymnasiums, club 3,4:FAR limits as indicated - hpuaes,athletic dubs,dance studios 0.14 0.22 - - [approx. 60 s.f./person] In-Patient Medical:hospitals;mental 3,4: No new sites or'land acquisitiori; . --_ hflspifals replacemeriUexpension-_ofaxisting,faotities - - - limited to existing size=_ 2-42 - 'LAM ter-O iotematfonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan::(A pop ted.RpYJd ONI'1R]10- PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Table Safety Criteria • Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2A6 of this table) Conditional Land Use(FAR) •A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions. • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor (approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity(number of people per acre)of the proposed development(see Policy S2c). Up to 10%of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations,but not the average sitewide intensity limns. Land Use Catego Safety Zone Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and �-ndtioneapphes e:Th numbers below indicate zone in which compatibility udeda may apply to a project . Max Sitewide Average Intensity(peopletacre) 10 60 100 7.7 • Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms of intensity limitsMax Single-Acre Intensity(peoplelacre) 20 120 250 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally applicable to allfwnresidentia/development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Out-Patient Medical: health care centers, 3. 4 FAR limits as indicated clinics 0.55 0.88 approx.240 s.f./person Penal Institutions: prisons, reformatories Public Safety Facilities: police, fire stations 40.40dHnking 5:Allowed only If alternative site outside • ne would not serve intended public ction Allowed only if airport serving Major Retail: regional shopping centers, f as indicated;evaluate eating/ 'big box' retail 0.25 eparately if>10%of total [approx. 110 s.f./person] Local Retail:community/neighborhood 3,4:FAR limits as indicated;evaluate eating/ shopping centers,grocery stores 0.39 0.52 drinking areas separately if>10%of total [approx. 170 s.f./person] floor area Eating/Drinking Establishments: 3-5:FAR limits as indicated restaurants, fast-food dining, bars 0.14 0.22 0.22 [approx.60 s.f./person Limited Retail/Wholesale:furniture, - 2, 3: FAR limits as indicated;design site to automobiles, heavy equipment,lumber 0.34 0.57 place parking inside and bldgs outside of yards, nurseries zone if possible (approx.250 s.f./person] Offices: professional services,doctors, 2-5: FAR limits as indicated finance, civic; radio,television& recording studios, office space - 0.30 0.49 associated with other listed uses [approx.215 s.f./person] Personal&Miscellaneous Services: 2-5: FAR limits as indicated barbers, car washes, print shops 0.28 0.46 0.74 0.74 [approx.200 s.f./person] Vehicle Fueling: gas stations,trucking& 5:Allowed only if airport serving transportation terminals _ • LNOntano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) 2-43 •CRAPTE R.2 PRO.EEDU RAL A`NC COMPXrIafIFYY POLICIES Table 2-2 Safety Criteria t; Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2-46 of this table) __- Conditional -- Land Use (FAR) •A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions. - • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use. The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor (approx number of square feet per person] indicated for that use. The FAR and/or the common _ occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity(number of people per acre)of the proposed development(see Policy S2c). Up to 10%of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre --_ intensity calculations,but not the average sitewide intensity limits. - Land Use Category' Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and Note:The numbers below indicate zone in which - -- compatibility criteria may apply to a project condition applies - Max Snewide Average Intensity(peopletacre) 10 60 100 160 160 . Nonresidential development must satisfy both fortes of intensity limits. - Max Single-Acre Intensity(people/acre) 20 120 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity miens apply to Normally - applicable to all nonresidential development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Industrial,Manufacturing,and Storage _ Hazardous_Materials Production oil - - refineries,cherlical--plants=(>.6.000 __ - - Heavyandustrial ' 3,4:Avoid bulk storage of hazaWOLIS •i _ - (flammable,_explosive,corrosive,or toxic) - materials;permitting agencies to evaluate possible need for special.measures-to - - - mmlmize hazardsifstruck by aircraft --_- Light�lndustrial,High Intensity:food;_- 2-4 FAR limb as indicated,avoid bulk - _ products preparation,electronic- storage of-Hazardous(flammable,:explosfve, -eSpfpmeM - "-- -- -" - corrosive, or toxic)materials,permitting _ - [approx.200 s.f./person] 0.28 0.46 0.74 agencies to evaluate possible need+for r - special measurestd`itni i2e t182afds rf - struck by aircraft - Light.industrial,.Low Intensity .machine 2-4.-FAR limit as.indicated - _ shops,wood-products,auto repair 5:Single story onlg;.rtie>d. 10°h,iii mezzanine [approx.350 s.f./person] 2-5:Avoid bulk storage of hazardous 0.48 0.80 1.29 (flammable:explosive;corrosive;;or toxic) materials;permitting agencies to evaluate possible:need for special measureedo minimize hazards if struck b aircraft kesea-rch 8 Development 3,4. FAR limits as indicated;avoid bulk - [approx. 300s.f/petson] storage_of hazardous-(tlammable,_ezplosrve, -- 0.89 1.10 corrosive,or toxic)materials; permitting agencies to-evaluate-possible need for - - _ - - special measures to minimize hazard5if` - - struckbyaircraft - IndoorStorage-wholesalesales,- - Q.'$i le_story onlymisx10%Jtztnezzanine - - warehouses,mini/other indoor stprege, _ _ - bams,greenhouses [approx. 1,000 s.f./person] Outdoor Storage:,public works_ S,_ - automoWle d6mantfin v(NQntrk Mtenffilona/A6liar Cend m Compafilift Flan(Adopted ApdC 19,.201 . Y ONTARIO— PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 r Table 2-2 Safety Criteria Rr..VIO • Legend: Land Use Compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg. 2-46 of this table) Conditional Land Use(FAR) •A yellow cell indicates a use that is conditionally compatible provided it satisfies the maximum intensity limits and/or other listed conditions. • Numbers in yellow cells indicate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for the use The FAR limit is based on the common occupancy load factor [approx. number of square feet per person] indicated for that use The FAR and/or the common occupancy load factors can be used to calculate the intensity(number of people per acre)of the proposed development(see Policy S2c). Up to 10% of the total FAR of a building may be devoted to an ancillary use and excluded from the single-acre intensity calculations, but not the average sitewide intensity limits. Land Use Cateno Safety Zone Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and Note: The numbers below indicate zone in which compatibility criteria may apply to a project condition applies. Max Sitevride Average Intensity(people/acre) 10 60 100 180 180 • Nonresidential development must satisfy both forms of intensity limits. Max Single-Acre Intensity(peoplelacre) 20 120 250 400 400 • Maximum intensity criteria apply to Normally applicable toall nonresidential development Compatible as well as Conditional land uses Mining& Extraction s Transportation,Communication,and Airport Terminals: airline, general aviation - Rail 8 Bus Stations 2:Allowed only if alternative site outside zone • would not serve intended public function 5:Allowed only if airport serving Transportation Routes: road& rail rights- 1: Not allowed in Object Free Area of-way, bus stops Auto Parking: surface lots,structures 1: Not allowed in Object Free Area - Communications Facilities:emergency 3-5:Allowed only if alternative site outside communications, broadcast&cell towers zone would not serve intended public function;not allowed within 1/2 mile of runway Power Plants 7 3,4: Primary plants not allowed; peaker plants only Electrical Substations 7 2,-5:Allowed only if alternative site outside zone would not serve intended public function Wastewater Facilities:treatment,disposal a 2, 5:Allowed only if attemative site outside zone would not serve intended public function Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill, 2:Allowed only if attemative site outside zone incineration 3 would not serve intended public function Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle Centers 3 • LA/Ontario Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) 2-45 Z. CNAPTEKi, PRDCE DURAL AUD COMPATIBILITY POLICIES • Normal examples of the use are compatible under the presumption:that usage intensity criteria:will be met Atypical examples may require review to ensure compliance with_usage intensity criteri a -Noise --- - = airspace`protection,and/or overflight limitations may apply. _ Use is compatible if indlbated'FJ_,gor Area Ratio(FAR)and/or other listed condRions are met. °-- Conditlonal Use should not be permitted under any circum stances. - - - - Notes = --- '= l, -- - _ - , Land uses not specificallyiisted shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar uses. - - _- _ ?" Safety zones for ONT_lie entirely i Within the limits of the city of ontaria Avigation,easement dedication required as _ - --= condition of approval for all properties within safety zones.-= Although=these uses may satisfy the Safety criteria they may be inconsistent with the Airspace Protection criteria as = - - these uses may,attract birds or-other wildlife that could.pose hazards to flight(see Policy A3): - 'A Major.Assemb/y Facility is defined as having:a capacity of>1,000 people,while a_larga Assembly Facility-hat a - - - capacity,of 300=to 999.people Source Intemati0nal Building Code. - - s Construction of asingle-family home, including:a'second dwelling unit as defined by state law, allowed ona regal lot _ of record if such use:is permitted by local land use regulations.A familyday carehome(serving_�14 children)may - - be`estaelished n any dwelling 'See PolicySl. - - _ These uses may generate dust or other hazards to flight.- ight -.See Policy A3 for applicable polices.-- - �- Power lines.or othertall objects'associated with these uses maybe hazards to flight - - _- = Common occupancy load factors source:-Mead&:Hunt, Inc. based upon infennatlon front various sources including the iMemational building code. 2-46.: _ LA✓Ontario lnfemationaYAfryon Land,l)se Compatibility flan.(AdopledAprih19,;611) ' - O�' '>�16 - PROCEDURAL-AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 - Noise Table 2-3 • Legend: Land use compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg 2-50 of this table.) -- Conditional Land Use(45/50) • Cells that are conditionally compatible that have a number, indicate the interior noise level standard condition for use consistency. Land Use Category' Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and compatibility Note Interior noise level limits shown to yel criteria may apply to a project 60 60- 65- 70- Z 75 low cells also apply(See Policy N4) 65 70 75 Outdoor Uses(Ilmked or no activities in buildings) :Natural Land Areas:desert,brush lands Compatible at levels indicated, but noise disruption of natural quiet will occur " Water.flood plains,wetlands,lakes, reser- voirs Agriculture(except residences and lives- - took):crops,orchards,vineyards,pasture, - - range and _ 'Livestock Uses: feed lots,stockyards. - Exercise caution with uses involving - " breeding,fish hatcheries, horse stables noise-sensitive animals - ,Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities:specta- Exercise caution If Gear audibility by tor-oriented outdoor stadiums, amphithea- ters,fairgrounds,zoos 3 -Group Recreation(limited spectator stands): Exercise caution if Gear audibility by -_athletic fields,water recreation facilities, ; users is essential _ picnic areas - _ Small/Non-Group Recreation:golf courses, Exercise caution if clear audibility by _ tennis courts, shooting ranges - users is essential -- - Local Parks: children-oriented neighborhood Exercise caution if clear audibility by parks, playgrounds users is essential Camping: campgrounds, recreational ve hicle/motor home parks -Cemeteries(excluding chapels) _ Compatible at levels indicated,but noise - - - disruption of outdoor activities will occur Residential and Lodging Uses Residential(<8 d.u./acre):individual dwel- lings,townhouses, mobile homes,bed 6 45 breakfast inns° - - -.Residential(2:8 d.u./acre):.-, 45 46 Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights):extended- 45 stay hotels,dormitories - Short-Term Lodging(5 30 nights):hotels,- _ - motels,other transient lodging(except,. 15 45 - -conference/assembly facilities) LA Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Aprfl 19 2011) _ ' - 2-47 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBi LITY POLICIES - - OM Table 2-3 Noise Criteria • Legend: Land use compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg.2-50 of this table.) _ Conditional - Land Use(45150) - • Cells that are conditionally compatible that have a number, indicate the interior noise level standard condition for use _ consistency. Land Use Category Noise Impact Zones Criteria for Conditional Uses - -- Exterior Noise Exposure (CNEL del Note' Multiple land use categories and compatibility Note:Interior noise level limits shown m yel octane may apply to a project 560 6o- 65- 70- 2 76 low cells also apply(See Policy N4) 65 70 76 Congregate Care: retirement homes, as- 'sisted living;.nursing homes,intermediate - - -care facilities- 45 45 - Educational and Institutional Uses ]ee-Farndy day care (514 dren) 45 Children's.Schools: K-12,da care centers 45 (>I4children);_schoollibra - - - - -- - _ -Aduft Education-Gassroom.s : adult` Applies only to classrooms;offices la- - - - schools,colleges,universit boratory facilities,gymnasiums,outdoor - - - 45 45 athletic facilities,and other uses to be evaluated as indicated for those land use categories Community Libraries 45 -Indoor Major Assembly Fadl :auditor _riums, conference centers, ert halls, 45 45 indoor are nas 3 Indoor Large-Assembly Faci :movie theaters,-places of worshipetery cha- 45 45 3 Is:mortuaries -pa ,Indoor Recreation:gymnasiuclub-hous- - bo es,athletic Clubs,dance stIn-Patent Medical. hospitals; ntal hosplt 45 als -Outpatient Medica-t health-ccenters; 46 45 45 clinics Penal Institutions prisons, reatones - 46 45 Public Safety Facilities: polic stations' 5o 50 - Commercial Office and Service Uses Major Retail:'re ional-shg in centers, 'big Outdoor dining gathering laces In- _ - 1 - 9 PP. 9 50 9 9 9 P _ --box'retail - compatible above CNEL 70 tlB --`- LgcalRetail community/neighborhood' Outdoor dining or gatheringplacesm- - 50 sfioppm centers;grocery stores compatible above CNEL 70 dH in- Eating/Drinking Establishments',restaurOutdoor dining or gathering places in- - fast-food-dining, bars 50 compatible above CNEL 70 dB Limited RetaiVWholesale:-fumRure,autobites, heavy equipment,lumberyards, series • 2-4$- IA/Ontarlo Intemaflonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) -o mYS+xa - - PROCEDURAL.AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Table 2-3 Noise Criteria • Legend: Land use compatibility (A detailed explanation of each land use acceptability category is provided on pg.2-50 of this table.) _ Conditional Land Use 145/50) • Cells that are conditionally compatible that have a number, indicate the interior noise level standard condition for use - consistency. Land Use Category Criteria for Conditional Uses Note: Multiple land use categories and compatibility Note:Interior noise level limits shown in yel- criteria may apply to a project 60 60- 65- ;5� low cells also apply(See Policy N4) 65 70 Offices. professional services,doctors, finance,civic; radio,television&recording. 60 studios; officespace associated with other - _ - - -'listed uses - Personal&Miscellaneous Services: bar- 50 5o - bers,car washes, print shops - Vehicle Fueling:gas stations,trucking& 50 1 50 transportation terminals - Industrial, Manufacturing,and Storage Uses Hazardous Materials Produ!ware- houses, ilrefine- -refine- des, chemical plants(16, ons) Heavy Industrial • Light Industrial, High Intens products 50 50 .preparation,electronic eqt Light Industrial,Low Intenschine s0 50 - shops,wood products,auir Research&Developments 60 60 -. Indoor Storage:wholesale. are- - -houses,mini/other indoor ,barns;greenhouses Outdoor Storage:public wos,auto- - mobile dismantling - - - -Mining&Extractiod. Transportation,Communication,and Utilities - Rail&.Bus Stations - 50 50 'Transportation Routes road&rail rights-.of- - way, bus stops Auto Parking:surface lots,structures - Communications Facilities:emergency broadcast&cell towers - - - Power Plants - Electrical Substations: - - Wastewater Facilities:treatment,disposal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities:landfill, ind- - - - - neretion -Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle - - - Centers • LA/Ontarlo International Airport Land Use Compatibility,Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - - - 2-49 _ CHAPTER I PR OCEOURAL ANO COMPAjiBI hiTV P-0IICIES IndooYli{es:'Either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or stands con- - struction methods-will sufficientlyatteiauste exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise° - - equivalent level(CNEU):for land use types that are-compatible-because of inherent noise_levels, ° - sound attenuation must be provided for associated office, retail,and other-noise-sensitive indoor spaces sufficientto-reduce exterior noise to an interior maximum of CNEL 50 dB= Outdoor"Use`s: Exoept as use the table;;activities associated With the land use may be carried out with-minimal interference frorraircraftnoise,' - -- " - Indoor:Uses, BuildingstructuWmust be capable of attenuating extedornoise from all noise sourcesto the indoor CNEL indicated by the number in the cell(either 45 or 5%- Condltlonal Outdoor Uses• Caution shouldbe exercised with regard to noise-sensitiveLutdoor uses,these uses are likely,to be.Oisrupted by aircraft noise events;acce ptability is-dependent upon characte istits of the specific use - - Indoor Uses: Unacceptable noise interference if windows are open;at exposures above CNELB5 dB.,, extensive mitigation techniques required,to make the indoor environment acceptable for performance - ofactivtiesassociatedwith_the.landuse - - - - - Outdoor Uses: Severe noise interference makes the outdoor environment unacceptable for perfor- - mance of activities associated'with the.land use Notes Land uses-not specifically listed shall be evalustedusing the criteria for similer uses. z_ For the purposes ofthese criteria;the exterior noise exposure generated by aircraftactivity&A_ON_T is defined_bythe - ---projacted noise impact zones illustrated on Map 2-3 of this Compatibility Plan. -A Major Assembly Facility is defined as having a capacity of>t,ll00 people,while a;Large Assembly l=acifify has a _ capacity of.300 to 999 people.Source. International Building:Code. - In accordance-with Policies St,N2;;and SP2,construction of a single-famify,home,including asecond dwelling unit - - as defined by state law;is allowed on a Iegahlot-of record if such use is permitted by local land use regulations A 'familydaycare home(serving 514-children)maybe established in-any-dwelling -_ - - s-:Noise-sensttive land uses are ones for which the associated primary activities,whether indoor or outdoor,are sus- _ _ --:_cepfibletedsruptionbyloudnoise events:. Themostcommontypes'ofnoise-sensitive landuseslndude;but are not - limited to,the following.:Iresidential,;hospitals,nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities,-educational facilities,li- ._braries,=rnus_eums;places of worship,child-care:faciliti es;.-and certain types of passive recreational parks and open ---space - -.- - - - - -= "77 77 2-59 LAI- rinmremarwrialAr�arf, rrr� sacomPeaWUryPIanfndoprednp hfs,2oftia l.• s v i ii {{uy v 'n rT.r I T ✓' �r ° led 16 -; n•r:r I u��..��♦r .rsy F r�2nuilu�I�ili�° EZI��_un'aa %� Kwira II,,.aww°{{u11m n�fl No fI�V firs E6� IiQi1L�I�■■1► r�ti� rau€ml 4■gn l r nlnl■fn! 114 ! ......... I�womil�fl ' ANIAMEW� MM I l7�■�31E LLl1 �"fA.c ■ • I r•. i ilnllR Li-* Li'�rPl.n +S.No f��®�� v■Ir Io1�r�rL, a ■ oee.. I�t L�Ifr It2111 1 Vr,pion I �s••c ®r •■' IMF ■t ■Ice �!®�_` v� IT s 1 II L 1 IMr ���A S' r M .vu ct ■ INI�0,4= N■���� a `F' �.. Illu ffN■ f■!i!��f■ IuFS - }� " r M 1 I�,.II■■■uY wa w■e s w� .■ 1M 1 d Nm Lr/�r. irt�l�u•n rail EI TIP I_�r.l 1 Im1111 '�f■�■�■■ �a /t I elp rJ 1 - �. r illl:l; `ov •n _,r r.•. r�f'� F i e ii s�J�la � r 1 I ji. ■w ■tllr �y s■ r�y CI"ll y aFr �rn�•r� T 1„- I 1 �rNJN,,I�`�.'•��4c�,W �,�,4, tt (rim � �� - I.N I � ,III ii a � i I I� ■ ® !lie, - i ® r Js �I�����I�'Ili I � il°!��� • nsn �lm I e� ®� illllllC®11 CIIII .III 1� I Ileeoo�egso-6 une _ 111`:S®ave�'e yyylll°: '�1I�1Q �� Fw! t aaia_ nl� 1111 v. F i WIYII'11P111 1� gY1Hi1NrJ!1:11'e1° 1 'J1111IIIIIIYIINII'-.�;i11!11Y11� .111 Y�kta JIIIHi I`_IIfC=C. ®111i1Y II ', =11' t IU an �I'rlxu€EIniIl=�es��ril�l„ 1 I �' + .�f F I_.. 1®IF•�11"_€7._IIIIIIII��."Z FLIIII 111 I Iln � � ii li'E'SII�F�kl.:ncg7®INIIiAII l�l�illi=!Y'11! I � �. ' 3, 1� m.u®�n.liA1.141f 117�'ll 1 �i!. I BFI I;J71111® 1 ■■ i l,k�t�® olrllE�lc��I� � 1 [k'i rt . RP.! 31111171e Q.7 �'I ���js�.d [IIdI IrelS�°I®11� '�—�- •® ee hiA KIM 11 lI ZL11fIIGlll21 !� s' S� Y—I'•Iee ®r 5RII1RR1+A N111i111 i►� IliIG .", \1s�3"_Iee milee it �kX i � �4uSJ�Fcel� 9iPCl IM1°' 'I ''� �.nli1.I 'vet � "T only IIE.' 1 W a- F !•IEk�i� €� jtiLEk ®■1 f rw.i� s es FI■i� ill, __ zagg,PI\�€7i �E14� � r ■=�h�® ♦Fni«• ti Iud� iE ` A iv All Pill FIN 2" 0111111 T sail u i:F��++ yam. • Esa 1 IFe.� ' l�L,l,t �v �yI� n'wE1 Orr 1 aY .�y�InlM� J� 1F 1,11 IS iP11 ►eJ` E,1 ORION I eF' 1 RIMS 1;rfi r1.MY670W 11iewO_I''ikgGl01 1 my ■® 'lil�13�•IIfG1El�fll?� 3. mi � I IC�L1t�11'7Ki"� '� 1C� - ��� � ��,,''��'■1 ' l f I � �� 'F1 ,E••IE➢EL1��1!!P ®s M� l/1 o•�r� €Ii El�Ikl e _ a6a6I�I�A'11M111Y11 — ILI�i� lll• +17 °1 r��� ®1®. f.JElll� I�III( •'1€EI'1 'mnm.n■ � it IllE� -�zl•.c. ur - .�d�� �ii /il{�EIg1 1C1 1 i EIJ9I ♦ ♦ g b I IMU ►,A►�i*�1!!��'I r1�T�Fr'�" C1 IVIIF�A4�11 :11'� II .. �" ,�'1� c'�■"�r.. P P.• M1.. I.1 � .• �i any }Jil+.,cOYEk Mg ���k •� "1��►'�6F�1:f � � .. n unlR'E�a .ae!I.R9w �I• 'I�� EAI€ t u •iall�®\1YIrFrI fiil�l fi.e'; Z<"Jf�r'a�T el1EL I il' !1 -� 1 nnIIIAEi.i � y NEI I I`il c�•nd 4M i E �EI�[7L�7�11.� 11�/ �`. � IIE:� nl�. .x:#11�C:I P€'m.E• P_ Yi��(f`! ti 1 �■Ce!__IIaIT1�r ■m�° LLIBIl111='i"u2e:�-E■■Mink Ell 'Llilall�flel�l11�11n n m��.._.n•II\Afl.111LLT MCI 11IHo / 1--EIII■ I1C�llN.�tll—J■11��■l f I�yLI��.1€I■ sm Wj to 14 ILI I\i91R II'�BI:IAIifi1119111�E " 'k �� r"®ilY II®p�I>•��IIIEI�11°� 1i' X11 1 °� �fcti�i11�e4n7J�+'ll�"i�f�� + a� r9 Ir P ggam�,, ■■�,J,,,���° 1 ' 1 � . 4ux;1"fir � ' � p��, h"t.Q5 r P y'- \�/Jr.i�I Ir•_���®1d'�" W nIL 8110 WARM l�rm�,l.®Ifi � Ffl ' E�F�1F,1� �Rn II 'ni "Fl€ r.Tj �T■■� �r �'��, ��-EEI' J RNr:*� I�t "f 1�1 .g€�■ —L U.2 l I�ri EL�• F I'11 Ytlt enNl yl �Eu1\\`Ilp"=I� L�NEW tt�.hMJ•�11E11F:f�iIU=V �3■Fnlli� R1I� „ '�_°'=I I ea lI u� 2-0� 1 �rjLll71 1 1 =CI$1■1111111 ®a�i�■�]vLIE lil��k C€JI�.+. '1r• �� 7 ■11■ 'll�l9■ INK ME 85LO irk: ■ i €rrA ®�®lt � « rl� r wrt�.Ld, r1111E ' .:rfdlll�® ■■ 111 flW€ ihZrv,mill sGliFii 1 'C) I r �'JlF ad f I�E�It��tA mill 0 i,�Apl�I�I�Fil��rll `" �O i' 1 Ifill CIII�L r�Fa "n`lw�1l `Fi`c "rI t F' I I J ' +` Iiiilliii °� O`N r E 1`1^ rn°6 �It'lP ®11A°I'�ILY17 1dI11��� N�`tT� A qv-,! M'1■! `�• BIBS� ri M.1nn.rC''�Y71117"1!11 ..i-0 C tii hlll.■\®11r m If111�rF�flILY6�l 1 fl{ I' 0■ O�il� ,� ir4 '�o��'ll lll.' 11111■�i�aN; .4 .�°71IE�i 1�1�='_ _ P€CrcIEY�lic na l u y . llll'I i�IEIr!"1L/�`�Ir�:lF+n9■i �= - 1 c "F ILLNIIF. Pnti fl w 54� i11`@�.I 'gym." EF6 a i J` � IA1S J16o° ^ RC+IL t r; .IEIGnn r , 51 � zc AF1 «"11196®; V'I rrtl�3'iii� r^SJI1l�.II��E�r k nl II"' r �\ i jIi"191® t 1(`_-i E'}'. �`�Irl RrAG'�-c l 1 —JI. c+ln:nwraZvi ri. n V�- qCElll� °gllA..1161 I�-ryGe= 11^ .eft 1 �1 _Cp 1>. £1.: 1 11111• � 1 rd�u�If'- t Et 11 1 1 L�1 u�l LL s7E>oJJ ,1 JYh r LI 1[Yl r ICII !^ � I 1NF I41 I I:YYI � f SMY� I LWVIYII IIIILWI J�� ItM� ■i YIN[If'.'ll eII�YL I�. . IO�.i � L. I i JII I�IIAIIYIQIf IJIIOWII Ai I 'n" A�w ++/,. L �GJ1�6mizid YIC ` .ill[ 9 1�1-aa[u��lil i tnS+n a� i MO 'VC' B7 [IIII V IN A! � • ����ki�a7�11IIr3iTI �i-11 f 1 �� [I{ � I[b!RI[l■ 1 No, i ala YI"i r r I 1. rlY, tK� �I• I� ' � '�. T II' �5w'�iT�l/�lYt w ova t ONK1al�1�a�T�' ~ �_�,1 TII�"Y �` 1 �I t tam, �a..s `�� �r 1i `"�l°'=aa�"�g1V' 5I�� ? Diva [11M All, 25 MCM 0 n � !i llli�t' ■ A. .lYi_J Ally ' Warr" ry 1 Ala .1 ♦���C�iS►�3 ' jam _ 11 •� .. APPENDICES LAIOntario International QNTARIIBI� Airport Land Use Compatibility Pldn AIRP00.T PIANnING • 1 11 � APPENDIX A - = r IAIOntario International, y n Airport land Use Compatibi6fy - r S APPEWIX A AIRPORT PLANNING STATE-LAWS_RELA T-0 AI-'ORTLAND US1= PLAlVN1NG 0. Table oT Contents (as of)anuary 2010) Public Utilities Code',, . Saclioni-:- 21670 't 21679.5 Airport Land Use co nmissi0ft ...... .. A-3 (complete article) 21402 - 21403 _Regulation-6f Aeronautics ... ..:: .. .. :. ......=_A 16 (excerpts pertaining-to rights of aircraft flight) 2165cs 21b58,21659 Regulation of Obstructions A-1T _- (excerpts) 21661.5,21654 5 Kegulation°of Airports ... ..... ... .. .. A I9 :=: (excezpts pertaining to approval of new airports and atrport-expansion) GbYehri nest Code sedjWJ 65302.3 Authority`f©z and Scope of'General plans_: ... :.:: ....... . A 2 @• -(excerpts pertaining to-general-pi ins eonszstencywiih airporrland use plans} 6594_3_' - 6045.7 Application for Projects...;.:. A 21 (excerpts referenced in State Aeronautics Act) 66030 - 66031' lvlediatiori_and Resolution of Land Use Disputes........ :;A 26 (Vxcerpts applicable to ALUC decisions) 66455.9 School Site Review;a:. .......— ........ ....:;A 28 "--. {excerpts applicable to ALM) Education Code Se&Onr 1 215. School Facilities,General Provisions .....:: ...,A-29. (excerpts pertaining to Department of Transportation zeyie v=of elerfi rin ry and secondary school sites) 910.33- Commtuuiy Colleges; School Sites ........... _..... ., (excerpts pP+*ai*mg to Department of Tiansportanon review of community college sites) taroniarrornremel onarnimortfenalrsacomaabdmryPtanfndoPredAPnr1g2611) - A-1_ ZAPPENDIX A STATE LAWIslt ELATED TO AIRPORT LAND OSE PLANNIN '' Public Resources Code • Seclioxs 21096 California Envtroitmental QualitgAct,Airport Planning A 33 M (excerpts pP**aitung to projects near airports) Business;and Professions Code - Beckons 11010 Regulation of Real Estate Transactions,Subdivided lands........'.A 34 (excerpts regarding airport influence area disclosure, requirements) Civil Code = section 1103 1103 4 Disclosure of Natural Hazards upon Transfer of Residential Pro PAS' ,,:. . ,:................. .. ..... .. .A-35 .1353 Common;InterestDevelopments ...... . : ........ ..... ".A-39 . (excerpts regarding airport influence area disclosure - Legislative History Summary.= ihrport Land Use Commission Statutes A 40 s . A-2 19,2011). STATE LAWS RELATED TO_AIR PORT LAND USE P_LANNFNG APPENY7IX-A - • AERONAUTICS LAW _ P --iUTILITIES C0 6E Division Aviation Part 1-state Aeronautics Act Gtrapter 4-Airpoirts and Air Navigation Facilities Articie;3.5—Airport Land Use Commission 216-7 Creation; Membership; Selection (a) The I eg'slaturelierebg finds_and declares that: (1) It h in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this-state and rea the a surrounding these airports -so -as to promote the overall -goals and " ob1ecrlves of the California airport'noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 216b2 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems:-. (2) It is_The purpose of this articfe.to protect public health, safety, and welfarebg ettsunng the orderly expansion of airports--.a ncl- the adoption of land use 'measures_that minimize the " public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards-within areas around=public airports to " the extenT that these areas are.not already devoted to incompatible uses. (b) In order to achieve-the purposes of tilt-article, every county in Which=there is located an---airport which-is'served-by a scheduled airline shall establish an airport land use commission. -Every " county,-in which--there is located an airport which is.not.served by"a scheduled airlitre;;but is operatedfor the benefit of the general public shall establish an airport land-use comitissloo, - except that the board of"supervisors of-the county may, after consultation with dxe appropriate airport operators and affected local entities and after a public hearing,adapt a resolution fin ding that there are no noise,public safety, or land use issues affecting any airport in die county-which require the'creatioa of a commission and-declaring the county exempt from that:requirement. The board shall,it thus even, vent,transmit a copy o€'the resolution to the Director of Transportatiori. For - purposes:of this section, commission: means an airport land use commission. Each commission shall consist of seven rnem ers ko beselected as follows: °- (Y) wo representing the cities in the'county,appointed by a city selection cominittee comprised of-the _ f of all the cities within that county,excepk,that if there are any cities coritgu¢us or adjacent to the qualifying airport; at least one representative shall be appointed therefrom. If there are no cities--within a county, die number .of representatives provided fox by paragraphs (2) and(3) shall each"be increased by one. (2) Two representing the"county,appointed by the board of supervisors. (3) Two having expertise iii-aviation, appointed by a selection conrnittee z ompnsed"of the managers of all-of""the public airports within that county: - j4) Onetepresenting the general public;appointed by the other six members of the comn.lission_ (c-) public officers, whether elected or appointed may be appointed and serae.as memberss of the commission during their`terms of public office. 7JiA7iiterio lntemational A;rport Land Use,Compa96llity Plan{Adopted April 19,2019- - A­3 5 X -APPENDIX A STATE L`A`NS RELATED TO:-_AIRPORT LAND USE PUNNING, r � � (d) Each member shall°pzoxtiptly appomt.a single prosy to represent him of her in commission affairs. • and to vote tin matters when the member is.riot.in attendance. The prosy shall be designated m a signed,wntten instrument'whicb shall'be kept ore Sle at the commission offices, and the proxy .shall serve at the pleasure;of the appointing member. A vacanry in the office of proxy shall be filled promptly bp=appointmetit of a new.proxy. (e) A person havmg;ari "experti se,m aviation" means a person who, byway of education, teaming, business, experience, vocation, or avocation has acquired and possesses particular knowledge.of, and familiarity with,the function,'-operation, and tole of airports, or is an elected official of a local agenry which owns s or_operites an airport is the of the.Legislature to clarify that"for:the purposes of this article,that special districts, school districts and community college districts are included among the local agencies that are subject to airport land use laws and other requirements of this article. 21670.1. Action by Designated Body Instead of Commission {a) Notwithstan ding -.any other provision :of this article, if the board of supervisors and the aty' selection"committee of mayors-in the county each,makes a determination by a majority vote that proper land.use planning,can.-bi:�accornplished through the actions of an appropriately designated -body, then the body so designated'shall assume the planning responsibilities of an airport land use commission as provided for in this article,and a.commission need not be formed in that county. (b);"A body designated pursuant to subdivision (a) that-does not include among its membership at least = two members having expertise m aviation, as defined in subdivision..-(e) of.Section 21670 shall, when acting in the capacity of an airport land use commission, be augmented so that body, as • augmented, will have.at least c two members having that expertise. The commission shall be constituted pursuant to this section on and after-March 1, 1988. _ (c). (1) Notwithstanduig subdivisions (a),and (b),and?siibdivision (b) of Section 21670,if,the board of supervisors.of ,county and.-each affected'city in that county each makes a determination that = proper land use planning pursuant to,this article can be accomplished pursuant to- this subdivision, then a commission.need not be formed-in-that county.. = (2) If the board of supervisors of a county and each affected city makes a determination that proper land use planning may be accomplished and a commission is not formed pursuant to 'paragraph (1) that county and the appzopriate-affected cities having jurisdiction over-an_ airport, subject to the review and approval by-the Divisuzn of Aeronautics of the department,:,- _ shall do all of the following = (A) Adopt processes-for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of,the airport land use compatibility plan for each airport that is.served by a scheduled airline.or operated for the benefit of the geheial public (B) Adopt processes for-the notificanon o£the general public,landowners,interested groups, and other public .agencies.regazdmg the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport land use compatibility glans. " (G) Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes arising from-the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the airport-Ian d use compatibility plans. (D)_Adopt`processes for the amendment-of-general-and specific plans to be consistent with _ _ � =the airport land use comparability plans = A A"" lAKlntado/nt6matior 8l Alrporf land Use Compatib lity Plan(Adopted April 19,20 11) Oub 9TA;7E GkVyS fiE ATED TO-AIRPORT LAND LSi PLRNNINO APPENDIX A = (E) Designate' the agency that shall be responsible=for the. preparation; adoption, and ' amendinetrt of eacli anport land use compatibility plan. (3) Tbe•Division of Aeronautics o£the-department sball review the processes adoptedpursuant to paragraph(2),and shall-approve the processes if the division determines thatthe processes ate - with the procedure required by this article and will do all of the following: (A) Result in.--the preparation, adoption, and implementation cif plans within a reasonable amount of time. (13) .Rely on the height, use none,sa€ety, and density criteria that:are compatible with airport operations as established by this article,acid re€erred to as the Airport Sand Use Planning Handbook, published by the division; and any applicable federal aviation reguations, ri 1 P 7 with n 77.1 ` fTide 14-of the c udm but not limited to art 7 (commencing wi Section 0 Code of Federal Regulations:=- (C)-Provide a' te opportunities for notice to, review of, and comment by the general public,landowners;inte-restedgraups,and other public agencies, (4) Jf the county_does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (2) within 120 dips, then the-airport land use compatibility-plan and amendments shall not be considered adopted pursuant to =this article and a commission shall be established within .90 days of the determination of noncompliance by the division and an airport land use compatibility purr shall be adopted pursuant to this article within-.90 days of the establishment of the commission: ' (d)_ A commission-need not be formed in-a.-county that has contracted for the preparation of-airport land use_compatibility plans with the Division of Aeronautics under the California Aid to Airports jo Program (Chapter ,4 (comm encing with Section 4050) of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations), Project Ker-VAR 90 1;'and that submits: all of the following information to the Division of Aeronautics for review and comment that the county and the cities-affected by the airports within the county,as defined by the airport land use compatibili ty plans: (1) Agree to adopt and itrip1ement the airport-land use compatibility plans-:that have-been developed wider"contract:, (2) Incorporated the height,use noise;_safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport Operations as established,by this article, and-:referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the division; and any _applicable federal aviation regulations, inetuding, but not limited`to;Part 77 (commencing with Section 71.1) of Title 14.of the Code -of Federal Regulatio`n-s as part of the general and specific plans for the county and for each . -affected"city: - (3) the county does not-comply with this subdivision on or before May--1, 1995, then a commission shall be established iti'accordance with this:a rticle, (e) .._(1) A cotnmission'need,not be formed-n a county,if all ofthe following conditions are met; (A} -The county has only one public-use airport that is-owged by a city. (I3) (i) The county and the affected city adopt the elements in paragraph (2) of subdivision {d),aspart-of their general and specific plans for the county and the affectedclry. (ii} The general-and specific plans shall lie submitted, upon_adoption;-to:the Division of Aeronautics. If the county and the affected city do not submit the elements specified in paragraph (2)of subdivision{d), an or before lvlay 1,MIS, them commission shall be established itr accordance with this article 14mntarto international Airport LanitUse Compatibility Plan(AoOptedApnv M 204 1) 1 -'-A-5- - APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED T,TOE AIRPOR LAND USE PLANNING r •.21670.2. Application to Counties Having over 4 Million in Population ..(a) Sections-#670 and 21670.1_do not_apply to the County of Los Angeles, . In.that county, the county regional planning commission has'the responsibility for coordinating the airport planning of-public agencies within the county. -In instances where impasses result"relative to this planning, an appeal may be made to the county regional planning comtission by any public agency involved. The action taken'by.the county regional planning commission on an appeal may be overruled by a 'four-fifths vote of.the governing]body=of a public agency whose planning led to the appeal:- (b)' By.JanuW,'1, 1992 the-county-regional planning commission shall adopt the•airport land use compatibility plitrs;requiredrpursuant,ti Section 21675. (c) Sections21675.i,21675.2, and 21679 5046 not apply to the County of Los Angeles until January.1, 1992. If the.airport land use compatibility plans required pursuant to Section 21675 are not - - adopted by the county regional planr i ig,commission by January 1,-1992, Sections 21675.1 and 21675.2 shall apply.to the County of Los Angelesuntil the airport land use compatibility plans are " adopted: - 21670 3. '_San Diego County _(a) Sections 21670 and 216701.'46 not apply to the=Coumy,of San`Diego. In that county,.rhe.San Diego County Regional,Airport Authority, as established pursuant to Section 170002,shall be, responsible.for the preparation,adoption,and amendment of an airport land use compatibility plan for each airport-in San Diego-County. '(b) The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority shall engage in a public collaborative planning • process when preparing and updating air airport land use compatibility plan - -21670.4. Intercounty Airports (a) As used`in this section;-inteicco ty airport means any airport bisected by a county line through its runways, runway protection zonesritrner'safety zones, inner turning zones,outer safetyzones, or sideline safety"zones, as defined by, department s Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and referenced in the=airport land rise compatibility plan formulated under Section 21675. (b) 'It is the purpose of this .-coon to provide the opportunity to establish a separate airport land use tomrrnssion so that an intercounty airport may be served by a single airport land use planning agency;,rather than having to look separately to the airport land use.commissions of the affected counties. `(e)` ,In iddidon to the airport,land use commissions rxeated under Section 21670 or the alternatives _ established under Section 21670.1, for-their respective counties, the boards of supervisors and city _ selection committees for the affected`coynties, 6y independent majority vote of each county's two delegations, for any intercounty airport,ma do either of thefollowing:) (1) Establish a single separate airport Tand use commission for that airport. That commission S consist of seven members to:be selected as follows:- (A). One-representing ,the cities in each o - the`counties; appointed by that county�s city selection committee. (B)_One representing each of the counties, appointed-by the board of supervisors of each .county • - °.:A-6".:- - - =- LA(Ontaiio Intematknal Airport Lend Use CompadMlify Plan(Adopted Apnf 19,2011) `, - a:TATE LRVO RELATED TO AIRPORT LANG list PLANNING APPENDIX A - (C) cc- -One'turn-each county having'experdse-in aviation, appointed by a selection comrri7ttee comprised of-the managers ofaH tkie public airports within that county. (L})-One representing the gerteral ,public,_appointed by the other-six members of the commission. (2) Iri-accordance-with subdivision (a)or(b)of Section 21670.1, designate in existing appropriate entity as that airport's land use comimssion. 21671. `Airports Ovimed by a City`,"District,or County . In any county where-there is an airport operated for the general public which is"owned-by a city ar district iii another county or by another county,one of the representatives provided by paragraph (1)cif subdivision (b) of SecGOri 21670 shall,be appointed by the city selection'committee-of mayors,of the cities of the county in which the owner of that airport is located, and one of the representanves =_ provided by paragraph,(2) siibdiinston (ki):of Section 21670 -shall be appointed by the board of supervisors of the county in which-the owner of that airport is located. 21671.5. - Term of Office " (a);: Except for the terms of office of the members of the first commission,the-term of office of each mcn ber_'shalt be four.years and until the appointment and qualification of his-or-her,successor. The member's of the first.=conSrnission shall classify themselves by loGso that thetemiof office of one member is one year; of,two members is two years, of two members is three•years, and of two members is four years. The body that originally appointed a member whose term has`expired shall appoint his or her successor for a full-"term-of four years. Any member may be,removed at any time and without cause by the body appointisig that member. The expitation date cif the temr of office of-each member shall be the first-Monday in May in the year in which that'member's term is to expire. Any vacancy-in the membership of'tlie commission shall lie filYed for the une3cpired term by appointment by the body which originally appointed the member whose-office has become vacant. The chairperson of the commission shall be-selected by the members thereof (b) Compensation,if arty, shall be-deremvnedby the board of supervisors ` Staff assistance, including -the mailing -of notices and the keeping of minutes and necessary quarters;-equipment, and supplies, shall be provided by the county. The usual and necessary operating expenses of the cornanssion.shall be a county chaazge._ (d)._ l*lotvdthstanding any other'provisions of�tbis article, the commission shall 'not employ any personnel either as employees_or indepeniient contractors without the prior approval ofthe board of supervisors (e) =The corriinission 5-hall meet at the calf o€ the commission chairperson or at-the request of the majoriiy of the commission members. =A.majority of the commission`members shall constitute a _ quorum-for the transaction of business. No action shall be taken by the commission except by the recorded-vote of a-major of:the full rr ernbership (f) The commission may establish a-schedule of fees necessary-to comply with this article. Those fees - shall be _charged-to the proponents of actions--regulations, or permits; shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service,-and shall be imposedliursuarit to Section 6-6016 o£ the Government Code. 'Except as_ provided in subdivision W after June 30-, 1941; a ` _ LA1Onteriob*mationa1Alrpo4tandLse Compatibility PJan'AAfootedApd119,2011)- - A, 7 - - APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING- commission that has notfadopted the airport land ise compatibility plan required by Section 21675 • -, shall not charge feeipuisuant to this s_ubdivisioff until the commission adopts the plan. (g)-In any county that has undertaken by contract or otherwise completed airport -land use compatibility plans for at-least one-hal#;of all•public use airports,in the county,'the commission may continue to charge fees necessary o comply'with this article until June 3Q'1992, and;if the' - airport land use compatibility plans are complete by that _date, may continue charging fees after June 30, 1992: If the airport,land use compatibility plans=are not complete by June 3Q 1992, the commission shall.r chat rge fees pursuant to subdivision(0 until the commission adopts the land use plans - 21.672. . Rules and Regulations _:-` " Each mi. ssion'shall adopt rules and regulations with iespecfto the temporary disqualification of its members from participating in the review or adoption of a proposal because of conflict of interest and -with respect to appointment of substitute members in such cases: ° 21673 Initiation of Proceedings for Creation by Owner of Airport Iii-any"county'not having a commission oi; ar.body-designated to carry out the responsibilities of a C ommission;any owner of a public airport may initiate-proceedings for,the creation of a commission by -, presenting a request to the board of stipernsors that a commission be created and showing the need therefor to the satisfaction of the_board of sfipervisors., 21674. Powers and Duties • The commission has the following powers and duties--subject to the limitations upon is jurisdiction set .,forth in Section 21676: (a) . To assist local agences m erisunng coripatible-land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of exfstmg airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports'is not already devoted to incompatible uses ro) To coordinate planning at the state, regional, an d local levels so as to provide for the orderly de-- velopment of air transportation; while at the same time-protecting,_the public health, safety, and welfare. (c) To prepare and adopt an airport and use compatibility plan pursuant to Section 21675. (d), To review the plans ,regulations and other actions.of local agencies and airport operators pursuant to Section 21676. (e) The powers of the commission shaII ui no way he construed to give he commission jurisdiction over the operationof any airport (E) In order to carry out its responsibilities,the comiuission`may adopt rules and regulations consistent ' with this amde.. p� _ LAA9ntaiio Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) _ 4 STA=TE LAWS-REtATEO TO AIRPQ RT iANO USE RtANNINt, AP PENQPX A 21674.5. "Trammg of Airport land Erse iCommission's Staff (a)= The Department of Transportation shall develop and implement a program ar programs tq assist in the.trainin and develdpri eiit o£the staff of airport land use commissions, a fter consulting with airport Lind 'use commissions;cities, counties;aridother appropriate public entities. (b)- The-traituttg and development program ox programs are intended to assist the staff of-airport-land use coxnnrissions in-addressing high pri ority needs, and may indude,_but nee&not be-Iirnited to, the followmg'_ (1) The estaba-Ai tent of a, process,'far the development and adoption of;_auport land use coritpatibiliry plans " ( ) The;development of criteria for determining the airport influence area (3} The;identification of :essential elements that should:be included in the airport land use cornpatibiliry plane. (4) Appiopnate criteria and procedures for reviewing proposed developments and detemimng -whether proposed developments are compatible with the airport use. (5) "Anq other oxganiaational; operational, procedural, or technical"responsibilities and functions that:the department determines to:be appropriate to provide to commis"ion staff and for which it determines'there is a need'for staff training or.development. (c)> The department may provide training and development programs for airport land use coruiiission staff,pursuant to this ,section by any: means'it deems appropriate; Those programs.maq be presented m any of the following ways (i) By_offering formal courses or training programs. (2) -By sponsoring'or assisting m the organization and sponsorship of conferences, seminars, or other similar events. " (3) By producing and maldtig available written information.? (4) Any other feasible method of providing information and assisting in the training and development of airport land use commission staff. 216741 - Airport Land Use"Planning Handbook (a) An airport torrid .use commission 'that formulates, adopts or` amends an airport land use compatibility plan-"shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to 'Section 21674.5 and referredd to as theAirport Land Use Planning Handbook published by"the.Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, (b) it is the intent of the Ugislature to_ discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Theref©re,_prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, _ stmcturea or '€ dh y, and before the constriction of a news builclirig it is the -intent- of the LegisI tuie that Iocal agencies-shall lie guided by the beight,_use, noise, sa€ety, and density criteria that are compatible with,airport`operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport-Land Use-Planning Handbook, published by the-division,_ and any applicable, federal aviation regulations;including,but-riot limited to,Part 7-1 (commencing with Section 77,•1) of Title 14 of the.•Code of Federal Regulations,',to die extent that the criteria has been uicorpomted into the --prepared a commission pursuant to Section 21,675 This subdivision does not limit the LAbnlarlo lntemationel Airport Land Use p6mpat!6ild 14r (Adopted April 19,2011) APPENDI% A STATE LAWS-RELATED'TO AIRPORT IAND,USE PLANNING lunsdiction of a camrnission as established by this article. This subdivision does not limit the • authority. of local-agencies-ro overnfe commission action or recommendations pursuant to Sections 216-76,21676.5,or 21677 21675. Land Use Plan - (a) 'Each commission shall formulate an'iiipmt land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare,of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the y; airport and the public in general. The:commission airport land use compatibility plan shall include, and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan,as determined by the, Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated:growth of the airport during at least--the next 20 years. In formulating an airport land use compatibility plan, the commission- may develop -height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building,standards, including soundproofing;.adjacent to, airports, within the airport influence area. The airport land use compatibility plan shall be reviewed,as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes,but shall not be amended-more than.once in any calendar year. (b) The commission shall include;within its airport land use compatibility plan formulated pursuant to subdivision (a);the area within the jurisdiction,of the commission surrounding any military airport - for all of the purposes specified in subdivision (a). The airport land use compatibility plan shall be consistent with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone prepared for that military airport. This subdivision does not-give'the'commission any,jurisdiction ' or authority over the territory,or operations of any'military airport. (c) The airport influence area shall be established by the commission after hearing and consultation • with the involved agences: (d) The commission shall submit to 'tlie Division of Aeronautics of the department one copy.of the airport land use compatibility plan"arid,each amendment to the plan. (e) If an airport land-use compatibility plan does not include the matters required to be included pursuant to this article,the,Division of Aeronautics of the-department shall notify the commission responsible for the�plan _ °,21675.1. Adoption of Land Use Plan _(a) By June 30, 199.1,'each commission shall adopt;the airport,land use compatibility plan required ` pursuant to Section 21675, except thatany county that has undertaken by contract or;otherwise ' completed airport,land-use compatibility plans, for at least one-half of all public use airports in the county,shall adopt that airport land use compatibility plan on or before June 30,1992. _ (b)- Until a commission adopts an atrport.Iand u`se compatibility plan,a clty or county shall first submit all actions, regulations, and'pemmits.within the vicinity of_a public airport to the,commission for review and approval. Before the commission approves or disapproves any actions, regulations, or permits, the commission,shall give public notice in the same manner as the city or county is required to give for those actions,regulations,or permits. As used in this section; "viciriity" means land,that will be included or reasonably;could be included within the airport land use compatibility, plan.- If the commission has riot designated an airport influence area for the airport land use compatibility plan,then"vicinity means land within two miles of the boundary of a public airport. A-1A ' tNDntario IntemationalAlrportlsnd Use Compatib07tyPlan(Adopted April 19,2011) ppVpFr nnr.nwc STATE LAWS RELATfrD 7O-AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX V (c) The 'corstrFUSSton may approve an action regulation, or peanit if it :finds based on substantial evidence-in the record;all of the Qc' iiig: {Sj The commission is in"&substantial progress toward.c compee ion of the airport land use ` compatibility:plan. {2) There rs a reasonafile-probability that the act on, regulation, or pemri-will be consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan being prepared by the commission. (3j Tli- - little:or no probability of substantial detriment to or Interference with the;future adopted.airport land use compadbrhty piao-if the action, regulation, or permit is ultimately inconsistent with:the airport land use compatibility plan. (d) If the commission-disapproves an action,xegulatipn, or permit -the comrrussion shall notify the city " or county. The city or county may overrule the commission, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body,if it makes-specific'frndings that the pr'oposed,acdon;regulation; oxpermit inconsistent with the purposes of this article,as stated`in Seciion'211670. (e} If a city or couriry'ovezniles the comrsrissiori pursuant to subdivision {d), that action shall not relieve the,city'or county;from further ca'mptiarice with this article after the comnussiop adopts the airport land use eotnp _ibility plan, (f) If a city or eounty:overmles the commission pursuant to subdivision{i with respect to a publicly - owned airport that the'city or-county doesnot operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to property or personal injur} resulting-from the-city's, or county's decisian to proceed with -the;action,-regulation,or permit, - (g) A commission may adopt rules and regulztions that exempt any ministerial permit for- or single-€-windy -: dwellings:from the requirements.of sulidirnsion (b) if it makes the,findmgs required pursuant to ' subdivision (c) for-the proposed rules and regulations, except that the"rules aid regulations may not exempt either"of the'foll o1ying: (1) More than two,single-family dwellings by the same applicant within a subdivision prior to June 30°1241. < (2) Single-family dwellurgs _in a subdivision where 25 percent or more of-the parcels are undeveloped.,;- 21616 2. . _Approval or.Disapproval of Actions.itegulations, or Perrtiit {a)- If a"comcntssion fails to ach°to approve-or disapprove any actions,regulations,or permits within 60 days ofreceiving the request.pursuant to Section 21675.1, the applicant or his or her representative may file an action pursuanrto 5eetiai 11144.5 of the Code o£ Civil Procedure to compel the commission to act, and the_court shall give the proceedings preference over all othei actions or proceedings,exeept'previously-filed pending-matters of the same character- The (b)- - The action,regulanon,of permit shall be deemed approved only if ib public notice required by this subdivision has occurred: If the applicalji has provided seven days advance notice to-the commis- sign-of the intent t©providepubli€:notice pursuant to this subdivision,then,not earlier than the date of the expiration=of the tune liritit established by 5ection21675.1, an applicin may provide the required public notice. If the applicant chooses toprovide public notice;.that notice;shall include a descnptson of the proposed action;regulation or permit substantially similar to the descriptions:which are com monly used in pubhc notices by the commission,the location of any proposed degelopment, the apph- canon number,the name and address of the commission,and a'statement that the action,regulation,or - LA/Ontsn`o intemadonal AlrpoM_Cand4/se Coalpati @illtyW @n(Adopted April 19,'20 1) APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING O^"t°"R�"�""""'G perrmt shaft be deemed approved'if the cormmssion has not acted within 60 days. if applicant has • provided the:public„notice specified m.thi subdivision, the tune limit for action by the commission shall be extended to 50 days after the public notice,is�'provided.- If the applicant provides notice.pur- suant to this section, the commission shall-ref ind fo the applicant,any fees which were collected for providing notice:and which were not used for that purpose,. (c): Failure of an'applicant to submit complete or adequate information pursuant to Sections G5943 to t 65946, inclusive,:of the Government„Code, may constitute grounds for disapproval of actions, regulations,or pemrits. . -`(d) Nothin g in 'this section dimuushes ,ihe commission's legal 'responsibility to'-'provide, where , applicable,public notice and hearing before acting on an action,regulation, or permit.- 21676. Review of Local General Plans (a) Each local agency<whose general plan includes area covered by an airport"laird use compatibility- plan shall, by July 1, i-o 1983, submit a copy of its planr specifidplans to the airport land use,com- mission. The commission shall determine by August 31; 1983, whether the plan or plans are consistent or inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, If the plan'or plans are =' inconsistent with'the-aitportaand use compatibility plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall have another hearing''to reconsider its airport land use compatibility plans. The local agency may propose tooverrule,the commission after the hearing by a.two-thuds vote of its governing body-,if it makes,specific findings that-the proposed action is consistent with`the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45.days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a - • 'copy of-the-proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may_provide " comments to the local agencygoveriiing body within-30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If'the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency._governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body , shall include comments,fiom'the commission-an d the division in the final,record of any final decision to overrule the commission:.which may only be adopte d,by a two-thirds vote of the governing body., (b) , prior to the mendment o£a general pYan or specific plan, of the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675;the local[agency shall first refer the proposed action to the - - commssion. If the commission detemrities that.,the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's,plan, the,referring agency shall be notified. The local agency, may, after a public hearing;propose to overrule the commission by a two-thuds;vote of its governing body if it makes specific-findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section-21670. At least 45,days prior to the decision to overrule the.commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed derision and 5ndings. The commission"and the division may provide,comments to the local agency governing :body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this;time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by-the division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. _The'local agency governing body shall,include comments from the commission and the division in the public record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the go-f body. • A-12- ti _ 'LWntado International Alipc t Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - �woPt nwr�� STATE LAWS RELATED TQ AIRPORT LAND USE PLA NNING AfPENC11x A S (r) Each public agency.owmng any airport within the boundaries of an airport land use cotnpaetbiltty plan shall,prior to modification of its airport master plan,refer any proposed change to the-airport landuse`commission. If the Commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the cornmission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified­The public agency may,after a-public, hearing,propose to avezrule'the comtission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body`i€it makes , specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated m , Section 21,670. At Ie9st 45.-days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the,public agency goverrung body shall provide the cone fission and the division a ropy of the.pipposed decision and fmdings. The_commission and"the division may provide comments"to the`public =- agenc y governing body within 30 days of-receiving the proposed decision and findings. °-If the-: commission or the division's comments s-are notavailable within Ais time limit,=the public agency governing body may act without them_ The comments by the division or the:commisson are advisory:to the publi c`ageney�overnitig body. The public agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the final decision to overrule:the conittission, _ which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body. '(d} Each cornrmssiondetemrination pursuant to subdivision (bj or (c) shall be made within-60--days from the date of referral of the proposed action. -1f.a commission fails.-to make the deterrriiitadon within --that period, the proposed action shall be deemed consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan; Zl06.5. Review of Local Plans (a) If the commission finds tliat;a local agency has not revised its general plan or specaftc plan or . overruled the co by_a two thirds vote of its governing body after makingspeafic fiidtngs that the proposed action is consistent with of this article-as stated in Section 2167. " the commission may require that the local aigericy submit all subsequent actions,-regulations; and permits to the commission for-review until its general plan or specific plan is revised-or the specific findings are made. :If,m the=detemiination of the commission, an action, regulation,or permit of 'the local_agency is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the local agency.shall be notified and.that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may propose to overrule the commission after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing-body if it makes-specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21470. Atleast 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, tine local"agency governing body`shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the-proposed decision-and findings 'The xommission and the division..may provide comments to the local agency--governing body within 30 days_of receiving the proposed decision and firtdmgs.._If the commission or the-division's comments are not available within this time hrnit., the local.agency governing body may act i iitl out them., The comments by the division or-the. are advisory to the local agency governing body:: The local agency governing body. shall .include comments from the_cotmnission and the division in the final decision to bvemite the commission, which may-only be adopted bye two-thirds vote of the governing body: (b) Whenever the local agency'has revised its general plan or specific plan :or has overruled"the' commission pursuant to subdivision (a);t#re proposed action of tbelocal agency shall.not be subject to further commission review;,unless the commission and the.-local agency agree drat individual projects shall beresdewed by the coninussion. Albrifado lntemationel Alrpo Land Use Compafibillty Plan(Adopted April APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED To AIRPORT LAND USE P,'LAtINING 21677 'Marin County Override Provisions • Notwithstanding the two thirds vote required by Section 21676,, any public agency-in the County of Marin may overrule the Mann County Airport Land Use commission,b y a. majority vote of its- govemuig-body.,At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the co imssion, the public agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and - _ findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the public agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed deasion and findings. - If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit; the public agency governing body niag act ' without their. The comments by the:division or the-commission are advisory to-the public agency governing body. The public agency governing body shall include:comments from the commission and the division in the public record of the'-final decision to overrule the commission, which may be adopted by a majonty`vote ofthe goveming:body_ - _ 21678 Airport Owner's Immunity. With respect to a publicly owned,airport that a public agency does not_operate,-if die public agency -"_- pursuant to Section 21676,21616.5, or 21677,overrules_a commission's.action or recommendation, tho operator of the airport shall be immune,from liability fox damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly;or indirectly.frorn-the public agency's decision to;ovemile-the commission's action or recommendation. 21679. Court Review (a) In any county in which there is no airport land use-commission or other body designated to • assume the responsibilities,of anairport land:use commission, or in-which_the comnssion or other designated body has not adopted.-an al rt-land use compadbiliry plan, an interested party - may initiate proceedings in.a court of competent jurisdiction to postpone the effective date of a .= ` zoning change, a zoning variance, the'issuance.of a pemvt.or the adoption of a regulation by a local agency, that duectiy affects the use of land within one mile of the boundary of a public airport within the county (b) The court may issue an injunction thaCpostpones`--the effective date of the zoning change,zoning variance permit, or regulation until .the-governing body of the local agency that took the action does one of the'following: (1) In he case of an action hat is a legislative act;adopts a resolution declaring that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. (2) In the case ofan action that is not;a legislativetact, adopts a resolution making findings_based on substantial evidence iii the record that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes ofthis article stated in Section 21_G7D (3) Rescinds the-action.- (4) Amends its action`to make it consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670,and complies with either paragraph-(I)or(2),whichever is applicable. (c) ` The,court shall not issue an-injunction,pursuant to subdivision (b)if the local agency that took the action-demonstrates that_ the general plan an_d' any applicable specific plan. of the agency accomplishes the purpogekgIr n airport land use compatibility,plari as provided in-Section 21675. A-14.- - 0 tang h6teirii6onal Airport(.and Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April-19,2011) - STATE LAWS RELATED To AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • (d) An action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be commenced within 30 days of the decision or within the :appropriate time periods set by -Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, whichever is longer. (e)- If the-governing body of the local agency adopts a resolution pursuant to subdivision (b) with respect to a publicly owned airport that the local agency does not operate, the operator of the airport be rttiie-from liability fof damages to property or- etsonal injury from the local agency's decision to proceed with the zoning change,zoning variance,permit,or regulation. (f) ,As used in this section, "interested party" means any owner of land within two miles of the boundary of the airport or-any organization with a demonstrated interest in airport safety and efficiency. 21679.5. Deferral of Court Review (a)- Until June 30, 1991, no action pursuant to Section 21679 to postpone the effective date of a zoning change, a zoning-variance, the issuance of a permit, or the adoption of a regulation by a local agency, directly affecting the use of land within one mile of the boundary of a public;airport, shall be commenced in any county in which the commission or other designated body has not adopted an airport-land use compatibility plan; but is making substantial progress toward the completion of the airport land use compatibility plan. (b) If a commission has been prevented from adopting the airport land use compatibility plan by June 30, 1991, or if the adopted airport land use compatibility plain could not become effective,because of a lawsuit involving the adoption of the airport land use compatibility plan,.the June 30, 1991 • date in subdivision (a) shall be extended by the period-of time during which the lawsuit was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) Any action pursuant to Section 21679_commenced prior to January 1, 1990, in a county in-which the commission or other designated body has not adopted an airport land use compatibility plan, but is making substantial progress toward the completion of the airport land use compatibility plan,which has not proceeded to final judgment,shall be held in abeyance until June 30, 1991, If _ the commission or other designated body adopts an airport land use compatibility p Ian:on or before June 30, 1991,the action shall be dismissed. If the,commission or other designated body does not adopt an airport land use compatibility plan on or before June 30, MI, the plaintiff or plaintiffs-may proceed with the action. (d) An action to postpone the effective date of a zoning change; a zoning variance;_the issuance of a permit, or the adoption of a regulation by a local agency,directly affecting the use of land within one mile of the boundary of a public airport for which an airport land use compatibility-plan has , not been adopted by June 30 1991,shall be commenced within 30 days of June 30, 1991, or within 30 days of the decision by the local agency, or within the appropriate time periods set by Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code,whichever date is later: LAA7ntedo IntematbnalAirpott Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,201 t) A-15 APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING OM AERONAUTICS LAW PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE Division 9„Part 1 Chapter 3—Regulation of Aeronautics (excerpts) 21402. Ownership; Prohibited Use of Airspace The ownership of the space above the land and waters of this State is vested in the several owners of the surface beneath,subject to the right of flight described in Section 21403. No use shall be made of such airspace which-would interfere with such right of flight;;provided, that any use of property in conformity with an original zone.of approach of an airport shall not be rendered unlawful by reason of a change in Such zone of approach. 21401 LawfulFlight; Flight Within Airport Approach Zone (a)- Flight im,ainxaft over the land and waters of this state is lawful, unless at altitudes below those prescribed by federal authority, or unless conducted so as to be imminently dangerous to persons ”- or property lawfully on the land or water beneath. The landing of an aircraft on the land or-waters of another, without his or her consent, is unlawful except in the case of a forced landing or pursuant to Section 21662.1. The owner,lessee, or operator of the aircraft is liable, as provided by • law,for damages caused by a forced landing. (b) The landing, takeoff, or taxiing of an aircraft, on a public freeway; highway, road, or street is unlawful except in the following cases-- (1) A forced landing. (2) A landing during a natural disaster or other public emergency if the landing has received prior approval from the public agency-having primary jurisdiction over traffic upon the freeway, highway,road, or street. (3) When the landing, takeoff, or taxiing has received prior approval from the public agency having primary jurisdiction over traffic upon the freeway,highway,road or street. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that none of the exceptions apply to-the act which is alleged to be unlawful. (c) The tight of flight in aircraft includes the right of safe access to public airports,which includes the right of flight within the zone of approach-of any public airport without restriction or hazard. The -zone of approach of an airport shall conform to the specifications of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration;Department of Transportation. A-16 - LA/Ontado lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.(Adopted April 19, 2011) .:- 0+ _ STAfl I,RWS RE LATEO TO AIRPORT LANNp USE RLANNING APP-ENDIXA . • - - MERt7HAi�1VS LHIf�_- _ - TllBkllr UTtkITIES SOD division 9, Part V' _ _-.Chapter 4=Airporls•and Air Navigation FAcillties . Article 3 7—asgulation of Obstruction s (exceMf) 21655 Proposed Site focGonstruction of Stag Building Within Two Miles of Nrp9rt Boundary Notwithstanding any other provision of laaw, if the•proposed:site of any,state building or =other enclosure is within two=miles, measured by air line, of tha# point on aw airport runway, or runway , proposed by-an attport:inaster pla(i;which isriearest the site, the state agency of 0 cewhichproposes - io.constructAie building or other--enclosure-shall, before acquiring title to..p_ropgrty for xbe new_-state-_ building or other enclosure site._or for an addition ;to a present site, notafy the Department of Transportation,in writing of the proposed acquisition. The department shall investigate the- proposed site an within 30 working days after--receipt o£the notice,shall'-submi'r to the state agency or office which proposes to constrict the building or other enclosure a written report of the investigation and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. if;lie report ofthe deparrxiietit does not favor acquisition of the site, no state funds shall be expended - for-the acquisition of the tiew"state building or other enclosure site,or the xpansion of_the gresent site, , o_r-for the coiisttuction'bf the state building_or other-enclosure, prov de-d that the prnvisjtsns of this section shall not affect title to reaf_propertyoft e it is acquired._ 21658, Gonstruttion of I-tihty Pole or Line in ilicif ft of Aircraft Landing Area No-P utility shall construct any p 6 e,pole line,distribution or- transmission tower,or towerline__(, 'substation structure in-the vicinity_o£the 636v or,boundary of an aircraft landing area, of any_airport- open to public-use, in a location with respect to the airport an at a height so as to constitute an obstruction to air naviganon, as an obstruction is;defined in accordance with.Fart yy of the Federal - Avia.-non Regulations, Federal­ via i o-n Adtrsittistrarion or any coi esponding rules'ar_regulaUOns'Qf the Federal Aviation Adinit stration, i tiles the_Eederal Aviation Adis nistration has dete.-munetl that the pole;line,tower,or stmcture does not constitute i hazard toair navigation. This section shall not-apply. to existing poles, lines;_towers; or,structures"or-to the repair,replacement, or reconstruction thereof if the original height is not"terially_euceeded and-this section shall not apply unless just comp-ensation shall have first been pai to the.public 4tility<;by the owner of any`airport for any property or property rights which wouidbe taken of damaged hereby 2#659. Hazards.Neal Airports-Prohibited (a} No person sh4 constructor=Ater any.seructure or penrrit any natural growth to grow at a lieiglit which exceeds the'=;obstruction stanch s'-sez forth in tlis' teguiations -of the federal A atian Admini tration relating fo objects affect]ig navigtble airspace contained_in-Title-1 4 of the Code of Wontarlo IntemallonalAirport Land tisa CorripaNOAlty P/ari(Adopted April 19,201t) APPENDIX A STATE LAWS"RELATED TO'AIRPORT LAND USE P"LANNINO " - £� Federal Regulations Part 77,, Subpart ti utlless a'pertnit allowing the construction, alteration or • growth is issued by the departmet n (b)- The peiniit is not required:if the Federal Aviation Adrnuirstranon= has determined that the '.-.- construction,'alteration, or' owth,does not constitute a hazard io air navigation or would not sdeate an unsafe,condition for air navigation. Subdivision (a) does not apply to a pole;pole lme, , distribution or,transmission tower,or tower line or substation of a public utility. (e , Section 2165$is applicable tq:subdtvisiorx (,b • A-1.8- - _ LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) `_ ` STATE LAWS RELATEDTO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A` _ AE9QWAII77CS LAIN PUBLIC-UTILITIES CODE Divisiort9, Part 1 Chapter4, Article 3-=-Regulation of Airports 21661.5. .- City Coancii�or Board of Supervisors and ALUC Approvals (a) No political subdivision,,any- of its officers ox:_employees, or any_;persoti Wray subMI any = application for the.construction of a iiew airport to any kocal, regional; state, or federal agency unless the plan forzsutli constnien9n is`ftrst.approved by the board of supervisors of the count. or the aty-c'- a of the dty:in w}uch the airport is to be located and unless the plan issubnutted- td the appropriate;commission exercising ytowers pursuant to Article 3.5 (ca nmencirig=with Section 21670) of Chapter It of patt�l of Division 9c and acted'upoit by-sucb commiss_on in accordance with theprovisions of such article. (b)_A county- board of supervisors or a; ciiq council may, 'pursuant to Section` 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plait for construction of new`'iielicopte landing and takeoff areas,to the county ear city planning agency: 21664.5. Amended Airport Permits,Airport Expansio6-Defined= ` • ` (a) An amended _airport-pernut shall be teguued for`every expansion of an existing airport. An = applicant for an-amended airport permit shall .comply with each requirement of thus article pertaining to permits for new airports. The department may by regulatian provide for exemptions ` fronr'the-operation of this section-puFsuant to Section 21661, except that.no,exemption shall be made limiting the=applicability of subdivision (e)_of Section 21666,`pertaining to.envirtsn`tfientat consideiations,inchiding thetequirement for public hearings in connection therewith (b)_As used iti thus section "airport expansion"includes arty of the following: - (Ij "I7ie acquisition of runway protection Zones, as defined in Federal Aviation Administ#ation Advisory Citcular 1SQjl.5001-13 [rii should be 150/5300-23], or-of.any interest in land for the purpose of:any either expansion as set fortlsm this seetian. (2} The a tmctionof anew runway, (3) lire-extension or teahgnmerft o£an existing-runway. (4) Any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities=for the purpose of accomplishing or which are ielated to tbe:purpose of-'aragraph_(1j, (2),-ot`(3). (c) -This section does not apply to airy expansion of air existing ""-port.if the expansion commenced.- on or print to the effective date -of-f-this section and the expansion met the approval, on or,prior to = that effective date,`of.each governmental agenry that required.the approval by Iaw:' • LAlofita infsmatbnal Airpoff Lprrd Us6,CorffpeBbllltyPlsn fAddpteU9pnl 1B;2of'1)_ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO- RPORt+LAND USE`P LA NNING Qr�; - � PLANN/NGAND ZON/NGFLAW . ^ • ,GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7-Planning and Land Use Divisional-Planning and Zoning .. - Chapter 3—Local Planning Article 5--Authority;for and Scope of General Plans m `;:;(excerpts)_ 653021 . :General and Applicable Specific Plans; Consistency with Airport Land Use . Plans;Amendment; Nonconcurrence Findings (a) The general plan,-and any applicable_speafic plan Prepared.pursuan t to Article''_8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be cdnsistent,with the_plan adopted or amended pursuant to;,See tin - > 21675,o£the Public Utilities Code (b) 'The general plan, and any"apphca_ e specific plan,shall be amended "as necessary;within 180 days of any amendment to-the.plansequired under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative,body does not concur with any;:of"the provisions of the plan=:required`under " Section 21675 of the Public=Utilities Code;it may satisfy the provisions'of this section by adopting, findings pursuant to Section 21676 0£the Public Utilities-Code. _ • (d), In each coupry where an airport land use commission does not e)dst,bik where there is a military" airport, ;the, general plan, and any applicable -specific 'plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 . (commencing with Section 65450),shall"be consistent,with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone.prepared fo _that military airport.;. - - A-20 LAAanterio Intemahwel Airport Land Use Conos0lbility plan(Adopted April 19,2011) Qnw®u ,STATE TA WS RELATED T¢AIRPORT LAND Uag PLANNJN& AY$PNDtx A `. PLANN/N AND ZONING•LAw GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7, Division 1 Chapter-4:S—Review and Appravat of Development Projects _ Aft�cle 3-Appl acaf[onforDavelaprrient,ProjeGts _ €,excerpts) Note.*­ The fdllominggatmiment code rretiam are referenced in Scctian A675.2(-)of 4h�statutes. ' 65943. Completeness of :Application; Determination; Time; "Specification.of Parts not Complete-and Manner of Completion (a) : Not' !atei' than 30`c.alendar clays after- any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall xleterrmne in writingivhether the-application is complete and " shall uninediately t ansrriit tlie:riexernut atian.to tYie applicant for the development'project. -If-the.--- written determinatian is not made witluii 30 days after receipt Qf fhe application, and- the application includes a statement that it's an application for a-developtaetu permit.;the application shall be`deemed complete for purposes_of this chapter." Upon receipt o€any-resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin duringwliickt-tie pub&c agency shall determine the _:.completeness of rile application. If the application is detemvned not�be complete, the agency's deternvnatton shall specify th-- parts ©f the application which are incomplete and shall.indicate= the manner in which they can be made-complete,including a List and-rhorough description of the specific itifarmation°needed to complete the application. The applicant shall submit riiaterials to the public agency in.tesponse to the list and description. " (b) -Not latex thai3 30alendar days after receipt of the submitted materials the public agency-shill determine in writing whe[her=Shey are complete,and shall fthmddiately gansmit-that detenrunation to the applicant. =3f the.written determination is not made within -that'30-day period the application together with-die'.submitted materials shall be deemed complete for the purposes of this chapter. (c) If the applicatioxi.together with the submitted fnateria are deterinined not,'ta he complete pursuant to subdivision (b), the public,- shall.provide`a process for the applicant to,appeal that decision in writing to the:governing-body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the ditectar of the Agency, as:provided by that agency. h city-or county shall provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body'pr,at their option the planning conimisston;or both... There shall be a filial written`dewrninatian by the agency of th e appeal not later than b0 The fatt. ppea calendar . days after receipt of the apptieanvsswritten al.. 4laat an appear is perinitteii to boik t he planning-commi§siori and _to the -governing,;body does not extend the :_60-day-period. Notwithstandizig a`decision!pursuant _tit subdivision (b),-that the -application_and--submitted materials are not complete,if.the final written detetminatiotton-the appeal is not made wi€im that 60-day period the'=App lication with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete'-for the purposes�of this chapter (d) 'Nothing,n this section precludes an applicant and a public agency ftam mutually agteetrig to an . extension of any tithe hmit provided byttus section:` - LA/Qnfario Infematbrral Rtrpaii Land We Co;LPaffbfflfy Plan(Adoptsd�19 tot t j- - A-2 _ APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO'A IRPORT'LAND USE PLANNING (e) A public agency may chazge'apphcants.a fee nat`to exceed,-the amount reasonably necessary to • „provide the service,required,by this section. If a_fee is charged pursuant to this section, the fee shall be,collected as;pazt of the.application fee charged for the development permit: -65943.5. _ -(a}_.Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any appeal-pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section-65943 involving a permitapplicanon td a_boazd;office,or depar invent within the CaliforTUa Environmental Protection Agency shall-be madcto the Secretary for Environmental.Protection., (b)' Notwithstanding any other provisionn of this chapter any appeal pursuazit to subdivision>(c) of Section 65943 involving an_-.applica'tion-for tke issuance-Of 4n environmental permit from-an en--' vironmental agency shall be-made to the Secretary for Environmental Protection under either of the following circumstances environmental agency has nbt`adopted:ai appeals process pursuant to subdivision'(c) of Section 65943:: _ .---(2y: The.environmental agency declines to accept an ca p a decision pursuant to subdivision (c)c of Section 65943 — ._ . (c) For purposes of subdivision.(b}`"environmentaF..permit"-has the same meaning as defined in Section 72012`of the Public`Resources Code, and:"environmental agency" has the same meaning as defined in Section 7101k.'of the"Public Resources Code, except that "environmental agency" does not include the agencies-described in subdivisions(c) and (h) of Section 71011 of the;Public Resources Code.- • 65944. Acceptance -of >:Application as Complete; Requests for Additional Information; Restrictions; Clarification, Amplification, Correction, etc; Prior, to Notice of Necessary Information--: _ (a) After a public agency accepts an application as cotnple"te,.the-agency shall not subsequently request of an applicant any,new or additional_information which was not specified in the list prepared ' to Section 65940. Te a may, in the course of processing the application, request genet the applicant to clarify amplify, correct,-' otherwise supplement the information.-required for the application (b) The provisions of subdtvisiori (a) shall not be construed as requiring an applicant to submit with his or-het initial applicationtfie entirety-of the,info_rmation which a public agency may require in order'to fake fiinal action onthe application. Prior to accepting_an'applicanon, each public agency_ shall inform the applicant. of any information included in She list prepared pursuant to Section 65940 which will subsequently be required from the applicant in order ao complete final action on " = the application. (c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the`abiliry of a public agency to request and obtain information, which may be_-needed in. order to.corn with the'_provisions of Division 13 " (commencing with;Section 21000) of`the Public Resources Code. ? (d) (1) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, if the protect applicant has identified thatithe propgsed project is-located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special;use airspace or beneath a -low-level flight path in accordance with Section 65940,tine public agency shall provide a copy of the complete application to any branch of the- A-22 • ; LrWntsrfo lnlemeNonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) 0+ 3TA1`E LAWS R£CAT£D To MRP DRT LANO-U$£ PLANNING gihENDIX A.- -- =. _- . United States Armed Forces that has.provided the Office of Planning and Research-ixa a single California mailing address within the state for the delivery -_copy of :tkese Applications. This subd visiorx shall appli only to development applications submitted to_ public agency 30.days after.the Office of Planning and_Research-has notified-cities,,counties, and cities,and counties of the availability of Depamrient of Defense information bit the Internet pursuant to subdivision (d)'of Sectieiii'65940 ( } Except fora project-within 11009 feet 'of a military instalIatian the public agency' s not required to provide a copy of the application if the project is located entirely-iii an "urbanized area." An urbanized area is any urban location that meets the definition used by the Umted State Department of Commerce's Bureau of-Census for "urban" and includes locations with core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census block groups containing at le=ast 500 people per squaremile (e)-_Upon receipt of a copy of the application as required in subdivision (d�, any branch of the Unite-d. States Alined Forces may request consultation with the public agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of-the-proposed project on niiiitary installationsz low-level flight padrs,or=special , use airspace,and potential alternatives and outigation measure_s. (f}' (1) Subdivisions (d), (e},and as these rlate to low-level flight paths,special use airspace,and e urbanized areas shalt not be operative until the United States ISepirtment of Defense provides electronic maps of Tow-teve1 flight paihs,-'special use airspace, and military installations,at a scale and in art electronic format that is acceptable to the.Office of pl nning- and Research. (2) Within 30 days of a determination-by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Depatnnent of Defense is sufficient and m ari`accegtable scale and format, the office shall notify-cities, counties,and cities and counties of the availability of the infomiation`on the Internet. `-Cities; counties, and amities and comities shad comply with subdivision (d)within 3o days of receiving this from the office, 65945. Notice of Proposal to Adopt or Amend Certain Plans or Ordinances by City or County, Fee Subscription to Periodically Updated Notice as Altemative, Fee (a)� At the time of filing an application fora development permit with"a city_or county, the city or county shall inform the applicant that he'or she may make a written request to retrieve notice from the city or county of a proposal to adopt or amend any of tl efollowing plans oc-ordinances: (1) A general Plan,= - (2) .A specific plan. (3) A zoning ordinance. (4} An ordinance iffect4ng-bi ildin permits or grading permits. 'Me applicant shall specify,m the written request,the types of proposed action for which notice is " requested. Prior to taking arty of those:aehoas,the-city or county shall give notice to any applicant , who has_requested;.notice of the type of action proposed and whose development project is pending before The city or county if the city or county der.ermines'tkat_the proposal is_reasonably' related to the applicant's request for the acvelopment Permit.=Notice stall be Oven-:only for-those es of actions which the.applicant specifies in the:request for,notification typ LARontarlo tntemational A 7"Land Ilse fomPatibfUty Plan(Adopt-?VprJl t 9.201 tj -A43 _ --APPENDI% A.STA'fE LAWS RELATED 70 'AIRPORT LAND U$E PLANNING - O"M ^ N%14c -'The city or country may charge the applicant for development permit,to whom noace is provided - pursuant o ihiasubdivision,a easonable fee not to exceed the actual cost ofproviding that notice. If-a fee.is charged pursuant to this subdivision, the fee shall;be collected as gazf of the application fee charged for the developm'ent pert {b)'As in alternative to:the notification procedure prescribed by subdivision (a), a city or county may inform the applicant at the time of filing an application fora development permit that-he or she may'subscribe to a periodically updated'nonce or set of notices from the city ox county which lists pending proposals to adopt ox amend any of theplans or ordinances=specified in subdivision (a), together with the status of the proposal and the-date-of any hearings thereon which have been set. Only rho"se proposals which are general, as opposed to parcel-specific in nature, grid which the city . or county determines are reasonably related to requests for development pemtits, need be listed in _ the notice. No proposals shall be required to be listed until such time'as the_first public Hearing =thereon has be esset. The notice shall 6e updated and mailed at least once every six weeks;except that-a notice need not be.updated and mailed until a change in its contents is required. The cityor county Wray charge the applicant fox a.development permit,to whom notice is provided pursuantao this"subdivision, a reasonable fee not-to exceed the actual cost of providing that notice, " including the costs of updating the notice, for the length of time the applicant requests to be sent the notice or notices. 65945.3. Notice of Proposal to ,Adopt or Amend Rules or Regulations Affecting Issuance of Permits b Local A n otherthan C' or Cou , Fee At the time of 51ing ari=apphcaaoti for x.deoelopmeni pemrit with a local agency,other than wary'or • county, the local,agency.shall inform the;applicant that-he-or,she may,Wake,a written request to receive notice of'any_proposal to adoptor amend a rule or regulation, affecting the issuance of development permits Prior to adopting or amending a-by such rule oi'regulation, the local agetiry shall give notice`to any, applicant who has requested such notice and,whose development project is pending be,fore the agency- . if the local-agency determines that the proposal is reasonably related to the applicants request for the development permit., The local agency may charge the•apphcarit'-for a development=permit, to'whorn notice is provided pursuant to this section,a reasonable fee hot to'exceed,the.actual-cost of providing that notice. If a fee - .is charged pursuant to this sectioti the fee shall be collected as part o£the application fee charged for - the,development permit., 65945.5. ,,Notice of Proposal to Adopt or Amend Regulation'Affecting Issuance of Permits and Which Implements Statutory Provision by State Agency At the time of filing an application for a development permit with a state agency;the state agency shall inform the applicant that he or;she-may make a written request- receive notice of any proposal to adopt or amend a regulation affecting the issuance of development permits and which implements a statutory provision. Prior to adopting or amending any such regulation, the`state agency shall Bide notice io any applicant Who has requested such notice and'whose developmenrproject is,pending before the state agency if the • !NC)ntarlo Intematlonal Airport Land Use Campapbility Plan(Adopted April 19,201 1) , O = STATE CAWS R ELATE D FO9RIRPDRT LAND tlSf PLANNING A*PENDUX A - _ state agency determines that the proposal s,reasonatily related to- the"apgkcanr s:regttesi for the development permit 65945.7. Actions, inactions, or Recommendations Regarding- Winances, Rules or Regulations; Invalidity or Setting Aside Ground of ErrorUnly if Prejudiclal No action, inaction, or recommendation rQgarding airy ordinance, rule, or_regulation subject-to this Section 659445, 65MA or 65945;5 by any legislative body, administrative body, or-.the-dffi-Ws o- any "state or local_agenry shall be held void gr_invalid or be set aside by any-court on the ground of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or_lomission :(hereinafter called "error's as to any matter pertam�g to notices, cords, determinations, publications, or _any matters of procedure whatever, re unless after an rraminat an of the entire case;including evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial, and that by`reason of such error the party complaining or appealing sustained and suffered substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if such error had not occurred or existed; There shall be no presumption that error is.-prejudicial or that injury was done if'error is shown, 65946 [Replaced by A62351 Statutes of IW31 LAJVnkt io International Airpo. Land Use Competib t}<Plan(Adopted.4p. 19,20 R- APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING - o w+�+✓G� PLANNING,AND ZONING LAW _ • GOVERNMENT CODE -Title 7, Division 1 Chapter9.3—Mediationand Resolution of Land Use Disputes " 66030. - (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Currenflaw provides that aggrieved agencies; project proponents, and affected residents may bring suit against the land usedecisions of state and local governmental agencies. In practical ` terms,nearly anyone can sue once aproject has been approved, (2) Contention-often arises over pxolects involving local general plans and zoning,redevelopment plans, the California Environmental Quality;-Act (Division 13'(comrriencing'with Section 21000) of the Public Resources.-Code), development impact`fees, annexations and m- corporations, and the Permit:.Streatnhning Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Secdon 65920)). - (3) When a public agency approves ad evelopment project that is not accordance with the law, or when the prerogative to bring suit is':abused, lawsuits can delay development, add uncertainty and cost to the development process, make housing more expensive, and damage • California's competitiveness. This litigation begins in the superior,court,and'often progresses on appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, adding to the workload`of the state's already,overburdened judicial system. (b) It is,therefore, the intent oft he Legislature to.-help litigants resolve their differences by establi shing formal mediation processes for land use disputes:- In establishing these mediation processes, it is interfere with:the ability haganta_to pursue remedies through not the intent of the Legislature.to the courts 66031. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision'of law, airy,action brought-in-the,superior court relating to any of the following subjects,may be subject to a mediation p roceeding-conducted pursuant to this chapter: : (1) The_approval or denial by a public agency of any development project. (2) Any act or decision of-a public agency trade pursuant to the California En6ironmental;Quafi Act (Division 13 (commending with Sectton:21000) of the Public Resources Code). '(3) The failure of a public agenry'to.meet the tune lirnitsi specified in Chapter 4.5 (commencing' with Section 65920), commonly known As the Permit Streamlining Act, or in the Subdivision Map Act(Division.2 (commencing_with Section 66410))1 . {4) Fees'determin ctio ed pursuant to Sens 53080 to 53082,inclusive, of Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) - A-26 - LAlonrario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) OO" STATE LAMS,RELATED TO AIRPQRT LAND USE PI,ANNIN& APPENDIX A. (5) Fees determined pursuant to Chapter 5(commencmg witli Section 66Q00). (6)- The adequacy of a general plan or specific plan-adopted pursuant to Chapter 3__(c vmnnsencittg with Section 65100). (7) The validity of ariy"sphere of mflu�ze, urban service area, ihange of organization or reorgamzations or any-0ther decision made-pursuant tin the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg-Local Government ReorgAniiaEioii Act of 2000 (Division 3_,(commencing with Section 560Q4) of Title 5) (8) 1-he-_.-adoption-_-6i amendment of a re',& _'lopment_ plan pursuant to the Cornmunity _ Redevelopment I aw (Pair 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Di vision;24 of the l=lealth and_Safety Code). {9j The validity o€,any zoning decision made pursuant to'Chapter 4-(commencing with-Section - (10)The validity of any deeis'ton made pursuant to Article 3.5'(commencing with Section 22b70) of Chat ter 4 of Part l of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) *ithin five days after the deadline for the respondent or defendant to file its reply to an action,the court may invite the parties-to consider resolving their dispute by selecting a miititally acceptable person.-to serve as a.mediator;::or an organzation or agency to provide amediatot.` - (c� In selecting a persort to serve-as a mediator, or an organization or ageztcq to provide a mediator the parties shaliconsidetdie.follawing (l) The council"ofgovemments havingjuasdfction in the county where the dispute arose. (2) Any subregional ox countywide council of governments in the county where the dispute arose. (3) Any other person,with experience or training in mediation including those with experience in land use issues; or any other,organization of agency which can provide a>-person'xvith ex- perience or training in mediation,including those with experience in land use_issues. {dj ':Iftbe court invites the parties ro consider mediation, the parties shall .natify the court within0 days if theq have selected a mutually acceptable_person to serve as a t iediatot. Tf the parties have stet selected a mediator within 30 days, the Action shall ptoceed. Ile court shall not draw any - implicati& favorable or otherwise„from--the r e-fusal by a party to accept the invitation by-the court' to consider mediation. Nothing in this.section shall preclude the parties from.using mediation at an y oth r;ume while the action is pending." L.A/OntarioJ ntemaUcra(ALpor(Lind Use CompatltiflityPl Bn(rldopted.Apr#19,-2011) = A-27 -APPENDIX A $TATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE P=LANNING Omw PLANNING AND ZONING LAW • GOVERNMENT CODE Title 7=Planning and Land Use Division 2--Subdivisions - Chapter 3--Procedure Article 3=Review of Tentative Map by Other Agencies (excerpts} 66455.9. - -!' Whenever there is consideration ofaan area within a development fox a public school site,the-advisor y agency shall give the affected districts and'the State Department of Education written notice-of the proposed site. The written notice`shall inclpde.the identification;of any existing or proposed runways within the distance specified m Section.-17215 of the Education Code. if the site is within the distance of an existing or proposed airport runway-as described in Section 17215 of the Education Code, the `department shall notify the State'De part tnent of Transportation as requited by the section and the site shall be investigated by".the State Department of Transportation required by Section 1 2215. 7 . A_48 ".LAIDntado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19;2011) STATE LAWS RELATED To AIRPORT RAND i7SE PLANNING A-PP'EN0IX-A • fiDIiCATION'CODE Title fi-YGiineral Education Code Provfiii6ni� , 13ivision 1-General ducatfort Cads Rrovislons Part 10.5—S hoot Facilities Chapter 1—School Sites _ Article l.=General Provisions �exceryitsl 17275. (a)"_ In order to proxisote die safety of pupils comprehensive community planning, and 'greater =educational usefuittess of school sites, ttefore acquiring title too leasing property_for a new school site, the governing board of-each school=district,including any district pove-med by a city board of education or a_charter school; shall give the State Department of Edu anon written notice-of the proposed:acquisition:or lease=and and--shall any information required by the State Department of Education if the site is within two miles,measured by air.line of that point on an rut way . dr a gotennal runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site.(V)­ receipt o€ the -notice required ;pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of Education shall notify the Department-of Transportation in writing of lire proposed acquisition or = lease If the Department of T ansportattan is no longer in_operatioir; the State Department ci _ Education shall, m_hen of nohfymg the Department of Transportation, notify the United States Department of.Tfarisportation or any other appropriate.agency, in writing cif the proposed, acgtnsit[oii for the purpose of'obtaininp`from tiae departmenk or other agency any information or assistarice that ii may desire to-give. _ _ (c) . The Department ofTranspot[ation shallinfiesngate the proposed site and withiri 32worltixig days aftu receipt of the notice,shall submir2o the State Depazttnent of Ed nation a written report of its Srrdings including ecotnmeneladons eottcerning acquisition or lease of the site. =As part of the investigation, 'the 'Depaxtxtient of Transportation. shall give nonce thereof to the owner- - and ' operator of the airport who-shall be planted the_,opportunity to comment upon the site. The Department of Transportation shall adopt-regulations setting forth the criteria by which a site will be evaluatedpursua it to this section. (dj -The State Department of Education:-shall,_ within 10 days of receiving Ov_ Department of ;Transportation's report,forward the report to the govemingboard of'the school district ar charter school. TCte goveiiurig board of charter school-nay not acquire title to or lease tire property until the report of the Department of Transportation-hii been received. Ifthe report does not favor the acquisition or lease of the property for a school site or,an addition to a present school..site, the governing board or thartet school may notacquire title to os=lease the property. If the report does ' favor the":acquisition or lease`of the property fora school site or an addition to,a present school site, the gavernnig.board or charter school shall hold.a public hearing on the matter-prior to .acquiring or leasing the site----_ (e) If the Depattment:of Transp©rtatton's recommendation does not favor acquisition or lease-of the - - proposed site, state funds or.loeal funds may not be apportioned or expended-for the acquisition of that site construction of airy sehaol buddit}g o that,site;or_f the etpansiori of any casting -� site to include tbat site LAXintarlo lntamationa7 Abpat Land)Use CompaG6lllf Plan,(Adopted April>P,20111 _ 'AP'PENDI% A,STATE LAWS.RELATED To AIRPQRT.LAND USE PLANNING (� This section does riot-appI to sites acqutred prior to January i, i966, not to any additions or:,._- " • extensions to thosesttes 2. J. i • A-30 --` LA/Ohtino tntemadonel Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan-(Adopted April D,2011) ': OAa.Jm ow+m STATE LAYVS ffBLR'TED T AIR RR PORT tAiJO USE P.Ck.NNf31G AP6EN EDllGA -ION -CODE Title =—Postsecondary Education Divlsion 7-Community Colleges Part 49-�—Community Colleges, Education facilities Chapter,l--�-School Sites Article 2--School Sites (excerpts) 81Q33. Investigation: Geologic and Soil Engineering Studies;Airport in Proximity , (c)- To prornote the safety o students, cotnp>ehensive community planning, and-gr€ater-educational usefulness of c6ninninity college sites, the governing board of each conununity coll ege district, if the proposed site is'within two miles, measured byair line, of that poitton an airport runway,or- b runway proposed liy an airport master plan, which is nearest the site and excluding them if the property is not so located, before aequiing title to property-far a new commutriy coIlegesite or -for an addition to-a present site, shall give the board of governors notice in writing of the p-tAposed acquisition an d shall-submit=any information required by the hoard of governors. Immediately after re-c—Ming-notice of the proposed acquisition of property which is within two miles,measured by air line,of-that point on an airport runway_,or a runway proposed by-an--airport master plan, which; is nearest the site the-board of governors shall notify the Division of Aeronautics of the Depaitrnent of Traiisportadon; in-writing, of the proposed acquisition.: he ' Division of Aeronautics-shall make an uivestigation-and report to the board governors within 30 working days after receipt af_the nonce: If the Division of Aeronautics irna longer in`ope afion, the board of governors shall, in lieu of nod -the Division of Aeronautics, notify the Federai , Aviation tldmiiiistration or any other.appropriate agency,'-in writing,of-the'proposed acqusmon for the purpose of obtainirig'from the authority or other agency such information or assistance Ss -it maydesite to give The board ofgovernors shall.investigate:the proposed site and within 35 working days after receipt --of the notice shall_ submit to the"governing board a written report and its recommendations •concerning acquisition of the site. The governing board shill- acquire title to the property until, the report of the board of governors has been received.- If the ;report does,-not favor the acquisition of the ,property for a community college site or an addition to a present comfouruty = college site, -the board %hall ,riot acquire fide-to-the properly until 30 days after the departnient's-rep6rt:is received and until-the Board of governors' report has been read at a public hearing duly called after to days' notice published once in,a newspaper of general circulation within the community college.district, or-.if there is no such newspaper, then ir--a newspaper of generaLcirculatioa'withiiri the county in which nice property is located. (d) If, with respect to a proposed site located within.two miles.of an opeYative airport runway, the "report o£the board Afgovemors%ubmittedto a community college district governing boatel_under_ subdivision (c) does not favor the acquisition of the site:on the sole or pzrtial basis=-o£ the unfavorable recommendation of the-, Division' of Aeronautics 'of- the I]eparut3erit of ``Transportation, no-state agency or o€fieez shall=grant, apportion, oralloiv to such community' .__college district for e*cmdi=,e iii connection with that site, any state funds_otherwise made -available under any state taw whatever for a community college site acquisition or college hiulding lontario Intemahonal'Airport Land Lisa GnmpatiNllity PNapJAdopted Aprif 19,201 )_ _ - A73 ;'APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO'4IRPORT LAND USE PVANN ING - - Om construction ox for eXpanston of existing sites- and buildings, and no funds of the cominuntty • college district oitof the county in which the=distract lies shall be expended for such purposes, - - pxovided that provisions of this section•shall not be applicable to sites-acquired prior to January 1, ' 1966,nor any additions or extensions to such sites; If the recommendations'of the Division of Aeronautics are unfavorable, such recommendations shall not be overrul ed without the.express,appI al of-the board of-governors and the State Allocation Board. - - A=32- - - ULDnfmlo Intematlona!Airport Land Use Competlbility Plan-(Adopted Apri119,2011) ONTAIN US G APPINDIX A STATE LA.W-S RE LATE TO E CALIFORNIA ENV/RONMENTAI QUALfTYACT$TAUTES PUBLICRESQURCES CODE Division 13�EtivironmenYal,Quality Chapter 2."sneml (excerpts) 21096 #►irpoit Planning (a) if a lead agency prepares an environmental impact report for-a project situated within airport land use compatibility'plan boundaries, or, i£"an airport land use compatibility plan has nat'been adopted; for a project within two nautical miles-of a public airport or public use airport, the Airport Land Use= Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of'-_ the Department o€Tramportton, m camplranee with Section 21674.5 of the Public Utilities Code -and-other docurneiits;shall be utilized technical resources to assist m the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to airport-related safety hazards -And'noise problems. (b)?A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration for a project described it subdivision (a) . unless the lead agency considers whether the project will�esult in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport:bz far persons resid ing or worlCittg in the project area: LAADnterro intematffalsl Airport Land-UsB compeufwity Plan-(AdDptOd Apinl l$,2811) ` A-33 -- = APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO'-AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING` BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE Division 4—Real Estate -Part1—Regulation-of Transactions Chapter.l—Subdivided Lands " Article 2-Investigation, Regulation and Report , (excerpts) 11010. _ (a) Except as otherwise provided pursuanttc subdivision (c) or-elsewhere in this chapter, any-person. who 'intends to' offer°subdivided,land s" within this state for sale or lease-shall file 'with the Department of Real Estate an application for a public report consisting of a notice of intention , _ and a completed'questionnaire on a form prepared by the department. - (b) The notice of intention shall'contam the foll owing information about the subdivided lands and the proposed offering: [Sub Sections (1) through (12)omitted] - _ (13) {A) The location of all existing airports, arid`of all proposed airports shown on the general -= plan_of;any city orrcounty, located within two statute miles of thesubdivisiori. If the property is-located within an airp6tt influence area, the following statement shall be included in the notice of intention • NOTICE OF.AIRPORT'.IN VICINITY This property is.presend located-in the vicinity of an airport within what is known- 'as an air influence,area. For that reason, the property may be subject to-some of the annoy ances`or inconveniences associaredwith proximity to-,airport operations (for example: : noise,- vibration, -_or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary fromperson to:person. I ou may wish to consider what airport annoyances, any,, are_associated with the_'property :before you complete your purchase and'detemune whether.they are acceptable to you. r purposes of this section; an "airport influence area," also known as an "airport referral-area," is the area in ,which current'or future 'airport-related'noise, overflight, safety or airspace protection-factors-may significantly affect land.uses or necessitate " restrictions on those uses as deternilned by an airport land use commission • X-34. Lq/Ontar o lntemationel A rport Lend Use Compatibilfty Wart(Adopted Ajwfl 19,2011)" MAWSTAT-E TAWS RELATED TO'AIRPO RT LAND USE RLAMNiNfa AP PEN DSX A ' • VWL CODE Divisions Property Part 4—Acipjisition of property -Title-4---Transfer Chapter 2—Transfer of Reai Property " ;Article t.7—Disclosure of Natural Wazards Upon Transfer of R_esidentiai property (excerpts) 1103: (a) Except as provided in Sec-ton 1103.1; this article applies to any transfer by-sale, exchange, installment land sale contract,as defined in Section 2985-,lease with an-option to purchase, any -other 'option,"to purchase, lit ground 'lease coupled with:improvements, of any real property desiabed in subdivision (c), or residential.stock_cooperative, improved with or consistint,of not less than onenor_more thanfour dwelling inifts. (li} ;Except as provided in Section 1103.1, this article shall apply-to a resale-transaction: entered it td on or after j-Anuary 1,_2000, for a manufactured home; as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code, that is classified as personal property intended for use as a-residence„ or a " -mobilehome, as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, that is classified as personal=property intended foruseas a--residence;if the real pfoperty on which the manufactured `- homeormobilehoine is located is real property described in subdivision(c). - (c) _.This art shall apply to the transactions described in :subdivisions (a) and. (b) only if the transferor or his or her agent are required by one or more of the fallowing,to discl�ise the property's location within a hazard zone:__ (1) A person who is acting'as an agent-fora transferor of real property that is located within a special flood hazard area-(any type Zone "A"_or "W}";designated by the Federal Emergency b6hagement Agency,or the transferor if he orshe is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact.that the property is located within a special flood Hazard area=if either: - - (A) The transferoi, or the transferor's agent,has actual knowledge=that the property is:within a special flood hazard area. (B) The local jurisdiction has compiled a list, by parcel, of properties that are within the -special flood hazard-`area and-`a notice has been-_posted aE-th . offices of the toumy recorder,_county-assessor, and.iounty planning agency that identifies the location of the - parcel list. {2} ... is located within W area of "potemial flooding .,: shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the-pro located within an area of poeential flooding (3) .. is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, designated pursuant to Section 51178 of the Public Resources £ode'_'.. shall disclose to any prospective transferee die fact that the property is located within a very high fire-hazard severity zone and:is subject:to the -Tequirements of Section 51182 ... On • - , .°LA/Ontedol ntomaHone/AfipatLandUseCompatibi lityPlan(A�pted,4prilf$,20t1j- - :- AA5;z APPENDIX A STATE-LAWS RELATED TO'AIRPORTIAND USE PLANNING (4) is located-within an earthquake fault ions, designated pursuant to Section 2622 of die • Public 'Resources ode ; .. shall disclose "to any:prospective transferee the fact that the property.is located withinza delineated earthquake fault zone ... (5) ... is located within a seismic hazard zone, designated pursuant to-Section 2696 of the:Public Resources Code ... shall disclose-to any prospective transferee the fact that the property is locatedwithin-a seismic-hazard zone ..-. (6) ....is located within a state responsibility area determined by the-board, pursuant to Section 4125 Df the Public Resources Code; shall disclose to any prospective transferee the fact that the propertq is located within-a wildland area that may contain substantial forest-fire risks and hazards and is subject to the requirements'of Section 4291 ... (d)`Any waiver of the requirements of this article is void as against public policy. 11031 - (a)` This article does not apply;to the following transfers. - - (1) Transfers pursuant to court order,including,,but not limited to,transfers ordered by a probate court in administration of an estate,transfers-pursuant to a writ of:executiori;_transfers;by any foreclosure sale, transfers by a;trustee ih bankruptcy; transfers,by eminent domain, and transfers resulting from a decree for specific perfomiance. (2) Transfers to a mortgagee by a mortgagor or successor in interest who is in default, transfers to a beneficiary;of a deed of trust-by'a trustor or successot`in interest who is in default,_transfers, by any foreclosure sale,after default, transfers by any foreclosure sale after default in an Obligation secured by a mortgage, transfers by a sale under a power of sale or any foreclosure sale under a decree of foreclosure after default in an obligation secured by a--deed of trust or secured by any other instrument containing a-power of sale, or transfers by a mortgagee or a` beneficiary under a deed of trust who has acquired he real property at a sale.conducted Pursuant to a power of sale under a mortgage or,deed of trust or a sale pursuan t to a decree of- foreclosure or has acquired the real.property by ,a deed in lieu of foreclosure. =(3) Transfers by a fidudary m the course of, the administration of a decedenes estate, guardianship,conservatorship or,trust - (4) Transfers from one coowner to,one more-other coowners (5) Transfers made to a spouse, or to a person or persons in the lineal line of consanguinity of one or more of the transferors. (6) Transfers between sponges resulting from a judgment of dissolution of marriage or of legal separation of the parties or,from a property settlement agreement incidental to that judgment. (%) Transfers by the Controller in the course o - administeang Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 1500) of Title 10 of Part the Codeof Civil Procedure, (8) Transfers under Chapter;? (commencing with Section 3691) or Chapter-8 (commencing with Section 3771) of Part 6 of Division 1, the Revenue and Taxation-Code: - (9) Transfers or exchanges to or from any goveminental entity. (b). Transfers not subject to thii article may be subject to other disclosure requirements, including those under Sections 8589 3,:8589 4 and 51183 5 of the Government:Code an d Sections 2621.9, A-36 LA UntaiiA Intematlonal Airport Land Use C*poftillty Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) Owe--- qw STA7E LA1N5 RELATED-TO AIRPORT LANb USE PLAHNIHG dlPPeNDIX A� • 2694,and 4136 of-the Pybitc Resources Code. In transfers not subject to this article,agents may make requtreddisrlosures in a,separatevriting. _ (a)„ The disclosures required by this article are set forth in;-and shall 'be tirade on a copy of, the following Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement-[, ontent omitted[. (b} If an earthqu fault none, seismic hazard zone;:very high fire hazard severity-zone, or avdland ake Are area_map:or accompanying infortiuuon is not of sufficient accuracy or scale shat a reasonable person can.determine if the subject real property is included in a natural hazard area, the'ttansferor or transferor's agent shall mark "Yes' on e, Natural Hazard Dclosure>Statemenf._- .The transferoi or transferor's agent may mark "No" on the Nita raLHazard:Disclosure Statement if he ' or she attaches a;report prepared p- unit to subdivision (c) of Section 1A3.4 that verifies the property-i3 not in the hazard cone. Nothmg in this subdivision is intended tolitiiror abridge any existing-duty of the transferor or the transferor's_agents to exercise reasonable care in n3alurig a determination und'ei this subdivision. [Sub=sections (c) through(h) ornittedf [Section 1103;3 ottiitted]: '[1'03 4. �a} Neither the transferor tior arty hsting or selling agent shaH=be-liable for any error, inaccuracy,or onussiorro any in€ormation delivered pursuant to this article if the errpr,inaccuracy, or binission • was not within the;personxI knowledge.of the"transferor or the listing or selling agent, and was based on information timely provided b y public agencies or by other persons pi;ovidtng infortimadon as specified in subdivision (c) that is required to be disclosed pursuant-to this,ardcle, and oidi iae care was exercised in obtaining and transtnitting;the infDrmation. (b . The delivery of any information`required m be'disrlosed by this-article=to a prospective transferee by a public agency of other person providing information required to be disclosed pursuant to this . article shall be -deemed t�"coim�ply *it h-- -requirements of.thia article and shall relieve the -_ tratsferor or atiy:listing'or. selling agent-of any farther duty under this`article with respect:to that . item of information. (c) ; The deliver y.of a report or-ppinion prepared by _a licensed engineer,-land surveyor, geologist or expert in natural :Hazard discovery dealing with matters wiliitt the,scope of the professional's license-or expertise,shall be sufficient compliance,for application of the exemption provided by subdivision (a)jf the infommation is provided to the prospective transferee pursuant to a.-request, therefor,.whether avatien or oral In responding tv that request,an expert tray indicate,in wmturg, an understanding that the information provided will be--used in fulfilling the _requirements of Section 1103.2 and if s©- shall indicate die required disclosures, or pans thereof, to which the_ information being_furriished is applicable. Where=that statement is furnished, the expert shall not be-respon"sible for-any--items o£information, orparts thereof,other than those expressly set tomb in the statement. (1)- In responding to the request, the expert shall determine whether the -property is within-in airport influence,area as defined in subdivision (b) of"Section-11010 of the Business and Professions-Code. I£the,propeity.1-S VA an airport influence area,-the report shall contain the following statement - LAfOMario Intematlona/Alrportfand Usa Compatlblllty Plan(Adopted April 19,2p1'}) ' - _ A-47 ; APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO;AIRPORT-LAND USE PLANNING NOTI6 OF t1IkP15RT IN A INITY _ • This property is presently located in`the vtcmty of-an airport,within what`is.known as ait=airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject- some of the annoyances?.or inconveniences-associated:ivith proximity to airport operations (for`example: noise,vibrarion, orodors). Individual sensitivities to:those annoyances --can vary from person to person. You may w sh to consider what.airport annoyances, if any, a associated'with the property before 'you complete your purchase an d re - determine whether they are acceptable to you. [Remainder of Arttclel:7 omitted] A 38 LAlOnta io.lntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) � PIMNS�6 - 'STATE L,A WS RELATED TD'AiRPORT LAND OSE PLANNING APPE NDiX A CIVIL CODE Division Z Part 4 Title >~Common Interest Developments {excerlpts) . 1353. - {a) (1) A declataton -recorded,on or after January'.f, 1986, shall confetti a legal description of the common interest,development, ardl a statement that,the common interest development is,a community -apartment- project, --condominium project, planned` development;` stock cooperative, or combination zhereo£ The declaration shaII additionally.set forth the name of the association'and tlie•restrictions on the-use or enjoyment of any-portion.of the common _ interest development that are intended to be.caforceable equitable servitudes, if the p€operty is located within an airport influence area, a declaration recordecl'after January 1, 2QC44,shall . contain the following statement. = - M ICE�F AlRPCiRT IN VICINITY This,.property is presetidy-located in-the vicinity of an airport, wtdifii what is'known as an airport influence area. For that reason,the property may be subject to. -f the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations s (for example:noise,vibration,of odors). Individual sens Srvities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether-they are acceptable to you. (2j For purposes of this section, an "airport influence area," also known as are`airpart referral- areas"is the area in which current or'future aaiport-telated noise;overflight:-safety or-aimpace, protection factors ntay sjoficandy affect-land uses or-necessitate res`tricdons on those uses as defertnitred by an---'-rport land use commission: (3) (Ciiriittedl (4) -Tbe statement itra declaration acknowledging that a property is located.in in-airport influence area does not.corisritute_aritle defect iien,or'mcutnbrance. (b) The declaration tray contain any-other mattes-the original signator,of the declarauori tit the owners consider-appropriate.; = - .-LA/CnteN�.t o Whational AkowtLanjilseConpaHbll(tyPlan(AdoptedApr1148 ZOf ) A 33 #PPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED f0'AiRPORT NAND USE PLANNING ' ^Or - LEGLSLATIVE HISTORY SUMMARY • PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE ='Sections 21670 et seq. Airport Land Use Commission Statutes - And Related Statutes - 1967 Original ALUC statute enacted 'Establishment of ALUCs required in each county-,containing'; public-airport served by a - certificated air carrier:_ • The purpose of ALUCS-is in as being to make recommendations egazdmg-Height restrictions on buildings and the use of land surrounding airports.. 1970 Assembly Bill 1856 (Badkam) Chapter 1182,Statutes of 1970—Adds provisions which: , • Require ALUCs to prepare comprehensive land use plans. _ - •` Require such plans to-include a-long-range;plan and to reflect the,airport's forecast growth during the next 20 years • Require ALUC review of airport construction plans (Section 21661.5). • Exempt Los Angeles County from the requirement of establishing an ALUC 1971 The function of ALUCs is restated-as.being to require_new construction_to conform -to Department of Aeronautics"standards • 1973 - ALUCs are permitted to establish compatibility plans for-military airports 1982 Assembly Bill,2920(Rogefs) Ckaptet 1041,Statutes of 19$l—Adds;major changes which • More dearly articulate the PurpQSe of ALUCs. • .Eiminate reference to"a thieve_by zonitrg.'. - • Require tonsistency-between 'local general and specific plans and airport land use commission plans; the requirements define the process for attaining consistency, they do not establish standard$for consistency. _ • Eliminate the requirement for proposed individual development projects to be referred to' an ALUC;for review once local general/spedfic,plans aze consistent with the ALUC's -plan. *-Require that local agencies make findings o€°fact before overriding an ALUC decision • Change the vote required for an override from 4/5 to_2/3 19.84 Assembly Bill 3551 (Mountl'oy) Chapter 1117,_Statutes of 1984—Amends the law to Require ALUCs in all counties having an-aitport which serves the general public unless"a county_and its cities_detemiine"an ALU --is not.needed • Limit amendments to:compatibility plans Yo once per year. - • Allow individual projects to continue to be-referred to the ALUC by agreement. • `Extend immunity to auports,if an ALUC action is overridden by a local agency not owning the-airport. . A-40' -- - v -LNUnterio International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) - ST,(TE-'LAVfS RELATED TD AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING APPENDIX A • 1'rovtde state funding eligibility=for preparation of compatibility plans through Regional I ansportarion ltttptovemenr Program process. 198.7 Senate Bill 633(Rogers)Chapter'IOIS,Staaites of 1987= Makes revision's which e Require that =a designated body seiv-Ii g' as an Ai UC include_ two members l amng expertise in aviaaon. 0 Allows an tierested party to initiate court proceedings to}postpone the effective date-ofa local land use'acdon-if a compatibility plan has not been adopted ' • Delete,rx)W provisions contained irk certain clauses of the laws;Allows ieimbursenfent'for - ALUC costs itraetordatice with the Couirmssion on State Mandates. 1989 Senate Bill 25rr(Berger©n ChagterS4,Statutes:of 1989- • Sets a requirrernent that comprehensive land use plans be completed by June 19911 =Establishes a iriethbd for compelling AI U U. s to act on matters<submitted for review: • :Allows ALUCs to'charge fees for review of-pro jec S. • Suspends ally lawsuii8 that would-stop development until the ALUC adopts its plan or ° until}une 1, 1991, - 1989 Senate Bill 235 {Alqutst):Chapter 7$8, Statutes of 1989 Appropriates 33,672;000 for die payment of claims to,cound'es seeking reimbursement of costs incurred -during fiscal years 1'985=86 through 1989 99..pursuan[to state-mandated reguirem- (Chapter 1317, Statw�s.of 1984) for creation of Al UCs-in mostcoundes This statute was repsaled til 193 1990 " Assembly Bill 4164 (Moungoy) -Chapter 1098, Statutes of 1990;–Adds section 21671.5 requiring the Division of Aeronautics to develgp and implement a training-program A.fJG staffs. fA90 Assembly Bill 4265 (Cfure� Chapter 563, Statutes of 399(-With the: concurrence of the Division of Aeronautics allows AI_JCs t' use ari airport layout pair ratber than a long=range airport master plan,asthe.basis for preparation of a compatibility-plan.- f99D Senate Bilf 1288{Beverly) Chapter 54,Statutes:of 1990-Amends- ectiori 21679.2 to give Los Angeles County additional time to 7prepare comgadbility plans and meet other provisions'of the ALUC statutes.. ' 1-99.1 Senate Bill 532(Bergesotr)Chapter IA 01 Statutes of 1991 • Allows co xmdes.having half of their compatibility plans completed or under prepataton - by June 30 •1992;at additional Y the remainder. • AHQwsALLTCt5zc6nfmue to charge fees under these circumstances: ..;Fees may be charged only until June 30, 1'992,if plans are not completeil_by then. 19Y3 Senate Bill 443'(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 59,"Statutes of 1993— Amends Section21670(ks)m make'the formation of ALUCs permissive rather than mandatory as of June 30,3993, (Note Section 21679.2 which assigns responsibility for coordinating the ° airport planning of pubhi agencies iii Los-Angeles Count p'is not affected by tk is amendment.) 1994' Assembly.Bill 2$31 (Mountjoy) Chapter-644„Statutes of 1994 —Reinstates;tlhe language°m Section 2167(7(b) mandating establishmrnt of-ALUCs, fiut alsd�provides for an ,altemaave airport land use planning:process. :Lists sgecifrc actions which a_county and affected cities -must_take in order for such alternative process to receive Caltians approval: Requires that Lvontena lntemationsl Airport Land Use CQmpa#b#Lty I fdg_fAdopted Apr#18, 1j: APP E N D Ix A STATE LAWS RELATED!TO AIRPOW L USE PLANNING ALUCs be guided by information'in the,Caltrans Arrf ort Land Use Planning Handbook when • formulating:airport land use plans. - 1994 Senate Bill 1453 (Rogers) Chapter',;438, Statutes of 1994—Amends California Environmental 'Quality Act(CEQA) statutes as applied to prepazation`of environmental documents affecting. projects in the vicinity of airports. Requires,lead agencies,to use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as aechnical resource when assessing the airport-related noise an d safety impacts of such projects... . 1997 , Assembly Bill 1130 (011er) Chapter.81, Statutes of 199-7—Added,Section 21670.4cQncemmg, - airports whose planning boundary straddles a county line 2000 Senate Bill 1350 (Rainey) Chapter--5Q6, Statutes of 2000—Added'>Section 216700 clarifying drat special districts are among'the>local agencies to which airport land use planning laws are intended to apply. 20.01 Assembly Bill'93 (Wayne) Chapter 946, Statutes of 2001—Added.Section 21670.3 regarding San Diego County Regional Airport Authozity s responsibility for airport planning within San Diego County: 2002 , Assembly Bill-3026 (Conianttee on'-Transpor adonj Chapter 438,Statutes of 2002—Changes the:term"comprehensive land use plan" to"airport land use compatibility plan 2002 Assembly Bill 2776 (Simitian) Chapter 496, Statutes of 2002—Requires information xegardut9 " the location of a properry,within an airport influence area be disclosed as part of certain real ' estate transactions effective January 1,2004, 2002 'Senate Bill 1468 (Knight) Chapter 971, Statutes of 2002�Changes ALUC preparation of • airport land use compatibility plans for military airports_frotn optional to required. Requires that the 'plans be consistent_with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone for-that airport: Requires-that the general plan and"any specific plans be consistent with these standards .where there is military airport, but an airport land use comrntssion does not exist 2003 Assembly Bill-332 (Mullin) Chapter 351, Statutes of 2003—CIanfies that school districts and community college districts are subject to•compatibility plans. Requires local public agencies to notify ALUC and Division of Aeronautics at-least 45 days prior to deciding to overrule the ALUC - ` 2004 Senate Bill 1223 (Committee on Transportation) Chapter 615, Statutes of 2004—Technical revisions eliminating most remaining references to the term "comprehensive land use plan" and replacing it with "airport land use compatibility plan.",-Also replaces the terms "planning urea"and`.`study area"-with "airport influence:area.' - 2005 Assembly Bill 1358 (Mullin) Chapter 29, Statutes of 2005—Requires a school district to notify the-Department of Transportation before leasing property for a new school site. Also makes these provisions applicable to'charter,schools:- A 2` LAldntaiio IntemstionOt Airport Lend Use Compe tullty Plan(Adopted Apnl,19 201 1) + Akpl' DIX LAIQntario InMrnahQnal QNTARI&- Airport Land Usi tomp96bihfy Plan AWONr PLANNING (LNI � ENDIX B TPLANjNING FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 • OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE Amdt.e 77-13,E echr+e Jginaag 1$ 2011 `Sub'-PaFt A GENERAL 77:1 PURPOSE This part establishes. (a) The requirements to provide notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction,or the alteration of existing structures, (b)_ The standards used to determine .obstructions to au navigation, and navigational and" communication facilities, process for aeronautical studies of:obstructtgns to air navigatiori;or navigational facilities to " determine the effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, air navigation facilities or' • F equipment and (d) The process"to petition the TAA_foi disaetionary, review of determinations, revisions, and -.extensions of determinations 77:3. DEFKrnoNS For the purpose of this part: "Non-precision instrument runway"means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure Utilizing air navigation facilities with only-horizontal-guidance; or area type navigation equipment, for which a straight in non-precision.instrument approach procedure has been approved,or planned, and for which no=precision approach.facilities are planned,or indicated on an FAA planning document or Military service military airport planning document. " Planned or proposed airport is an airport that is the subiect of at least one'of the following documents received by the FAA:" (1) Airport proposals submitted under 14 GFR Part 157 (2) Airport Improvement Program requests,for aid (3); Notices of existing airports where prior notice of the airport construction or alteration was not provided as required by 14 CFR Part 157 = (4)i "Airport layout plans - • `LAR7ntarlo lnterriabwelA6porfLind Use CompatibARyPlan(AdoptedAPAI 19,201-1) B-1 /1P P-0,06t 0 FEDERAL AIV�ATi ON REGULATIONS PART 7 - • (5) DOD proposals fo'r atrports used only.by the ll.s.Armed forces , (b) DOD.proposals on joint-:use{civil military) airports (7) .Completed arrport_site selection feasibility study_ q'recision instrument_runway" means a r€inway having an existing instrument approach procedure otil zing an_Iiistrument Landing System (IIS), or a Precision Approach Radar.(PAR}_It also means a runway for which a precision approach system is.-planned and is so indicated by an FAA approved airport layout plan; a nvlitary service approved military airport layout plan, any°oilier FAA planning document, or military service ixiiltary airport planm'ng'document_ "Public use airport" is an airporf available for use bv'the general pubhc witliont a requirement for poor approval of the airport owner qt operator. _ "Seaplane base"is considered to-be an airport only if its sea.apes are oitthned by visual mar ers. " Juhty runway means's runway-:that is constfutted for and intended to be used'bypxopeller'driven aircraft of 12;500 pounds maximum gross weight and less. "Visual runway" means:.a runwayintendedsolely for the operation of aircraft using.visual approach -procedures with no straight-in instrument°approach procedure and --no- instrument- designation.,,:.. indicated-on an pMw approved airport layout plan, a=rnilitary'sezvtce approved military airport'Iayout plan, or by ariy planning document submitted to the FAA by competent authority. Sub#arf B "NOTICE'REQUIREMENTS - 774 APPLICABILITY._ (a} ifyou propose any construction-or alteration described in V7.9,you must piovide adequate-notice 30 the FAA of That construction or alteration. (b)' If requested by the FAA, you must also Re supplemental notice be€ore the start date and upon completion of certain construction or altbratitjns that are described in§77.9. (,) ,N,o 'ee received liy_the.FAA under this subpart is used to: (1} Evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration otsafetyin air commerce and the efficient use`$rid-preservation-of the navigable airspace and_of airport traffic capacity at publi c use airports; (2}_.Detennine whether the effect a#proposed= construction or alteration is a hazard 2ti air _ navigation; (3) Detemrine appropriate marking acid lighting recommendations,using FAA,Advisory circular /7450d, M sad Lghting 70 t k (4) Determn—e other appropriate treasures to be_applied for continued,safety af.air navigation and B-2 L AlOntadolntem ationalAhportLeidlireCampetlbi Plan(AdoptedApo-1f9,2011) - 7. 00 'FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 17 APPENDIX'S (5) Notify the aviation community of the construction or alteration of objects that affect the • navigable airspace,including the revision of charts when.necessary.. _77.7 FORM AND TIME-OF NOTICE. (a} _ If you are-required to file nonce.under §779, ynu must submit to the FAA a'completed FAA Form'7460-1,,N otice of Proposed Construction`or Alteration. FAr1 F_ orm 7460-1 is available at FAA regional offices and on the Internet (b} You must submit'adus form at least 45 days beforeahe start:date of the proposed construction or', alteration or the date an application for a construction perinif is filed,wlucheger is earliest. (0, If you propose conserucaon-of alteration that is also subject to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Commission_(FCC), you must submit notice to the FAA on or before the date that the application is Sled with the FCC, (d)'--If you propose construction or alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 S, in`height, above,ground level (AGL),the FAA presumes it to be a hazard to air navigation that results m an - ineffident use of airspace. You must include-details explaining both;why the proposal would not constitute a hazard to air navigation and why it would not cause an inefficient use of airspace. . (e) -:The 45-day advance notiee`;xeuirement is waived if immediate construction or alteration is required;because of an emerge-ncy'inVolving essential public services, public7 health, 'or public safety: You may provide notice to the FAA by any available, expeditious mean s. You must file a completed FAA Form 746" within--5 days-of-the initial notice-to the FAA Outside normal business hours,the neargst_Sight service-station will accept emergency notices • 77.9 =CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION REQUIRING NOTICE If requested by the FAA, or if you;propose any of fhe following types of construction or alteration,you _ must file notice with the FAA of: -- = (a) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 ft. AGL at its site. (b) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at any of the following slopes:, (1)' 100 to 1 fora horizontal distance of 20,000 ft. from-the nearest point of the'neazest runway of each airport described in paragraph (d) of,this section with its longest runway more than 3;200 ft.in actual length excluding heliports. -:-(2) 50 to 1 fora hotizontal'distance of;10,000 ft.`from the nearest point.of the dearest runway of-, each airport described in par agraph (d) of tliis'section;with its longest runway,no more than 3,200 ft.in actual length;excluding hehports._ '(3) ' 25 to.1 fora horizontal distance of`5,000 4. from the nearest pointo£the nearest landing and_ takeoff area.of each heliport described in paragraph (d)of this section. (c) ' Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for-;mobile ob)ecis;of a height:which if adjusted L" upward' 17 feet for an Interstate highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate highways where overcrossings are designed-for--a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, I5 feet for any other public roadway,,I feet or the height of-the highest mobile object that would • LA/Ontarlo Intemationel Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Aprtf 19 2011) �7. - APPENDIX-6 FEDERAL AVIATION REOIFLATtO t PART 77 • normally traverse`the road,whichever is greater, For a pnvaretoad,23 feet far a railroad;and for a ,waterway or any other traverse way.not previously mentiat ed,an atrtautit equal-to the height of the highest mobile oblect that would n-6 Yimally traverse it, would exceed a standard a£paragraph (a) or(b)of This section. (d), Any construction or alteration on any-of the following airports and heliports: (1} A public use airport listed in ihe.Airpoxt/Faciliry Directory, Alaska Supplement, of Pacific _ Chan Supplerient-of_the U.S. Government Flight In£or natOrt Niblicati6ns,- (2) A military aitport.under;construction or an airport under consfruction`thatwill be available for public use; (3} .An-airport operated by-a Federal"agency or thel)m (4) Anairportor;heliportwith at,least_oneFAA=appmved instrument_approach procedure. (e) You do not need to 61e notice£or construction or alteration_of: (1) Any object that will be`shielded by existing structures of a permanent and-substand nature or liy natural terrain or"topographic features of equal of greater height, and will be located in the congested area o£-a city, town, at settlement where the shielded -structure=will not adversely affect safety°in air navigatiou; ._. (2) Any air navigation facility,airport visual approach or landing aid:-aircraft arresting device, or rnefeamlogical device_ineeting FAA Approved siting criteria or an appropria e military service siting critena-on military,airports,the location and,height of whir are fzxed:by its funcaonat _ -purpose, (3) Any construction of alteration for°which notice is required by any other FAf4 r€gwition, (4) Any antenna structure of 20 feet of less in height, except one that would increase the_height of another antenna strut tore. - 77x17 SUPPLEMENTAL NOT#CE REQUIREMENTS (a)_ You must file supplemental notice-with-the FAA when: (1) The construction or alteration is mare than 2OQ feet in height AGLat its site;or (2) Requesied by theFAA- (b)- You must file supplemental notice on a-prescribed-FAA form to be received witfiin the tune]units specified in the FAA determination.=If tto tune limit has been specified, you must submit supplemental notice o£ construction to the FAt1 within 5 days a€Let the structure reaches its greatest;height., (c) = If you abandon a-construction or alteration ptoposal that requires supplemental-notice,you must - _- - submit-notice to the FAA within 5-days after the project is abandoned. (d) 'If the constru ction.Ai alteration is distnatitled or.destroyed,`yotz mua submit notice to the FAA within$,days after;the construction or alzeration'is-dismanded or destr9yed. B-4- L,AIOWaio intematfonalAUrportLan t/se Cornpgt>&"Jan:(Adoptedn061`1s,2011) FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B -- subpart C Standards for Determining Obstructions to A,ir.Navigation or,Navigational Aids or Facilities 77.13 " APPLICABILITY. This subpart.describes the standards u"sed.far determining obstructions to_air navigation, navigational' aids,or navigational facilities.These standards apply to the following (a) A ny object of natural grow-t terrain,--or permanent or'temporarp-construction .ot alteration,` including equipment or materials used and any permanent orxemporat-apparatuS (�) The alteration'of:any permanent oL_temporar"y;existing structure by a change in its height, including appurtenances,or lateral dimensions;including equipment or material used therein. 77:-5 SCOPE. (a) This subpart describes standards used to determinobstructions e obs to air navigation that may"affect the safe'and-effident'use of airspace and the _operation of planned or existing air navigation and communication facilities._Such facilities include air navigation aids,-communication _ equipment,airports,Federal airways,instrument approach or depar ture procedures, and approved Off-airway routes:.' (b)? Objects'that are considered;obstructions cinder 'the standards described in''this 'subpart are • presumed hazards;to air navigation unless forth -aeronautical study concludes that the object is :not a hazard. Once further aeionau iral study has been initiated,the FAA will use the standards in -this subpart,along with FAA:Poli cy and.guidance material,to determineif the object isa,hazard to air navigation.' (C), The FAA will apply these standards with i-eference to an existing airport facility, and airport proposals received. by the FAA,�or the appropriate military service, before.it issues a final- =, determination. (d)' For airports having defined runways with specially-prepared hard surfaces the primary surface for each runway extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway.For airports having defined snips ' <_ or, pathways used regularly for aircraft.takeoffs and landings, and designated runways, without.-,,,- specially- prepared=hard surf aces, each end'- f the primary; surface for each such-runway shall . coincide with the corresponding end.-of the runway-At airports;excluding seaplane bases,having a defined landing,and takeoff area with.no defined_pathways for aircraft takeoffs-and landings, a determination must be made as to which portions,of the landing and takeoff area are regularly used as.landing_and takeoff pathways. Those determined pathways must be considered runways, and an appropriate primary surface as defined 'in. §77.19. will be considered as longitudinally " centered on each such-runway. Each end 'of'that primary surface must coincide with the corresponding end of that (e) The standards in this subpartapply to construction or alteration proposals on anr airport (including, heliports,and]seaplane bases with marked laztes)if that airport is one of the following before the issuance of the final detertminanon LAIOntarlo Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 18,2011) . - B-5 APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART ZT - 01=4 • (1) Available forpublic use`and is listed m the Airport/Facility Direefory Supplement Alaska, or - Supplement Pacific of the 1f.S. Governinent:Fligltt In O rtiatiOn Pubhcahonst or ' (2J A planned or proposed airport or ati airport under constmcnon of which the =FAA has received actual nodce,'except DOD airports,_where there is a dear indication the airport will ` `be=available for public vise,or, (3) `An airport operatedby gTederal agency ox,tl e DOD;ar, (4) An air port that has at least one FAA approved instrument approach. 77.17' OBSTRUCTION STANDARbS.. (a) _ An existing object,including a mobile object,is An ii future object would.be an-obstmetiot to air- navigation if it is of greater heigbi than any of the following Heights or surfaces: - (1) A height of 499 feet AGI at thesite of the oljject. (2) -A height that is 200 feet;AGL, or above the;estiblished aipport elevation,whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles:s-af the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, whit its longest tunwap more than_3,200 feet iti actual length, and that height increases in the - proportion of l oo feet f6r each additional naiat[cal mile=from the airpdrt up to.a maximum of 499 feet. (3) A height within a'terminal obstacle clearance.area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach'area, which would result in'the -vertical- distance • E _ between any point qn-the object and an,establshed mitiiinum instrument-fliglitaltitude tivithin that area or_seg"nt to be less than-the required obstacle clearances (4) A height withal sdi m route obstacle clearance,area,including turn and termination areas,of a Federal Airway or approved off-airway route, that would increase the nUnnnum obstacle clearance altitude. - {5) 11it surface of a_t-Akeoff-and Ianding area of an airport or any itnagtn—surface established under§77.19 77 21, or:7723_However,no part of th e takeoff or landing area itself will be considered an obstruction_ (b}" ) xcept or-.traverse on or near ail airport-with an operative grDUnd traffi c control service furnished by an-airport--traffic control tower or by the attpot management and.coordinated with the air traffic control.service the standards of paragraph (a) of this section app _ta uaverse ways' used or.to be used>fD_ the passage of mobile-objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by-. " (1) 17 feet--for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System ,of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed €or a miaunum of 17 feet vertical "distance. ' (2) 15 feet for-any other public roadway (3) 10 feet or tlielejght of the highest mo}s7le:.abjectghat-would nortnallp traverse die road, ` whichever is gieater,-for a private road, ' ( J 23 feet for a railroad. &$ ihrontario-lnfemawtW APport Lan.d Use compatibility Plan(Adopted ApW1$,2Oft) e - - FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B ' (5) Fob a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal,to the • height of the highest mobile object hat would normally traverse i-. - 77.19 CIVIL AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES . - The following civil airport imaginary surfaces are established with relation to the airport and to each .runway. The-size of each such-imaginary surface is based on the category.of each runway according to the,type oPapproach available or--splatined for that runway.The slope and dimensions of the approach surface applied to each end of a-runway are determined by the most precise approach procedure existing or planned for'that runway end. (a) Horizontal surface A horizontal plane 150 feet 'above the established airport elevation,- the perimeter of which is constricted by Swinging arcs of a specified radii from the,center of each end-, of the primary surface of each-runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent azes by lines tangent tot hose arcs. The radius of each arc, ' (1) ` 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility of visual, (2) 10,000 feet for all other runways. The radius-of the arc specified for each end of a runway-, will have:the same arithmetical value.That value will be the highest determined for.either end of the runway. When 2;5,000 foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000 foot.ares, the 5,000 foot arc shall be_disregazded.on the construction of the perimeter - bf the horizontal surface. (b);. Conical surface. A"surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. •1. (c) "Primary:surface. Asurface.longitudinally centered on a runway. When:-the runway has a specially Prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends-200 feet beyond each end of that runway; but when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface ends at.each end of - that runway.The-elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation'of the nearest point on the runway centerline.The width of the primary'surface is. (1) "250 feet for utility runways having only visual approaches (2) 500 feet for utility runways having non-precision instrument approaches (3) For other than utility runways, the width is. (i) 500 feet for visual runways having only visual approaches.` (ii) 500 feet for non=precision instrument runways having visibility minimums greater than = three-fourths statue mile. (iu)' 1,000.feet for a non-precision instrument runway having a non-precision'instrument approach with visibility minimums as Iow-as.three-fourths of a statute mile, and for precision instrument runways. , (iv)-_ The width. of the _-primary surfade"of a.runway will be that width:prescribed in this section for,the most precise approach existing or planned for either end of that runway. (d) Approach surface.' A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward-and upward from each end of the primary surface An approach surface is • Pl LAK)nte.iolntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility an(Adopted April 19,2011) �7 , - - � 1*\�'l�'l�1 -APPENDIX 8 _ fED ERAC 9VfAT1014 RECrIi;iA'K10N$ PAI?'t 17 - �"° � _ • app&ed to each end of each nittway basedvpon the type of approach ayall;able orglanned for that— cunway,end. _ {i) The inner edge-iaf the`approach surface is -dig samee, iddi as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to-a xxidth of {t) 4,25 feet for that end of a tt€iltty runway with only visual approaches; (h) 1;500 feet for tliat end of� "runway °other, than a utility` runway_with,only vtslial, approaches;. {iii) 2,f100 feet for that end of a utility runway with a note preexsioninstrurrieist approach, (iv) 3,500 feet for that enc( of a con-precision instrument runway other than utility,.liaving visibility-minimums;greater-that thiee fourths of a statute mile; _ (v) 4,000 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway,_other than udhty,having a ` rion-precision instrument approach with visibility- minimums as low;as. thiee-fourths statute mile;and (vt) 16 bQ0 feet for precision instrument runways. (2) The approach„surface extends,for a horizonaldistancetif (t) -' 5,000 feet at a "slope or 20 to'l for- utility and visual_runwaps, (u) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision instrument runways other than autility;and (iii); 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 t4 1 with an additional-40;000 feet at a sl©pe of 40 tO 1 for , all-precision' mstftimeiif runways. (3), "The outer width`o€an approach surface,to an end of amnway willbe that prescribed in this subsection for the;most precise approach existing.or planned far-that-runway end. (e) Transitional surface These-surfaaces extend°outward”and upward at right angles to the unway centerline and the runway centerline ezteaded I at-a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of Lire g3imary surface and from the sides of the`approach surfaces.Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach; surface which project through and beyond the limits of the. conical surface, extend a distance o£5,1000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface'and at right angles to the ivnway centerline. ` 77.24 DEPARTMENT OF°DEFENSE (000)-AIRPORT IMAGINARYSURFACES. (a) Related to airport reference-points. "these surfaces. apply to all military airports.For the purposes of this section,a militai j airport is any aiport operated by the DOD. (I) Inner horizontal surface. A plane=that is oval in shape at a height of i50, feet above the established airfield elevation. The;plane is-constructed by scribing an arc with a radius of 7,500 feet abautthe,centerlme at the end of each°rttnway and interconnecting these arcs wtih tangents. _ • tAYOntaiio International Airport Land Use CompebMlilyPtan'(Aoopted Agri(M 2011) - ouk FEDERAL AVIATiDN-RE GULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX S (2) Conical surface. A surface extending from"L&e periphery of the inner horizontal'surface • =outward and upward at a slope of,20 to 1 fora horizontal distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation-, _ (3) Outer horizontal surface A'plane; located '500 feet above the established airfield 'elevation,, extending outward from-the outerperiphery=of the conical surface for a"horizontal distance of 30,000 feet: (b) Related to runways These surfaces apply to all military airports. (1) Primary surface. A surface located on the ground or water longitu dinally centered on each runwaywith the same length as-the runway:The width of the primary surface for runways-is- 000 feet. However, at-established bases where substantial construction has taken-place in-' accordance-with a previous lateral clearance criteria,the 2,000-foot width may be reduced to, the former criteria. (2) dear zone surface. A surface located on the ground'or water"at,each end of the primary surface,with:a length of 1,000 feet and the same width-as the primary surface. (3) Approach clearance surface. An.-inclined plane; syinmetricai asout the runway centerline extended, beginning ,M feet beyond each end-of--the-primary surface at the centerline elevation of the runway end and extending far ,00 500 feet. The slope of the approach clearance surface is 50 to 1 along the runway-centerline extended until it reaches an elevation of:500 feet above the established airport elevation. ;It then continues horizontally at this elevation to a point 50,000 feet from the point of,beginning. The width,ofthis surface at the runway end is_the same:as the primary surface, it flares uniformly;_ and the width at 50,000 is • 1G000 feet. (4) Transitional=surfaces These surfaces connect the primary surfaces, the first 200 feet of the clear zone surfaces, and the approach clearance surfaces to the inner horizontal-surface, conical surface, outer. horizontal-surface or other -transitional surfaces. The slope of the transitional surface is Tto 1 outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline. 77.23 HELIPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES. (a)• ,Primary surface. The area of the primary surface-coincides in size and shape with the designated take-off and landing area.:This surface is a horizontal plane at the_,elevation of the established , heliport elevation. Approach surface The approach surface begins,at each end of the heliport primary surface with the same width as the primary surface,and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet where its width is 500 feet. The slope:of the approach surface is 8 to I for civil heliports and 10 to I for military heliports. (c)- Transitional surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of < the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a distance of 250 feet measured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach,surfaces. LAIOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) ,. _ , _ B-9 -` ' -APPENDIX B FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 l - S�JbQ81�D AER6,NAgTICAL STUDIES AND DETERMINATIAN;; 77.25 APPLIC-BILFT1F. (a) This suliparx applies to any aeronautical study of a proposed construction or alteration for-which notice to the FAA is required under 77:4. (b)- The purpose a -,an aeronautical study is.- a detetTnute whether the aeronautical of€ects of the specific-proposal and,.where appropr ate, ti-e-"tvt`impact reSul - - from the proposed = construction or- alteration when combmed with-the effects of other existing or°pI-9sed structures,would constituted hazard to air navigati_vn (c) The obstruction standards-in subpart_C of'this part are supplemented by other manuits and directives used in detenYw ng thieffect on the navigable airspace of-a proposed_construci on or. alteration. When the TAA needs additional inform it ation, may circulate a study to interested parries fns comme nt 77.27 INITIATION OF STUDIES _ The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study°when (a)--. Requested:-,-by 'the,sponsor of any proposed construction or alteration for;which a, notice u ` submitted,or • _ (b);_ The FAA tletertniries a study is necessaFy .77:29 - EVALUATING,AERONAUTICAL EFFECT. (a} _ The FAA conducts an aeronautical study to determine the impact of a posed stmctu� an, existing;structure that has-not yet been studied ' 'the lAA, or an- alteration of an existing structure on aeronautical izperations, procedures,-and the safety of flight.These studiesticlude = evaluating - (1) The impact an.!MVal, departure afld en route procedures for aircraft Operating under visual flightniles; (2) The=unpact on auival 'departure;=and en to.to procedures for aircraft :operatin under . - instrument tlighx safes; '-- (3} The impact on existing and planned public use airports;' (4) Airport traffic-capacity of existing".public use airports-and public use,airpzirt development plins received before the issuance of the1nal detemmation; - -(5) Minimum obstacle clearance altitudes ntutiirium instrutitent. flight rules altitudes, approved or planned in trutnent appraach;prpcedures,and departure procedures _ (6) Thepoiential effect on ATC radar; direction finders,'ATC tower line of-s-ight Visibility, and physical or electtomagrieuc effects on air navigation cotnmunicauon facilities, and -other . surveillance systems, _ LA/Arntera lntet406natArrpott Land Use Compa66tldy Plsn(A.doptedApnl IV,20171 - -__ FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 - APPENDIX B LL- ( The aeronautical effects resulting from the cumulative-impact ofa proposed construction or • alteration of a structure when combined with the effects_of other existing or proposed strictures. (b) If qou withdraw-:the proposed consuvction"or :alteration'or revise it so that;it is, no on identified as an=obstruction; or if'no: further aeronautical study is.necessary, the FAA may - terminate the study 77:31 , . ?DETERMINATIONS (a) , The FAA will issue a determination stating whether the proposed constru ction oralterauon would be a hazard to air navigation and will advise all known interested persons. (b)--The FAA will.make determinatibns based on the aeronautical study 6ndmgs and will identify the following. (1) The effects on VM/IFR aeronatitical departure/arrival operations, air traffic procedures, minimum flight altitudes, and existing, planned, or proposed airports listed in §77.15(e).of 'which the FAA has received actual;notice prior to issuance of a=final determination. (2) The extent of the physical and, electromagnetic effect on'the operation of existing or proposed air navigation'facilities,communication aids,or surveillance systems. (c) The FAA will issue a D'etemvnation,of Hazard-to'Air Navigation when the aeronautical study - concludes that the proposed:construction or alteration will exceed an obstruction standard and. - would have a substantial aeronautical impact • (d) A Detemvnation-of No•Hazard to-Air Navigationwill be issued when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed-construction or alteration wifl exceed an obstruction standard-but would not have a substantial aeronautical impact to air navigation:A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation may include the following ° (1) Conditional provisions bfa-determination. (2) Limitations necessary to minuntze ,potential problems, such as the use of temporary construction equipment- (-3): Supplemental notice requirements;when required. Marking and lighting recommendations,as appropriate. (e),=- The FAA will issue a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation when a proposed structure does not exceed any of the obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. 77.33 EFFECTIVE.PERIODOFDETERMINATIONS. (a) A determinati on issued under this subpart is effective`,W days aftei the date of issuance, unless a petition: for discretionary review-i&.-.received by the FAA'within 30 days :after issuance. The, determination will.noibecoriie final pending deposition of a petition.for discretionary review. LA10niado iMema7onaiAirport Laid Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apnl 19(2011) -- - _ B-11 -APPEND{% B FEDERAL,AVIATiOK REGUTATYONS PART 77 - - � W • '_ (b) Unless extended revised; or texmivated, each Detemunation of No'Hazazd to Air Navigation issued under this subpart.expires 18 mouths fter the effective date of the detertm ination,or on the date the proposed- onstruction or alteration is abandoned,whichever is earlier. (cj A Determtnatton of Hazard to Air Navigation has no expiration date. 77,35 EXTENSIONS, TERMINATIONS,REV ISIONS AND CORRECTIONS.-- (a) You may-petition tkie FAA official that-issued the DetetTnination of No Ilazard to AirNavigation to revise_or reconsider the determination'based on new facts or to extend the effective period of the determination,provided that {Ij Actual-structural-work of the proposed construction or alteration, such as_the laying of a foundation,but not including excavation,has not been started;and (2)_,:The petition-is submitted at least`LS days before the expiration date of the Determination of Na I Iazard to-Air Navigation (b) _ A Determination of No Hazard-to iii 1*Iavigation issued for those construttion:or alteration - - pioposals-tior xequinng an-FCC construetion'pernut may be extended by'the FAQ one tune_for a period-not to exceed f8 months. - (c) A Determination -of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued for a proposal requiring.an FCC construction pernm t rnayfie granted extensions for up-to 18 months,provided that: (1) You submit evidence that an apphc-ation for a construction--pertnitJhcense was filed with fie FCC for the associated-site within 6 months ofissuance_of the determination;and (2) You submit ev detice-that additional time is warranted because-of KC-re and (3j -4here the FCC issues a'construction permit, a final--Determination of No I-azard>to Air ' Navigation is=effective`until the date prescribed by the FCC for completion--of the construction. If an extension of the original_FCC completion date is needed,-in exeeiision of the FAA tfetemiination ttuust be requested from the ObstructionEyaluationService (QES). (4) If the Commission refuses'to issue a construction permit, the final deternima-don-eexxpires on the date of its refusal. - 13-12 - !J1£ntari6;lntaraou0nal Air{ioR Lend i%se`£brimpatlbillty Plan(Adopfed'ApF17-19,3Qf i) -->FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B ' a Subpart E • PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 77.37f GENERAL. (a) If you are the; sponsor; provided a substantive.aeronautical comment on a proposal m an aeronautical;study, or have,!a substantive aeronautical comment on,_the proposal but,wer-e not given an opportunity u state it, you!may petition the FAA- for a,discretionary review,-,of a--- _ detemunanan,revision,or extension of a determination issued by the FAA. (b) -You may novfile-a petition=for discretionary review fora Determination of No Hazard that is issued for a temporary structure,marking and.lighting recommendation, or when a proposed structure or alteration does not exceedbbstruction standards contained in subpart C of this part. 77.39 Contents of a petition: . (a) You`must file a petition for discreti onaty review`in writing and it must be received by the FAA within 30 days after the issuance of a determination under 77.31,or a revision or extension of the determination under 77,35.,.,, - '(b) The petition must contain a full statement of the aeronautical basis on which the.petition is Made, i and must include,new information or:facts nor previously considered or presented during the aeronautical study, mcluding valid aeronautical.reasons why the 'determination, revisions, or- extension made by the FAA should;be reviewed • (c) In the event that the last day of the 30-day,filing_period'falls on a weekend or a day the Federal government is.closed,the Iasi day of the filing period is the next day that the government is_open (d) The-FAA vrill inform the'petitioner or sponsor_(if other than the petitioner) and the FCC (whenever an FCC-related proposal is involved) of the filing of the petition and that the - determination is not final pending disposition of the.petition 77.41 Discretionary review results. (a)- If discretionary review is granted, the FAA will inform the-petitioner_and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner),of the issues to,be studied and reviewed. The review may include a requestfor comments and a review of all records from the initial aeronautical study. (b) If discretionary review is denied, the-FAA--will notify the petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner), and the FCC;whenever.a FCC related proposal is involved, of.,the basis for the denial along with a statement that the detemilnation is final. ' (c) ; After concluding the discretionary ,review process, the FAX will revise, affirm; or reverse the ' determinal on t LAIOntado Intemetional Alrpwt Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011 kF!PENOIX B, FEDERAL AVIAT.ION.REOULATIONS PRR7'77, A - L SUAIRRIHIED AIRPORT YWIOx - -- - _ DIMENSIONAL.OTANDARCS(FEET) now ITEM- -` �INEwa 'j y A C •.D NWYr - - r0'FIw MIIIYRY WTI FIDE l _ - AMIIwCNeMFACErDMAT EN EWT NEE m IAN -1000 _ - - - y �yappi NOMmE WMADE yy��yyLaLMi 10.0N c o S0( O .EEEIIOELNI EYNNR WIOIM 4f Op i>r t mi;NEB 3110E CEN - 1 o ,.AEEIN01nNEUNEACE L[YDTN IEEE aEN N.aaE IgEEO - �j r i - AEENDicN%DPE nil at =I YL at - _ - - i" ♦•` _ k B WNM V R4 U NLARGER 714"DTTlU TY Af.B WILE C n&EILI MINIMI GREATER T D-V&BILI"YINIYUM All LOW AS 31. - FYilMlro laiplla) _ _ YIIF - ' PNECIEION INSTRUMENT�P;WHUOPFia BY1 EON MNElI:10.000 FEET AND 40 I TOR M ADDITIONAL ML OOO PEEP _ ^.MBIIn LeMW9 aUWION WNMOACr,RARS" . CONICAL SURFACE` Z - - PPECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH - --_ _ VISUAL OR NON.PRECISION.APPROACN - (SLOPE E) - - - - - vx D - � nYwLEEEUNLO - - 7�I19 A - 12A \RUNWAY CENTERLINES _ - •�.VMOFSECTIONM,,- - Smff Federal/4Y tw Rsguiations Pert 77= - - - - - Exhibit 81 FAR Part 77 Imaginary.Surfacea X14- LNOnt�fntemeftWel Airport Land Compatibflft}Plan(Adopted Rprif18,2-01 1; - - FEDERAL AVIATION R"EG ULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B Fstloe To P.Xla All Reguedad ilk b MeY OVARY Aocaur pof Year MFM• FORFAAMONLY Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration 1.sp�Person company.arc Cnilk"M mrs 8011 AM.?. - t Lalaude: • _ _ Ad*MS: .-.. 70.Lem: -- • L¢ - . - • 11.CIlurc t7MADe5 13MAD27 DOPW ., - _ - TalelOaM: - Fes: ti NM e: CRY i fpMMRY MpeaallaWe ppeN+nrern{11L 15.MSaed PUbO 4 Intl Pr, tsuse)or sting AYpal or!aepat. ..-. -Aril.at "� -� � . tNIM: <. :: - _--�` 1a.DYatee h•m/10.baWMtn.- ��_. � ;.' _ T� AOMae[ - -. .'.._ 15.DbcROn from at 5.t*Orudule:. - Stets'. ZIP 16.&M Elevallon(AM$✓,1 - CL' - ` -- TelapmM' - 17.Taal Structure Ndght(ApJ t t ke oF. L3 New Construction D AMranon, E3Ed 9 It Overall helght(Nd.a•17.1 MMI •- - 4. Dreallov,; 13 PermeneM 13 TedpoilY( mantes MYs) . _,. it Prevens FAA AerverrMcal Uudr NW/Mi(R■pWMMeR. S. WorkrcMdule: Beginning 6W _ tTyW:OMlanns Tw. ❑CSena ❑BWIYIB QWMr Lim ❑Lender, OWala Tank ❑qMr 2r.Description of Location:(Adadr a USM75 Hard. _ Owtlri le MW with the mom the madked and any cMINtl surs•Y.1 ' :- 7. MarkinyPalntlrg anion Lighting posaw edt - - - 0 Red Lights and Plant-< _❑Dui-Red and Madum Irdenlly W11M - 1NMe-Medum lmenwly _- o U -Red end Hgh mlmeltyvefe. _ ❑WMr Met In14rrNtY `;` ❑0ow- - II FCC Am Stuarts Negldnlbn Mrmpr pteryeMald' -"- _- 21 Complete Deactivator,of Proposal: - FkewentiPeea lift • Notice Is required by 14 Code M Federal Regulation,.pad 77 pesuant to 49 U.S.C..Section 44718. Persons w110 knoaingy and w ropy Mdate the bales nqulremenls of part 77 are Mblect Io a doll penaay of$1 000 per day until the notice is neceiwd,pursuant to 49 U.S.0 section 46701 pl. I hereby certify Ind all of the shove statements made by me are true,complete,and correct to Ile,best of my knovaedge. In addition,I agree to <- mark and.,light the sbuctlee In accordance Wth established markI g and lighting standards as necessary. . Dove --.,. ' Typeder Primedname end7Maof Perm F/ngl1ed0a agnettee -- , , _. .N0.1 lbaldwmadu Pnrbn FAbn.... NMI:Ma2dpa200M Exhibit B2 FAR Part 77 Notification Form FAA Form 7460-1 • .=-LA17ntarlo lnterrhyt /Airport Lend Use CompafibffifY Plan(Adopted April.l8.21 APPENg1X B f-EOERAt-AV[AlrfdN REat1LAT10 W$ PART 77 = Ow�R�^u� Exhibit S3 _ - . OnlFne Submittal of N0006 Of Proposed Eonstructron or Alteration" Historically a paper far4n>called a ."7460-1a' ryas required to Ue_submitted to the FAA for any project proposed on airport prapertyartd certatn projects near a>tports. Recently,the FAA has moved from gaper ff�oYrlms to,an-on-line syssesn_o€evaluating the effects of a proposed jizoject on the nationalairspace system- -It1 The on-line system can be accessed athftos.//oeaaa.faa:oov This new system allows project proponents to-submit and track their praposai as it progresses through the FAA evaluation process. '1116-purpose of this guidance is to supplement_and clarify the FAA user guide for the 7460 webse it - Im available it:flips-//oeaaa.faa.a ov/oeaaa)extemal/oontent/OEexternal Guide v3.1.odf We recommend that the user first read the entire guide-provided by the FAA,and then use this document to clari y:some of the more-cornvhcited aspects of the online 7460 system. fIVHEN A PROJECT MUST Bf-SUBMITTED TO THE FAA CFit 'title 14 Tsatt 77.13 slates that any person/organization,who intends to,sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the Ft111 }�Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft aboveground level, The FAA has been -=_ - + Anyconstruction or.grteration: - - - continuously improving the oe/aaa website to be more within`20,000 fr of a public use or mi tarp airport whicT exceeds a' user friendly and increase the 100:1- surface from any point on-the runway of each,atrport with at on-line functionality. The look least one runwa ._tuore than=3,200 ft and feel of the website may 9 .r- - - change in the future. but the within 10,000 ft of-a public use or military airport whiclt exceeds a W:1--. majority of the content should sur€ace from any point on the runway of each ajrport wiih,its longest _ remain as is. runway no more than 3,200 ft within.5,000 ft oEa public use heliport which exceeds a.25-1 suffice + Any highway, railroad.or other traverse way whgse prescribed adjusted height would-exceed the above noted standards T when"requestea by the'FAA _ + Any co,`nstructton or Alteration ,located on,a *blic use airport or heliport regardless of,height or Creata an account before accessing the features of ptxe website, the user wilt be required to create-a usernarne and.password to access the website - 8-16-x- Ot6 taribintemabonalAirporrt Land Use CompatibiWPJan(ddopfed'APWA 1041) _ OgirdF�alµRa7c - 'FECIERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B ObRtnietbl4 EYNW llion I Airport Alrapae(e AnYysls_(OEIAAA) ®A mpw tlu.pw. _ 'lame In adminlsmnng TO@la onfe Code of Federal Regulations CFR Pon 17,the plane oblet i onle FMare IS prompts ausatern and Me ancient • -- IM OVAM OInm use orNe navigable smpace To accomplish MIS mission,aeromubcelSWtlies are conducted fined on rrlfonnallon pmwdad by proponents on An FMForm7e601,NOtita MPlppo6ad Cone donor Alteration -- - - - .. V,.:Determined Ca...., - < , Achrocum Circul,TW4e0-I K 01mmoeon Mellon and Lighting,describes Me amndardo(grmarMnp antl llpnpra shutNrea iuch se bul101nm„ "- - -VU.F,ebe.ee Casa chlmmaic,antenna towns,cooling Mwela,samagetenlm,supporting spuclures oloierhaadwlrea - Vie.9upplamaraal OF 6'allg N auca.(Form 7.613-a)- - �.. eew s ,• Vie.ch:,d dsw COO "-_ grour organbatlon is planning to sponsor oaf onsoclion or aviation which more wend naMOble ampace,Sou muMlle DNOe.oel PIOa"w � 4.M,AUN.as Cerlpmdbn of Ramadan IF orm 7460-1)wall the FM CLICK HERE lard.waww.. - =-I ., - - comes I.W111,few your proposal with the FAA - - u - _ nabs Cann.T..1 11 corsnuctfon or alterations IS NOT LOCATED on an slepow. N onions We er alMatloa IS LOCATED ant nl OXgoR ppb pnumm.ry - - 'YoU mar Me form57a6U1and 74602 eiectrnmcalhwa Nla websde- : You man lie forms 7460.1 emorDnlcalh we Nla wsgsM New User - eoaan"TOOT New Uan Rew"on - 'No...Cdalaean Tool - M 01 noum `efomle7x601and]1602MaUBPOablMSdte FinamefMRapord,ReglonlDhickt 14.hmpoluisditbonpwr me Mpan on which me construm_on IS located and file to Net Leon- Processing Centel - address, edeml Anauon Minmmirallon - __ soudnresl Regional Clare - - Obsrmson C-vsluauonftnme AIR-322 - 2601 Meacham BouNnN Fonworth. c 76183 hmm - as_man_?Pk.....htedalB assim,sete npesentiaw - _ - R-gul�awwv police Once:a;user has created`ani account, they will be able to log in and`will be directed to the OE/AAA Portal 'Page. This page displays--a-summary of any projects which have been entered into the webslte, categorized - by off-airport and on airport projects'_ • Adding a Sponsor - Before a user can I enter project specific information, a project sponsor must be created'. A sponsor is die- person who is ultimately responsible for the construction or,alteration. AD FAA correspondence_will be addressed to the sponsor. The-sponsor could be the airport manager for projects proposed by the airport, or the developer proposing off airport construction. .To create a sponsor contact, click "Add,New . - Sponsor"on the ttportar page.Front there the user can add sponsors for various projects. • - _ LAANntano Intemational Airpmf Land Use CompatltIft Plan(Adbipted Apol 19,2011)- - - B-17 —APPEND—IX-8: T'"MAL AV9ATI0N RE04l2LATIONSPART?7 OEIAAA Portal Pace' • MyAeaaaw orfAltpoa Cenaww . on Alr0at9 C.ruoerdon _ pnclYdH On MIIMryAI.po.e IlafatdN en lAlAary Al.Poee AYtM:— - '[nv C¢sea:ORM04rGnOtlN s¢lOnwoor0 - NC.¢es IOQ!uNON7MONewCa¢a(Ong - _ _ O leeF [ NV 9p4ni0n AeDNe,9DO aR wspUrlaera Yae N(w9pdnsdr 1iP116L: - N1teIIk NtKI rR.W.Ilbdw NrypY MPdnYCYNCp _ _ - -_. ' -', "llyCaaataparaE+ ' rycsaiay, ASfrwic. = .-:.wart u One o - _ -Wru(ti Naw - aCtaow =�'0- FYemd.ft xU VY g ' d = tUpOFYilttoWl.MOmutlon'.� -MdLaaar --`0 7 AaHD1d-.` 179 _-Chx PA.W --Won Nprapre5B4O: Add uao loyON - _ -jpaormined - _ 0 - N MPM"11 de - - CIMworodd j - -- _-�ptlLCaK Tnirala Dean arM n/nruW MllMnY a➢ - 247' _ -_ -a.en vrMnlnea.one FAA _ AYt"Ea.aeAl�aMMn..aedMme nen OP _ _ - - --'AtteMM.Caxsilurlve nee rsrLirgMbMFY _ eMMMfIrPAlllalNlo Flre F<0. WdLa.ar Catania irva Da«riwwwW MMaiYa.s.� Cewaeweasa mi eeeii-surnrrMmM = _ _ - -.::rpieraCWerrel alarrnYbaM1am.lnuw. .-FAllartl»YalYOW necrronne nre:are., - - Iir ROPafe:casasml seDeapa11JE1�dayY.a YFew MSFfpIMMDq anxna.kncl - _ _ -'FAA Avpaal.Q Cava Nat McDeen a4 nmedq.M" - - - _ .:ow.nrinrttwHLylwac¢1mlMwawaxYtlFi FW. _ - _ _ .:mad HFAA�PyyllNl, .. Add LaAY:CeaK nror nw+eeari-e�newee qer' -_. _ - Txabad;Caaastlp aeH4e)e.vd16 FAArd tNynaaMnrwW adormaliDrM1Om NaI.Y."' - - �iaaaHabnlMLlU arliinana]O.dyafseaHM.e -'-_ Wanln NOPHn[KKthin tie b¢atlIMIAtYadeY - so F" IIraFM - "-'Cecalwla9ACwnacten Kp.apAYa lagAMM. p1amYYe:CwYeN O..eY.oMeda - -.- Tan.dYYrt Cana Naaano YrRtUYL - _ - - - - - NOTE PbiH eH Ale¢dclDnbr Yng pma0pN1 -". Eele-llaNfiaalla .ClmulYhad Can NAIR m- .OElAM 60pDOn0efk OEIIM 9yMmUeer OUlOe c -- _ -" _ - fTYrK 202-SM7500. FM Mronym¢ - _ - - E1iY4 Oeeee-IrefDdeaE®Dflnb00 FOm-- - - - -- - When the user selects "Add New Sponsor"e they will be presented with the £Qllowit2g screen: Add New Sponsor P N t tl a P.e. - The SpwSSofcsn bayou,,yourcompany.oryourcllent__ iespmsor Is he person or business _ ultlmaltely responslblelm'Cle cbrlohuctlbROraaerobm:The sponsorappears as the addresses on all _ torrespoodence Ram the FAA - - :--'� - ° • Please-populate==the tollilwln4formia.addar update¢Sponsor. -" nayuo.d Adds.IndlHtad wRh _ - •Atbntian ofi _ - ` - - --•AM.as: - NOTE. The party submitting - - - - Adde...2: information through the FAA = - website DOES NOT have to --- sr.ee be the same as the sponsor. _ Often, a consultant or other -OR party under direction from the - �Nan-us SLAaI sponsor makes the submittal - -_ :•C�.ae", uramsWes - - through the website - - - 'Np/Port C.A.. O - EmA. B-1$ LA/Ont 0 lntelnetfonel Alrpovt-Land Use Compstfbflfty Plan(Adopted Ap I119e 2011) TT- QrV - - FEDERAL AViATION`R EGUCATtON$ PART 77 APPENDIX B Creating a New Submittal ; ' • -There ac two options foi cseattng anew 7460`subTruttai:Again on the left side,either click"Add New Case - (off airport)"or"Add New Case (on airport) OEIAAA Panel Page - _ Noma - _ - -' vNw DetamJn•d casef - Ww Proposed Cases - --- L"IM Tine',. - VNw aupPlemenW - pa.�MC Naens(Form 7460-2) -:'• - '' -" V.Oaculadsed Cues ACliolb - - - search Archives What's New -- - -_ Download Archives Update Account Ww"Ma(lon circle Search F.,Casa change Password Circe Search For Nmob LogON DlsaeEOnary Review FAQs - Natio CdNda Tool _ - - pop Pnlllnlnary "- Screening TOal Dist".Calculasen Teel - TZ portal Page , - _ - - • FIF eases COIF N or-A). - - - Wcoves(O-Al,saft) -2- NF Sponsors"t _ - - - Add Met'.taw(ON _ Ahpek) Add New Co.* CO.(On / sssav - - •._ UPda a User A®tint - WhaTs Nat' -- - Change password '. - - _ -- -------- - circuladwd Case Not canon - to9out There are some differences an the " required fields for on airport" vs. "off airport but the differences are minor and self explanatory. ' One, tip: for off,airport. submittals there is a "field for "requested marking/lighting". If the user does not have a preference;select other-from the pull down menu and in the "other field" state"no preference' _ J. LAA7ntar10 MWinatbrial Alrpo(t Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Aprtl 19,2011)1 8-19 APPENDIX B< - FEDE-R*L AVIATION R EGULATIONS'RAkT 77 O WvsMMw - Notice of Proposed Confttuctlo r or Alteration 06 Airport _ �t6 Dn,d fa. • feamer(Vet son.calaDanY.eR.PnM.IM CMS ecUen) Oanst ctfan/11MeV.tlon IIOa1.eaWn - St3MCWte Summery - if TPTQOfdfV: MorMt:O D... - FC(M•nb•n O+ ' - _ _-WM,xMdJe.sbet, OqO ImMAG/YYVY) nXx.VSw Oy -O.O.OE _ YYYY) Strvcwrt Deblb Comma.Fn.Uenry fend. _ •1.YCrd.r E=s O ❑ Cw F•N XNA i^9 "tHz, 9V 9VIY1! _ 9 may., 11. � ❑ 806 824 MN, 500 W - - U- I� ❑ 834 049 MXr 300 W _ - El 831 866 MXr 300 W 'Utr FFn•tlon(BF], (neer•rt Foal) ❑ 859 BN- MXr $00 W _- I..6UMph,(.10, O(neerert f..,) ❑ e96 901 MXr 300 W •np.W.bd M•Wlrp/lq,tlq, Nine -V ❑ 901 902 MMe T w oth : O ❑ 930 931 MXe 3300 W 931 932 MXr '3300 W _ V W S ebm/,VW -. d„da Nuel • 6 r min9 Y ( ) I ❑Y - ❑ 932 933-0 MMI IT dBW - -_ C­ X•hYp/lld,bp: $MM,,Ore ❑ 933 NO MHz 1000 W ONIB/: ❑ 940 9.1 MHz 3300 w. rMr.41[Ily: ❑ I.30 1910 MHr 1640 w _ •Ne•r.Gt 54b, ❑ 1930 1990 MXr 1640 W Y 2303 3]10 2000 W _ M„e •D.GCrbtlon of tx•tlem _ _ - ❑ 2343 2360 MXr 2000 W •Deecrblbn ul F9ap..M, Accurate is critical and site an -- - I4DSPeDmaPafeaq elevation is crdica for an accurate airspace determination. - Addmon.I Coaetlaa(c) - • It is recommended that survey quality data be obtained from a recent = _ - -- survey, a GPS unit, or worst case, scaled from a _ - - - topo quad. - - -The most Camino.`notice oP'is constructcon. Select from pule down menu: Latitude arid iongttude must be entered far the structure/construction activity. - } -=Most 7464 submittals will require multipjei pomts with lot/long unless the 7460 is-for a pole/tower/ or other single point obyect. Buildings and construction areas atl_require points indicating the extents of the II. building or'rea. Ivlore'mformation is provided belaty=on howto add additional points t€r a subtmttal: " There is a field to clescribe'tl�e activity:taking place. In some complex:activit es the field does not ._- provide-enough room -0AWA.0 r - FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 APPENDIX B Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration-OR Airport d1h�+.++P.P• - P.Yvar.w]csnmsouwo A9 " ]]�"aaso _ _� Prgen_aw M":nmaemiwace _ - '.- - — ": X00 inoTP Cla.lOF6PrOiB'•f ' / - 30] OU W o,w sa•., r.ao w cl... - - uNew•voP -- .pM1 .tl..1Y ]w]D'100'M X IwYy Y.y OMM� WIwI.ro[ w]0' ' _ -� - ro we�mew mn.a rou ll�wt+wm'n.melellrawn w.nswem+ - -- - - The clone tool copies all the relevant information to a new page where an additional]at/long and elevation .' can be,entered. Howevef,,.tbe clone process'does not number the vatious'points of a;proposed;project. _ When entering the details-for a point (see Image 5) it is helpful.if the user assigns a number to the point and references the total number of points.for the project (e.g. point 2'of 20);The.numbering'_can be included in the project"description/ emazks" field for each point. - It-should be`noted that each individual point:associated with a project (e.g. each corner of a building)'is evaluated individually,;.thus the importance of including a numbering system (2"of 20) in the text/description box. Once done, click `save" again. Now the user will see two records under-the< project summar}�'=heading. Continue this process of cloning for alLthe xerhaintng points • Once all the points have been entered, each point must be verified. There is a red X with the words "verify - Tap" indicating the user has not verified the=location. Click Verify Map, a popup will display the lat/long "point on a topo map and the user mustyerify that iris in the correct ocation.After clicking"verify map"on s the popup, the red X will become a blue-checkmark. It seems to be more efficient toi enter all of the points associated with a project and then returtt to verify each point on the map atone time. i.A/p dy ntario lntemsUonal Airport Land'Use Coiri000il' Plan(Adopted Apol,18,2011)- _ " B-21 , .APP€tfD.t B FEDERAL AVtATFON REG ULATIONS.P&RTY77 - mamn z.o.ae yr - T.bl ilxf. Of r - ��' ' .UOI ' • —� ' ` f c j V 0 _ M rrWp a the co m m n.pr.ndd on ei»�w•v.0 gy •W.c en.i..e n or en.us.r n. .neii.d h coma to n - - O..t of vwM bw.IMy. Aft on-airport project subrnittals must Have a"project sketch" included, Under the "actions" colurnn select "upload a PDF". Once you have uploaded a-sketch foz all the points associated with the protect- se red X under "sketch" wilt turn to a green check mark. Off-'airport projects do not iequirca "project skeicW%but -zheuser can still-upload c e forinfotinational purpgses. If-the user needs to add auy other information sack as an explanatory letter- clicking on "upload a PDF will 4-ocv the user to upload more documents,.although only one at a time,Keep--.in mind that if additional - PDFs or information are being provided, like the project sketch it must-he uploaded to every.point associated with:the project;_ - " Once;-the maps Have been verified anti sketches:uploaded for all polnts­assodated with the case,the user will be able to submit the 7460 to the FAA for review.-. " Status of Submitted Projects To check the status of a submittal,click on either"my cases Goff airport)"or"my eases(on airport}-,=to see a. -, list of what his_been subrn tied. Each of the multiple points associated with one project will be listed as if-, they are separate;although=still.associated.The points will have a status: X22 LNOnfar alr tQmational Airport land llsa Go ,asbNty Plan(Adopted Agrlf 19,2011) �b41 'FEDITAL AVJATION REGULATIONS PART 77 AP PEN DI% B ALL W My ra (011 Airp ) - \IY.Y6ME(]il Owl1 l 14[W1i0i 1\E,\!RE/«E(Of fe\rS\.«\d(\I I Y)t01W _ ]:: RewlpalbA W31 " v - - Pn\102­ - a --- -� ;cm ae0uwa.os .e. e..R -.. - aL..«e Y -• -� � - cm-wNINU.m - .,.cm.wwf00ws - B.n'.ppelu.s." TYT.wwawu-u 3T.n xwO-Yw-snO.OE_. r.m,NEY! LaH/Sw! cumawl • T«t ±( :. -"'isT-ocaa•»w-n _ o�.R ,� >.. _ ' - -i.n-. Px -.:< -" - Tm-OwONOPW =.T)T OPoOn\Tr07 .n 2001-VW 3e9LK'E T..n.d - w.l U30w - 0]!)tliwl Ta - tat0000Ya!!'pT TEn 3p07�YW M90-0E T—n .Me OVOW2001 WWI., Tat T\R PoOOIOTOx-Ol ).rt 3001-uL-169 of _-- 1_mmn W2W2007 pe/3U3p0i left .R :''_' - .'.TbT.0000saxwOx pn xw>-YW-N\rOF T.nn wlxa:ow Ox/wiwx ,. T«t TII '(TEBT-aowu Nl O• T. 2w7sw-7HO-oE. taws pelxNxom -: 09pe/Iw) _ aE T] - -�Tar-OaOpplarT7 Ta{ xw7.19w9eve.aE .rmin.IW EaL'/awl LOnvaw7 TM T T—...d 0v2e2 o.. Tar-000n\vs-p\ - -Tar-app)ae.a.n xwe.sw-NU-oE T.mOnW.e oao.xxon avouiPoe T..e T. - awma»s-N xpv]-hswae»-OE-_ T.,...nr.e - paxvxpp. . impuwpe e. T. -_ TEIT-OOOEO.N:w bt 30o6-hEw.EZV OE T.rmwn.e M... 10/MM, aat TII • � - _-' a :-.. -'..NNi4 pBl POw p � :> •:- _ _ IMII OIW i. ' n\rna n\aoaaa - .\+wtpz Project Status Definitions: - Draft: Cases that have been saved by the user but have not been submitted to the FAA. • Waiting: Cases that have-not been submitted to the FAA and are waiting for an action from the user,either to verify the map or attach a sketch. Accepted: Cases that have been submitted to the FAA . Add I ettet: Casesxhat have been reviewed by'the FAA and require additional information from the user. Work in Progress:.Cases that are being evaluated by the FAA. Determined: Cases that have a completed aeronautical study and an FAA determination.- Terminated: Cases that are no longer valid: These defitutiohs'are also-shown at the bottorr tof the summary screen. LAIOntedo.Intemadonal Alryort Land Use Compa9bility Flan(Adopted April 19,2011) - - X23 AOFEADY%_& PEpERAL AYLA'TiDk itedUl.ATIONS PART 77 This page yasi0,646nu6nallybYank B-24- _ LVOnterio-1Dfemational Airport Land UseC mpatl bilityP lsn_(AdoptedApdI19,2091)- - APPENDIX C LA/Ontario Internotion6l QNTARI� ` Airport Land Use Compatibility Pl lNC z NTARI ENDIX • OAIRPORT PLANNING AIRPORT' EANQ USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS _ J _ N INTRODUCTfO This appendtz provides;baste information regarding the concepts and rationale used to develop the compatibtlitypoh. es and snaps set forth iii.Chapter 2-of this LA/Ontario'InternationalAilpor'L ld Ilse Compolibikty Plan. Some of the matenal is eiicerpted directly from the C4rJifofllia Airport Land Use.P!<an ring Handbook:pubhshed:by the California Division of Aeronautics in January 20-2. father portions are based upon concepts tliat evolved=from technical input obtained during review and discussion-of pre ]ttnmary drafts of key pohctes State law re titres that"' ort iartd-use-comi?usaiot`is."be deri:b ' the-infoonation' resented at the q atrp gui handbook p Handbook. bespite the statutory teference'to it, tbijugh, the Handbook does-not constitute for Pnal state policy or regulation: Indeed, of the gutdeiines to fit the circumstances of individual airports is?suggested'by the Handbook., .The Handbook guidance and the infomtation to this appendix does not ` supersede or 6therwise lake precedence over the policies contained in the LA/Qxtario Inlcmahonal Ai% port Land I3x Compatibi(ityPlan. As otzthtLed to the Handbook,Elie noise.and safely-compatibility con€ems fall it-ito four categories; - + Noire. As defined by cumulative noise exposure_contours descnbmg noise from atrcra£t opera bons near an.airport. f?t hgl7t The tnipacts of routine-atrttaft Elightouer a comiitumty+ S4-#. -From the perspective of mm,rnr�tttg the risks of aircraft accidents bepond the runway en- vironrrient. l- Airpdrd Protecd7oti`Accomplished by litrtits-on the heigbtof structuies and ott er objects in the airjtort vicirtity and restrictions on other uses thatpotendally pose hazards to flight The documentation in the remainder of this appendix;is_organized under the'four compatibility catego- ries Under;each 6f--'the four €oinpattbtfity category h_adings, the discussion is organized around four topics: CeVa btltty Ob a€bve.'The-objective to be sflpght by establishment and,ia*letnentation of the compatibility policies, . ^T'Mearmnment The=scale on wI tch attain z m of the objectives can be measured;' Compatlbrk'ty S trakgrea Tlie types of stegies which, when formulated as compatibility pohctes, _ can be-used.to accompksh=tlie-objectives,acid Baru fnr Setkng C?tena' The factors wluch,should be considered m setting the respective compa tibifitycnteria- tarro lntemmbnal AimrCand lse Canpatiblity Plprt"(AdoptedApn119,20111- C l LAOn - APPENDIX C Al RPOR*-LAND USE`COM PATIB16TV CONCEPTS ^�'""� - NOISE • _ Noise is perhaps the most basic airport landuse compatibility concern: Certainly,it is the most notice- able form of aupo impact Compatibility Objectnie *Me purpose of noise compatibility- is ro avoid establishment of newnoise-sensitive land uses in- -*Me portions of an airport influence area that_are`exposed"to significant levels of atrcrafr=noise, talartg into account the characteristics of the;airport and the community surrounding the auport. IiIIe8SU1'@�I'1 @�1t For the purposes of'airport land use"compatibihry planning noise generated by the operation of aircraft to from,and around an airport is primarily measured;in terms of the cumulative noise levels of all air craft operations. In-California, the cumulative noise=-level metric established by state regulations, rn eluding for measurement of airporraoise-is mtt the Counity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Cumula ' tive noise level metrics-measure the noise'levels of all-aircraft operating at an airport on an average day (1/365) of the year. The calculations take into account not only the number of operations of each air -craft type and the noise levels they produce,biit also their distribution geographically (the runways and flight tracks used).and by time of day.. To reflect an assumed greater,community sensitivity to nighttime and evening noise, the CNEL metric counts events'-during these periods as being louder than actually = measured: Cumulative noise lever metrics provide a single measure of the average sound level in.decibels (dB) to which any point near an airport is exposed over the=course of a day. Although the maximum noise le • eels produced by individual aircraft area major component of the calculations, cumulative noise level metrics do-not explicitly nieasureahese peak,v alu es . Cumulative noise levels are=usually illustrated on airport area maps as contour lines connecting points of equal noise exposure. Mapped noise contours primarily show areas of significant'noise exposur6"nes affected by high concentrations of aircraft takeoffs and landings..—_ For civilian airports, noise contours are-typically calculated using:the Federal Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Model,(INM) computer.ptogram. The input information that generate this model are of two basic;=types': standardized data regaiding aircraft performance and noise levels generated (this -data can be adjusted for a particular airport_if necessary); and airport specific data including aircraft s - types and number of operations, time of day of aircraft. runway usage distribution, and the location and usage of flight tracks.'Airport elevation and surrounding topographic data can also be en- . tered. For airports with airport traffic control towers,.some of these inputs can be obtained from rec orded data. Noise monitoring and radar flight tracking data available for airports in metropolitan areas are other sources of valuable information:-. tvmost airports„though,the individual input variables must lie estimated.;, 'Compatibility Strategies The basic strategy for'achievrng_noise compatibility in an airport's vicuntyis to limit developtnent of land uses that are particularly sensitive to noise. The most acceptable land uses are ones that`cither involve few people (especially people engaged in noise-sensitive activities) or generate significant noise levels themselves (such as other transportation facilities or some 'industrial uses). —2. _ ='LA/Onteno lntemaUona/Airport Lend Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apd1:1. 2011) - . _'AIRPORT LAND Us _COMPAT!&ILITV ON_ PTS APPENDIX C - Cahfoxn7a state law regards`anq residential laird uses as normally incompatihle where the Horse eiposure exceeds 65"dB CNEL`•; althou h.the state ort noise regulations explicitly a only,to•identified "Horse problem airports m'tbe'context`laf pxovtdmg`the ability o€ these`anports to operate-under a noise variance From the State,-the Handbonk and other state gude]tnes extend this_criterion to all au port s as discussed below) This:standard, however,is set with respect to-hi gh-aettvityairports,-particD-- -lax. major air carrier airports, in urban locations,"where ambient noise levels Areger erallylrigl er?han -_ itr-suburban and rural areas: As also discussed below and as provided in the Ffandirfak, a lower dim shold-of incompatibility is often appropriate at-certain airports,particularly around ai ports m suburban or Waal locations Where-the ambient noise levels are lower than those found in areasi Iti-places where the noise exposure is not so severe as to warrant exclusion-ofnew residential:develop- ment the ideal strategy is,to have very low densities-that is,parcels large enough brat the dwelh4&can be;;plamlin.a less impacted part of the property. In-urban areas, however,this strategy is seldom via- - -ble. The alternative for-such Vocations is to encourage high density, multi-fami[y residential .develop- rnent with-little,if any,outdoorareas,lrovided that the 45`dB CNEL interior noise standard and-litnita- - dons based-upon-safety are not excieded. Compared to single-family subdivisions, ambient noise levels ace.typically higher in multi-family-developnierits,outdoor living space is Ica-.and sound Ins uiaucin fea tures can be more easily added to the buildings. All of these factors tend ro'niake aircraft noiseless in- trusive Sound ins, attori is an impottaut requirement for residential and-other noise-sensitive indoor uses in _ -high noise-'areas. TlreCahforriia.Building Code requires that sufficient aco#stic insulation be provided in any habitable ioorns`:of new botels,motels;donriitories, dwellings other than detached single-tam ly _ residences tq assure that aircraft ioi"se is reduced to an'tnterior'naise level of 4548 CNEI or less. To dernonst L compliance with this standard, an acoustical analysis must be done for any residential striietnreproposed to he Iocated where die annual CNELexeeeds 65 d$ The Comfiaiibalsty Plm,further` requires dedication of`an .avigation easement as a condition far development zpproval in locations _where iliese-standards come-into=play. $asis far Setting;Criteria - Co iipatibilityzriteria related to cumulative noise levels are well-established in federa -afid state laves and - r".tions.-_-lbe Califorvda Airport Noise Regulations,(California Code of=Repulauons Section 5f1d0 et regj states that "The level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in tkie vicinity of anr airport is es ' tablished as a coTnthunity noise equivalent level-(CNEL) value of 65 dB for purposes-of these regulations.This criterion Jevel`lias beenchosen for reasonable-perstins residing in urban xesideit tial areas where houses are-of typical California corismiction and may Have ;tvirtdows;para. y open.It.has beeft selected with reference to speech,sleep acid commi iutgreaetii n." No airport_*,-fared by a-Bounty's,booed of`'supervisors as having a "noise.pr_blem"is to t3peraSe in a manner that result in incompatible uses being located within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Incompatible uses ate;defttied as bein ,residences of all types;publi€acid private'schools;_hospitals-and convalescent homes; and places of worship.-However,-these uses are not regarded as ineomisatible where acoustical =_ insulation necessary to�reduce the-interior n oise levelto 45 d$ CNEL liar been installed ar tbe:airport proprietor has acquired_an gvigation easemstit fox aircraft noise.' As-noted in-die regp lati-iris, thc_65_dB CNEL:standard is set with respect-to.urban areas,For many air- ports and ninny commuiuties,65 dB Cl4tL is too high to be considered-acceptable-to `-_-reason-able per- sons. a process called "normalization adjustments can be made to take into account such LAKMteno Intertiational Airport fans!Urn-i:ompa66ili(y-Plen(A tedApn144,2011) - - C--3 - - "APPENDIX C" AIRPORT LAND USE_CdMPATIBILITY CON&EPTS _ factors as the background noise levels 'of-_-the-'c ommunity and previous exposure to particular-noise • sources., This process suggests,-for example, that__60, CNEL7may be a.more suitable criterion for suburban communities not exposed'to significant industrial noise and-55 dB CNEL may be appropriate,- . for quiet subucommunities rban or rural commu remote from,industrial noise and.truck traffic. On the other hand, 'even though exceeding state standards; 70 dB CNRt.maybe regarded as an acceptable noise ex- posure in noisy urban residential communities near industrial areas and busy toads. -Industrial activity and transportation noise ace-undoubtedly two of the most'prominent contributors to . - background noise levels.m a-community. According to,a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study however,the variable that correlates best with ambient noise levels across.a broad range-of corn-, munities is population,density(Population Distribution of the United States as a Function of Outdoor Noise I.ecr✓y. EPA,Report'No. 550/9-74-009,June 1974)._ This study established the following formula as a.means of estimatuigahe typicalcbackground noise'level of a community. DI>l1s 22'+ 10*log(P) where `p"is'the population density measured n peopleper square statute mile. These factor are reflected in the"policies of_this Compatibility Plan. The Co4atibility Plan considers the 70 dB CNEL the maximum normally acceptable noise:exposure fox new multi-Family residential and 65, dB CNEL.for new'single-family residenti4_development near LA/Ontano.International Airport. The Compatibility;Plan also establishes noise insulation standards for residential and nonresidential develop- ment in areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or greater; Based upon the above EPA equation, these criteria are a minimum of 5 dB above the predicted ambient noise levels in the respective com- mumties Silx l considerations come into play with respect to establishing maximum acceptable noise exposure • for nonresidential land uses,particularly those that are noise sensitive. For schools,lodging, and other -`such uses, a;higher;noise exposure may be tolcrated in-noisy urban communities;than fn quieter subur ban and rural areas. For uses that are not noise sensitive or which generate their own noise, the maxi-­ mum acceptable noise exposure-levels tend to be.the same regardless of ambient noise conditions. The criteria listed in Chapter 2 of-this Compatibility Plan are,set with these various factors in mind. OVERFLIGHT,--:-',, Experience at many airports has.shown that'noise'related concerns do not--stop at the boundary of the` outermost mapped CNEL contours. Many,people are sensitive to the frequent presence of aircraft overhead even at low levels of noise. These reactions;can mostlybe expressed in the form of annoyance. The Handbook notes that at many airports, particularly air carrier airports, complaints often come from locations.beyond any of the defined noise contours. Indeed,heavily used flight corridors to and from metropolitan areas are known to;generate noise complaints 50 miles or more from the associated air port. The-basis-for such complaints may be a desire and expectation that outside noise sources not be ' - intrusive—or 'in some circumstances, even distinctly audible=above the quiet, natural background _.'noise level. Elsewhere,especially in locations beneath the traffic pattems of general aviation airports, a fear factor also contributes to some individuals'sensitivity to aircraft overflights. While these impacts may be important-comrriunity concems, the question of importance here is wheth- er any land use planning actions can be tak`eri to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Commonly;2when overflight impacts are uncles discussion in a community; the focus is on in odificatiomof the flight routes Indeed,_some might argue that overflight impacts should be ad- • C--4 = _ `LA/Ontario lntemationalAirport Land Else Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) AIRPORT LAND USE COMPAT181LfTY CONCt*Ts -,K""Qfx c dressed solely-through the aviation side of the equation—not only flight route changes;but other mod ificattbns`tamliere,whCn,and how airerafi are operated. Such changes are-not, tl-ways possible because a terrain,-xitcrafx per faiTnaiice-.capabitities,''FAA regulations, aril other factors. In any ca-se, though, - A ,UCs, or oilier designated bodies, are patticglaily limited in their ability to deal with overflfgtit con- items, Most:significantly, they li-xve no ai tlYanty over aircraft pperations: -The most they can"do to _ bzitig ab- changes is`-to make requests of iecommeirdations. Even with:regard to land use;_the au__ t dty of ALUCs/designated bodies extends-br&to proposedritwdevelopinent and the delineation of an:airpores overall in area. The authority and_responsibility for Jmpkmentin g the G gmfiahbrkty Pfa>1 s policies—and---criteria rests with tlie-lccaTgovemtnents. These limitations notwithstanding, there are-steps which'r -Ms/designated bodies fan and should takeoo holg minimize overfligbviriipacts. "• Compatibility Objective " The compati bility obleciavewith respect to overflight is The same as for noise. 'avoid new-land use de velopment tkiat can disrupt activities and lead to annoyance and comglaitits, However;given ilie exten live geagraplac azea over which the impacts'ocEfir, this=objective-is unrealistic eiicept relatively close to _ the=airport. I feasible objective of overflight conigatbility policies therefore is to help notify people about the presence of overfligliu near airports so thatthey can-make informed decisions regazditig ac giustti'on or lease of property in the affected areas. Measurelment Cuiitulative nntse`metrics such as CNEL are well-suited for use_in establishing land use cotnpattbiltty parley cnteria`and am the only noise metricsfor which widely accepted st-An rds have been adopted., ` However,these metricsare'not very helpful in determining,the extent of overflight impact azeas: Loca° tions whero-6verflight concerns rimy lie sigtiif cant are,typically well beyondwhere noise contours can be'drawn with precision, Flight tend to be quite:divergent and noise monitoring data is seltiom available._Moreover,-even if the contours could be drawn precisely, the noise levels they would indicate - may not be touch above--the ambient�toise3evels For th e purposes'of airport lanstuse compatibility ptar ning,two other forms of notse:exposure;m os oration are more useful. One measure is the,momentary, maxiti am sound level�I experienced on the ground as the aircraft fhes liver while.landing at and-taking off from a'runway `I leese noise levels = care be depicted in the,form of a noise "footprint as shown in Figure Cl . or a vaziety of airline and general aviation aircraft.: Each of these footprints is broadly representative of those produced lsy;odier aircraft sitnilaz td the ones slwwt_ The actual sound'level produced by any single aitcra€f takeoff or landing will vary not only among:specific rnak and models o€aircraft, but:also from one operation to; another of identical aircraft - In exg-rip ing-the footprints, two additional paints-ire important to note, Oiieas.the imp :of the outermost-contour. This noise level (65 dBA LJ-is the love l at which mte £erence with speecli.begins to'be significant band uses anywhere within tlae noise footprint of a given;aircraft would expeuence a noise level; even.if oiilyhtiefly,that couldbE disruptive to outdoor, conveesation.. Indoors, with win dowsclosed'the aircraft noise level would have to be atleast 20 dBA Iouder'to present_similar impacts. A second point to note conceins'the dt£ferences among various;aucraft, particularlybusiness jets, As the"data shows,businessjets manufactured intlie 19906.are much quieter diin-those of 1©and?f}years earlier The impacts of-[lie 19906-era jets are:similar to'those ofSwm-engine•-piston aircraft and jets be irig made in the 20006 are quieter-yet. At many general aviation airports, the size of_the CN> I con- tours ss driven by a relatively small number of operati'oiis by the order,noisierbusiness gets These air L IQntana lnfemeRomal Aigtart lend Use Compatibility p7enfAdeptedAplYl'19, E- APPENDIX C' 'AIRPORT LAND USE COM PAT]S]LITV.CONCEPTS craft aze gradually disappearring.from the nationwide aircraft fleet and are likely-to be,gone within 20 years,butt at this pointin-time it is uficertatn when.they will'be,completely eliminated. Another useful form of overflightmformation.is amapping of the common flight tracks used by air- craft when•approaching and departing,An airport Where, available-, recorded radar data is an ideal source for flight track mapping. Even more revealing is to refine the simple flight track mapping with data such as the frequency of use and/or aircraft altitudes. Chapter Y includes a sample of actual flight tracks'and flight altitudes of aircraft using L?c/Ontariolnternational Airport. Compatibility Strategies= _ _The ideal land use compatibility strategy with respect to overflight annoyance is to avoid development , of new residential and other noise-sensitive uses i the:"affected locations.. However;as mentioned be- fore this approach is not practical and other,strategies need to be explored. ' The strategy emphasized in this Compatibifiy Plands to help people with above average;sensitivity to air- _ craft overflights—people who are highly annoyed—by overflights to avoid living in,locations where.fre F ' quent overflights occur. This strategy involves making people aware of an airport's,proximity and its . - current and potential aircraft noise impacts on the community before they move to the area. This can be accomplished through buyer awareness measures such as dedication of avigation or;overflight;ease menu, recorded deed notices, and/or real-estate disclosure-statements. -In new residential develop . ' merits;posting of signs;in the real estate sales office and/or at key'locadons inthe subdivision itself can be further means of alerting,the initial purchasers about the impacts (signs;however;generally do not remain in place beyond-the initial sales period and therefore are of little long-terM value). A second strategy is to minimize annoyance by promoting land uses that tend to mask or reduce the in- trusiveness of aircraft noise. Although this strategy does not directly appear iti the overflight policies of • this Compalibikty Plan,the objectives of the plan would be well-served if local jurisdictions take this con cept,into consideration in their own planning,efforts.For.example, inuld--family residential uses would be abetter choice to place within aircraft-overflight ar , because they tend to have comparatively little outdoor living areas,-fewer external walls-ihrough_wh ch-aircraft noise can intrude, and relatively high noise levels of their own. However, low-density single family residential with densities of 1 unit per acre are discouraged since background noise levels ire-likely to be low making residents more suscepti- ble to aircraft noise. Basis for Setting Criteria _ In California, definitive guidance ori,where_cverflight impacts are-significant;or what actions should be ,taken in response comes from a state law that went-into effect on januaty 2004. California.'statutes (Business and Profession,-Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1103 and 1353) now require most residential real estate transactions;including new"subdivisions, to include disclosure that an airport `is nearby. ,The area encompassed-by the.disclosure requirements is two miles from the airport or the airport influence area estabhshed'by the county s airport land use commission. The law defines the air port influence area as "the area in which current or future airport-related noise,overflight, safety,or air- space protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as de- termined by an airport land use canmiission" :This Campatibl/iiy Plan requires that the disclosure of - -airport proximity be applied to all new residential development within the.airport influence area and re- conunends that disclosure be provided,as;part of all,real estate transactions involving private property, especially any sale,lease,or rental of residential property. C� LAICntano Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apri(19,2011) lA1 PORT i'AND USi�--dOMPATPS6LITY CONO2PTS - APPEN1tU(e - SAFETY Compared to noise, safety is in that-Y respects a 6ole'dif5eult concern to addressitt atrpoxtlaird use compatibility' policies. A malof reason for this dif€ererce is thaf safety policies address;uncertain events that may occur with occasionaIaircrah operrations,W.hereas rniise;policies deal with known,more ,predictable events which do occur wtth every airuaft;operation. _Because aircraft accidents happen in frequently-and the timer place,and consequences of an individual accident's occurrence cannot be pre= dieted,the concept o£risk iscentral to the assessmett%of,safety.comganbility Compatibility Qbjective The overall,oblective of safety compatibility-.criteria is:to **+�+mire the risks associated'with potential off-airport aircrafr accidents and emeigenty.landings beyond the runway eivironinert. There arc two Fornponents-to-this objective: - Sajrty ) the GnJxmi The most fundamental safef3 compatibility component ts.to gmuide for the safety of people_"and property on the ground in°the event ofan aircra€r acct e-n 'near wi aiipor[ ' Safety for Aircraft Ocirrpantr The otiier important component rs to enhance"die chances of-surviv- al of the occupants o£an-airera£t inunlved m an accident_that takes=plate beyond the irriri ediate runway environment Measurement liecause aircraft accidents happen:infrequently, measuring the risks associated with their oceurronceis difficult It is,-necessary to Inok"beyond an individual airport in orLier to assemble ez}augli data to be statistically valid. It is beyond the intent of this discussion to provide statisti cal data about aircraft acct dents. Much can be found on that topic iri'the Handbaok. I ouveaer, certain asp e ts of aircraEi acct- dentsare recessary to disell°ss iii that they have a direct_bearing©it-land usecompaubiliry strategies. From the standpoint,4Iiiidusep riding,two variables determine the degree of risk pissed by potential aircraft accidents f requency- coris equences, The frequency variable measures: Arm and when aircrafr accidents occur.in the vicinity of an airport. .More specifically,these two elements can be 4escribea as follows:' 3 SfatialEkmanY The spatial`elern t describes-whin aircraft accidents can be eicpectedto-iztcur. D£all'the accidents-that t ake place in Lire vidhity'of airports,what percentage occurs in any given - _ 'location? Tune dement The time element adds a mhex variable to the,"assessmei.vt of accident frequens y In any given Iocation azoimd a:par iculai airport,what is the chance that an acsideiii wi13�rccur in A specified period of time?, ? 5pa6a1 Dis6ftiofion of/tiraaltAceideks ( f these two`elements,tine spadalelement is the one most meaningfiilly applied to iatiduse companbil- ity planningaround,an individual airport. Lookingt airports riationwide,enough actdents have oc curved to provide useful"data regarding where acxiderits are most likely to occur: The`Haxdbook uses accident data fo define a=set o£saEety zones.=Additionally,the relatiue conceritratiorr of accidents-iri cer rain parts of the airp6rt environs is a key consideration n the estab_lishmenfa_f compatibility criteriaap= plcable within those zones L-NOntano lntatnedona/Airport Land Use Compefibility;Pfan(ArfripfedApnl 99,�2f11i) APPENDIX C ' AIRPORY:LAND USE COMP4T4ILATY CONCEPTS In contrast,-the time element 1s not very-useful for land use compatibility planning purposes for several • _ reasons. 6.t,at any-given airport, the number of accidents is,with rareexceptions,too few to be sta- tisncally meaningful in;determiningwhere fiiture acddents might occur. Secondly, a;calculanon of-.c.---- - _ ddeor frequency over time depends upon the size of the area under consideration—'the smaller the area- • _ examined, the less likely it is that.-an "accident will-occur in that spot. Lastly, even if the accident Ere quency over a period of tune is°calculated;`there are do.dear baselines with which to`compare the re--. = - "sults= - The Handbook presents a set of diagrams'utdicatmiz where accidents are most likely to occur around air- line and general,aviation airports. Figures C2 and C3 show the spatial distribution of general aviation " aircraft accident S dn Ae:vicimty of airports.-_(Note that these charts show"for all general_aviation accidents m=the Handbook database.-Data or-accidents associated with different lengths of runway is al- <. SO provided:,_The Handbook accident distribution data;plus the generic safety zones for air carrier run. , ways is considered in delineation cf the safety zones"depicted in Chapter I of this Compatihthly Plan) The charts reveal several facts About half of- rrival accidents and a third of'departure acddents take place.within the FAA defined runway'protection'zone fora runway_with-a low=visibility instrument approadi proce dire (a2,500-foot long trapezoid-,varying from-.1 000 feet-wide at the inner edge to 1,750 feet in width-at--the-outer"end)., This,fact [ends,validity to the importance of the runway protection - zones as an area within which land use activides should be muumal +. Although accident-risk levels are the htgliest within--the runway protecdonones, a significant degree of risk exists well beyond the runway protection zone boundaries. -Among all near% airport(within 5 miles) accidents, over 80%-are concentrated within 1_.5 t62.0 miles of a runways end: - • + Arrival' accidents tend to =be concentrated relatively close to the ,,extended_ninway centerline. " Approximately 80% occur wit.hiii-a,stnp extending 10,000, feet from the runway landing thre- shold and 2,000 feet to each side of themmway centerline. ` Departure accidents are cornparanvely more dispersed laterally from centerline, but are concentrated'closer to the runway end. Many departure accidents also occur lateral to'the runway itself,particularly when the runway,is long. Approximately;80% of the departure acci- dent sites lie within an area 2,500 feet from the runway centerline and 6,000_ feet beyond the runway end or adjacent to the runway__; ­- To provide some_sense"of order"ta die scaftet"of individual accident points,an analysia presented in the ,. ".Ha>dbook involves aggregating the accident-location points (the-scatter diagrams of where accidents -have occurred relative to the runway).in amanner that"better identifies where the accident sites are most concentrated. The results are presented as risk intensity contours= d Figure C2 shows arrival ac dent risks and Figure C3 portrays,departure accident risks: The two drawings divide the near-airport accident location points into five.-groups of 26%%each (note that only accident sites_that were not on a - rgnway, but were within 5.miles' of an ,airport' are.iiiduded in the database)." The 20%_contour represents the highest or most concentrated risk intensity, the 40"/o contour represents;the next highest.,, risk uitensity;,and so on up to 80%. The final 20% of the accident sites are beyond the-80%contour. -' Each contour is drawn so as to encompass 20% of the,points within the most compact area. The con- tours are irregular in shape. No attempt has been made to create geometric shapes. However, the risk contours can serve as the basis for-creating geometric shapes that can then`be used as safety zones and the Handbook contains several eiamples C-8 L"Mario lnteme6onalAnport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19. 2011) W�✓�FT PU Nix _ - Al'RPOR7£AND USE CCMPRTkBALIT-Y CONCEPtS APi6?ID`Ix£ • The Handbook takes the-additional step of tri slating the risk-contours into-several Sets'b€generic safety zone`s having regular;geometric;drapes. Gencnt safety'zones:are illustrated-for dif€erent types and lengths of runways. The shapes of these zones reflect not just the accident-distribution data; htit also the ways in which`different phases of aircraft operations create different accident risk characteristics near an airport. For mostrunways, the Hrin lb4suggests creation of six,safety cones: The7ogations, typical dimensions,and characteristics.0 the acddent nsks within each zone are outlined m Tali1e C1. The degree of risk exposure within each safety gone is listed below,: } Zone 1 clearly'is expo3ed to rise greatest risk"of aircraft accidents. 1 or ctviliaii:atxports; rite d%. me iii'oiis of this one arc a"stabhshed by FAA standards. FAA encourages airport ownership of this-zone-and-provides-specific land use standards here the land;is not,auport owned,the FAA says these standaards sews as recotnniendafions. .Zane 2`$es beyond Zone f-and also iias a significant degree of risk as reflected=in both starianah _ and local accident locatiotj data Zone 3 has less risk than-Zone-2,but mare than Zones , 5,_or 6. Zone 3 encompasses locations where aircraft often turnt low altitude while approachaig or departing the runway -+ Zane 4.lies along the extet vied runway centerline beyond Zone-2 and IS especially significant at airports that have straight=in instrume approach procedures Qr a=highs volume of operations that results in an extended traffic,patteigr Zane 5isa unique area lying adjacent to.thie ninwayand, for_most airports,lies on airportproper- ty:The risk is comparable to Zone 4. Zone 6 contains the aircraft traffic pattern Although a high percentage of at occur within Zone 6, for any given runway Zone 6�is larger than all the other zones combined:= Relitive to the �_ other zones,the risks in Zone-6 are rinuch less,but are still'greater than in locations more distant from the airport Although accident location data; together with-info on lrow aircraft flight parameters 'affect, wkere�accidents occur;are the bases fox delineation 44hie generic "safety zones; the Handbook mdtcates thatadjustrnents to the zone sizes and shapes tiiiist be made in recognition�f airport=specific cliaracte nstids Among these characteristics are: - The particular rnix of aircraft types operating at thie airport. bazger aircraft generally are faster than smaller planes and thus fly-longer and wider=traffic patterns or make straight-in approaches: _- The overall - lum-c zif aircraft operations At busy airports, alarger-traffic pattern is comtnon - becauseaircraft have to get in sequence€or landing Ivearbg.terrain or other airports. These physical€eaturesmay, for exafnple,lirmt a traffic pattern to a single side of the airport.or-dictate."nonstandard"approach and departure routes. -instrument approach procedures. Aircraft following these procedures-typically fly long,straight- " in,gradual desconts to the runway= in some cases,though; an approach route stay:be aligned of an angle-to the tviway rather than-St taighit 3 liaistence of an air tra€fic c @ntrol"tower When a tower`is=present; controller tnay direct or al" " low pilots to fly-unusual routes iz orrder to expedite traffic flow. Bp comparison at zelauveI _ busy-but non-towered.airportsaircraft mostly follow rite `standard"pattern dictated by federal " aviation regulations �'LA/Onteno lnMmationafAirpoit.Lend lYse CDmpBtibillfy PJan(AdopfedApni t9,2d 1) - Sy-9 _ APPENDIX C F"44IRPORT LAND USE.COMPATIBILITV CONCEPTS J �O^AWO`" MNG A dominant direction`of traffic flow. As reflected in the Han dbook aiialysis4of accident loca ` • tions,landing aircraft tend to follow'routes directly in line with the runway during final:descent and thus,accident sites also are concentrated along thisalignment. 'Departing aircraft are more likely.to�tutn to head,to their intended destiriation and the accident patter is thus mo=e dis- persed. On runways where the flow,of aircraft operationslis almost-always in one direction, this distinction in accident patterns is•considered Radar data is particularly helpful it showing exactly where aircraft fly when approaching or departing an airport. This data can be used to further support adjustments to zones based upon the above. characteristics.- Accident Consequences The consequences variable describes mbar happens when aircraft accident occurs. Specific measures can be defined in terms,of deaths,injuries,property damage, or other such characteristics. In'many re- spects, the consequences component of�ai;crait accident risk assessment is a more important variable than accident frequency. Not only can asiiigle_accident cost many lives,"it can indirectly force•.opera- tional changes or even;airport closure Relatively little data is available`spectfically documenting the consequences of aircraft accidents. Except with regard to numbers of deaths. or injuries to people on the ground, data on various aspects of-Air- used ` craft accidents must be to infer what the consequences have been. Swath size is one useful piece .of information. It indicates the area over which accident"debris'is spread. Swath size in turn depends upon the type of aircraft and the nature of the accident: was the aircraft in controlled flight (an engine =_failure for example),but then collided with-something-on the ground or did a catastrophic event (such as a mid-air collision or stall spin) result in the aircraft making an uncontrolled descent? For small gen- eral aviation aircraft, the swath size data suggests that a controlled emergency landing in which the air craft occupants have a.strong.chance of surviving is possible in.an area about the size of a"football field: 75 feet by300 feet or about 03 acre._'For,lirger aircraft, the minimum,flight speed is so much higher that the consequences for people on board-and anyone on the ground are likely,to be high regardless of the land use or terrain characteristics Compatibility Strategies: The relatively,low numbers of deaths anB'injuries from aircraft accidents is sometimes cited as mdicat- ing that the:risks are low. Clearly,though, the more people occupying the critical areas around airports, the greater the risks are Aircraft acadents nay,be rare occurrences, but when they occur, the conse quences can be severe. From a land use compatibihry perspective,ills therefore essential to avoid rconditions that can-lead to catastrophic results. Basically,the question is: what land use planning measures can be taken to reduce , the severity of an aircraft accident;if one occurs in a particular location near an airport? Although there is a significant overlap,specific strategies must consider both components of the safety compatibility objective: protecting people and property on the ground; and, primarily for general aviation airports, enhancing safety for aircraft occupanms In each case,"the primary strategy is to limit the intensity-of use ' (the number of people concentrated on die-`site) in locations most susceptible to an off airport aircraft accident. This is accomplished by three'types o,criteria , - Cr10 Wontera`Intemational Airport Lend Use Compatibi ityPlan(Adopted April 19,2011) - 7. L O :AIRPORT CJSNn USf.CO MPAFkbitbT}=OONC`E PTS APPENDIX c • _= Density and tntensity Llmkallons Establishing criteria that lstrhits the maximum number of dwellings or people>g areas dose to'tlie air port is the mast direct i ediod of reducing die poteritial`severiry o€an aircraft accident; In setting tTtese ` criteria,consideration must be given to the two different fortes of aircraft accidents:`those in which the aircraft is descending,brit is flyingand under directional'control of the pilot-and those in which the air cYa�t is out of control as it:falls. Limits on usage intensity—the number of people per -4a take _ ` into-account bath types of potential aitcra€t.accidents. The policies in Chapter 2-address both of these circumstances: Limiting the average usage intensity over,a site reduces the risks associated with either type of accident. In .most types of land use development though, people are not spread equally throughout the site. To m,mm;>e die nslts from an uncontrolled accident,_the policies also limit the ex- tent to whi ch_people can be concentratedand development can tie clustered-in-an y small area Open Land Requirements Requirements of undeveloped opetrland near an airport addresses the objective ofenhanting safety for the occupan ts.of an aircraft forced to matte-an emergency landing away from a nuiway. if sufficiendy I arge and clear of obstacles, open land areas can be valuable for'light aircraft any neat an airport For large anti-high performance aircraft,however,open-land has-litde value=for emergency landing put poses and'is use primarily where it is an extension of the clear areas imtiiediarely adjoininpa runway. , HlghtyRisk-SensidveUses Certain critical types ofland uses-particularly schoals;`hospitals; and other:uses in which the mobility ,_of occupants is effectively litnited=should be.avoided near the ends of funways rggardtess of rfiblnum� ber_o€people thvolved -Critical community iri6asrtucture also should be avoided near airports Thcse types of faciities inelude,powerplants elec' calsubstations,public commumcg6 - facilities and_other - -facilities, the damage_or disuuction of which"could eause significant adverse-e ffects to public health - and welfare well beyond tlse immediate vicinity of the facility, lastly, aboveground-storage IF ge quantities (6,004 gaflons,or greater) of highly flaiiimable or hazardous materials may-ipse_hi`gh risks.if. involved in an aircraft accident and therefore:axe mn ompatible close to runway ends. , Basra for Setting Grilerla -s-with noise contours;risk data by itself does not answer the qu6tion of-what-degree of land use re--: _ sttictions should be established in response-to the risks. Although most campadbility=policies restrict ' - certain land-use activities-iii locations beyond,die runway protection zones,the sizeof the area in avluclt _ - restrictionsde established and the specific restrictions appliedvary from on€count} to anther. Data useful iii defirhing the geographic extent`of airport safety areas was discussed.above. To setsafety companbiliry:criteria applicable within these zones presents the fundamental question_of what is safe." 9x—pressed—in another way-wfiat'is an acteptdkte-*A;I Id one respect,it may-"seem ideal to-teduce risks'to a t ummum by prohibiting most types of land-use development from areas neat airpo is However, as addressed in the flandbaak;,`there are usually costs associated with such hrgh- egrees o£restrictiveness In-practice- safety criteria are set on-a- progressive kale.iuith the greatest restrictions establishedin loca- 'tion"s with the:greatestpotential for:-aircraft accidents. Little established gvidaitte.is available to AIAiCsJdesignated bodies regarding how restrictive to?make safety criteria for various putts of air airport'3._environs Unlike the case with noise, ti5ere are.no-ormal, federal or state laws or=regulations which set safety criteria for airport area land uses for civilian airports - ex- within arnmay rotecttox o>ter(and with regard to airspace obstructions asdiscri6ed separately ui ` "tA/Onis .IO lnternetionai RltpRitisnC Usa=CotnpaUbildy:Plan,(/FdUptad Aptlt APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE"COMPATI BI LITV CONCEPTS - - the next section) Federal Avtatlon Aarrunisration safety criteria primarily'are focused -n the runway • and its immediate environment. Runway p otecttoit�zones—then called ilear,Zones—were originally es - d mostly for the purpose of'protecting the occupants of aircraft which overrun or land short of _ a;runway. . Now, they are defined by the FAA as intended to enhance the protection"of people and _ property on the ground:' -The most useful place from which ALUCs/designated bodies can begin to determine appropriate afety , -compatibility criteria for airport envtrons,is-the Handbook itself Although not regulatory in nature, state -law obligates 4UCs/designated bodies to."be guided by' the information presented in the Handbook." Suggested usage intensity limitations, measured in terms of people per acre, are set'forth along with other safety,criteria. Reference should be made to that document for detailed description of the sug , Bested criteria: Three risk-related variables discussed in_die Handbook are worth,noting here,however. ! Runway Proximity. In general;the,areas of highest risk are closest to the runway ends and secon- darily along the extended runway centerline. -However, many common aircraft flight tracks do - not follow along the runway alignment,particularly on departures. Also,where an aircraft crash- es may not be along the=flight path that was intended to be'followed.;-AS indicated m Figures C2 and.C3,,these factors affect the risk di OM T Urban irrsur RrmalAnas: Irrespective of airports,-people living in urban areas face different types= of risks than:those living irf rural areas. The cost of avoiding risks differs between these two-set- tings-4s; well..The Handbook acknowledges these differences by indicating that usage intensities can be higher in heavily developed urban areas"compared to partially undeveloped suburban areas or minimally developed rural locations,_yet;be equivalent in terms of the.level of acceptable risk. d Existing tsrrus Proposed Uses•;-Another,dtstmcnon in compatibility polices can be drawn between "_ • existing and proposed development.""It is_reasouiable fox safety-related policies to be established which prohibit certain types of new_development while considering identical existing develop-: mentito be acceptable.-The Handbook`notes that cost is an important factor-in ties regard; The range of risks can be divided into three levels-(see'page 945 of the Handbook). At the bottom of this -scale are negligible and acceptable.risks for which-no,action is-necessary. At the top are in- tolerable risks for which action is necessary regardless ofthe cost. fn between are risks that are significant, but tolerable. Whether action should be taken t6-reduce-these risks depends upon the costs involved.-. Typically,--the cost of removing an incompatible development is greater than the cost of avoiding its construction in the first place Preparation of this Compalibility'Plan has been greatly,guided by the Handbook information. The=Hand- book, though, also recognizes the,impo. rice of tailoring compatibility'plans to local,-circumstances-. Such has been the case with'the safety compatibility criteria included in this Compatibility Plan.. AIRSPACE PROTECTION , Relatively few aircraft accidents are caused by land use conditions that are hazards to flight The poten- till e)dsts, however,and:protecting against it is essential so airportland'use safety compatibility. In ad- dition,and importantly,land use_conditions that are hazards to_flight may impact the continued viability of airport operations and lin the ability of an,airport to operate in the manner identified by the airport ' " proprietor in an adopted"airport master plan and airport layout plan LA/Ontario lntamallonal Airport Land.Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) �AJRPaR7 LAND USE CoMPASI¢111TK-6©NC-EP-TS -.APPENPJX c - . . Compatibility-Objective Because airspace protection is in effect a safety factor,its objective can hkmmse be thought of in terms; of risk. Specifically, the oli}eetive:is to-avoid development of land use conditions tj aY, by'posa tg lta- zards to flight,can increase-the risk of in aer dent oc curring. he particular hazards of cantem tie 'i Airspace obstructions; - } Wildlife hazards,-.particularly bird strikes,and Land-use characteristics that pose other;potential hazards to flight by creating visual or electronic. interference with`air Navigation. -The purpose of ajrspwe.protection policiess is to ensure-that structures and-other uses-do not cause lia- lards to aitctaft in'rlighi wttlun the airport vicinity Hazards to-flight inciiide phpsical obstnict tins to the_navigable airspace,wildlife hazards (partieu}azly bird strikes),and land use eliaracteristies tha -create visual or electronic interference-with aircraft navigation or corrimunication This-is accomplishedby creating policies that place-limits on the height of structures and other objects vdthat the atrporty cinity_ ' and restrictions on other uses thatpotentially pose hazards to flight. Measurement 17he measurernent of-requirements for airspace protection around an airport is i function of several va- riables including. the ditriensions and layout of the runway systenr the type of operating proceda es es- tablished for the airport,and indirectly,the performance capabilities of aircraft operated at the atpart 4 Aii*aee Dbstructians.• Whetl ex a particular object cotiairutes an airspace `obstruction depends _upox} two factor;,,.- actors the height of the object relative to the nuitivay elevation; and its proidziaity to the airport The acceptable height of m objects near an airport is ost commonly determined lry " application o€standards set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations.(FAR) Part 771 ObjectrAfferting , Nns,gable 4#*ace These eguladons establish a'thcee-dittiensional space in the air above`an air- - port: object which pemtrates this volume of airspace is considered to bean "olisauetlon - and may affect the aeronaut' use of the airspace. Additionally, as described below,an other set of airspace protecti on surfaces is defined by the U.S.- Standard for -embial`fsstrrrment Proiedxnr, - knowisas T ERAS; Although the intended fiiriction of these standards is in design of instrument approaeli and departure procedures, tl3ey car b important in land rise companT.ry planning m ' - situations where-ground elevations near an airport exceed the FAR Part 77 criteria - I Idlife and Dther'R= .tardy to Fkght. The significance of other potential hazards to flight is pried- pally measured iii"terms of the haaar&specific charmcterisnes and their distance from the airport and/grits normal traffic patterns. Compatibility Strategies" - - Compatibility strategies'_for_the protection o£ airport''airspace ate directly associated'witli individuate types of hazards Airrpacigbrtriictinnc Build rigs,antennas-,other types of strictures,arid-trees should be limited in heigfitso as irot to pose a pc3te ttial hazard to fight. � Wrldkfe=anitDtfier Ha�ardr to F'figbt )=:and uses that Wray create other types of ltazatds to aitctaftln , flight-fleaz an airport-should-beavoideei;or modified tvremove deep tential liaz rtl LAtOnteno IntemasonetAlrportLend U3e-Ocmpafibilit�«--Plan(Atlgpted.April lff,20'!r) APPENDIX C _ AIRPORT iAND U5E-GDMPATI BILITV CONCEPTS -�r vu+iu� - - Basis for$ettmg�Cnterla _ • The criteria for detefniirung airspace obstructions have been lotig establi's_hed in FAR Part 77. `Also; state of California regulation of obstructiors'under the State Aeronautics Act-(Public L3tilities'Code;= Section 21659) is based on FAR Part 77-criteria. A shortcoming of FAR Part 77"criteria_however, is that they often are too-generic to;fit-the conditions specific toltidividual airports. -M airspace protec-- non surfaces defined,irr these regulations can be`either:-more or_`less restrictive than-appropriate for a particular airport. -The surfaces can be less restrictive than essential in instances where an instrument approach procedure of its missed'appzoachregment are not aligned with the runway;FAR Part 77 also does not take.into account instrument departure procedures which, at some airports;-can have critical.,. f airspace requirements Oppositely,,FAR:Part 77 provides rio useful guidance as,to acceptable heights of:obiects located where the ground.level already penetrates the airspace surfaces. To'define airspace protection surfaces better, suited .to these situations, reference must be made the -TERPS standards mentioned above. These standards are used for creation of instrument approach"and _ departure procedures. =Thus they exactly match the procedures in-effect at an individual airport. Unlike the FAR Part 77-s.urfaces, theelevations of which Are set relative to the runway end elevations irrespec- rive of surrounding terrain and obstacles, the,'TERPS'surface elevations are directly determined by the location and elevation of critical obstacles._By design,neither the ground nor any obstacles can;pene- trate a TERPS surface.=However;construction of a"tall object that penetrates a TERPS surface can dic- tate immediate modifications to the location and elevation of thesurfaces and directly:cause minimum" flight visibility and altitudes to be raised or the instrument course to be realigned. In severe instances, obstructions can force'a procedure to be cancelled altogether: A significant downside to use of TERPS surfaces for compatibili ty planning purpose's is that they are=highly complex compared to the=relative simplicity of FAR Part 7P surfaces. Also,.the configuration and/or,elevations of TERPS surfaces can • change not only in response to new obstacles, but as implementation of new navigational technologies - permits additional or modified instrument procedures to be established at an airport. In the Compatibility Policy Map:Airspace Protection Zones presented m Chapter 2 of this Comf atibikty "Plan;primary reliance is placed upon FAR Part 77 criteria. WhereLan instrument approach procedure is c established, the associated TERPS surfaces are depicted as well. In most locations,the TERPSsurfaces " are well above the underlying terrain and present no significant constraint on land use development As a precaution to help ensure that tall-towers or antennas located on high terrain do..not penetrate"a , TERPS surface, places.where the ground elevation comes within 100 feet of.a TERPS surface are shown on the map = _ Among other hazards to flight, bird strikes no doubt represent; he most widespread concern, The FAA recommends, that uses known to attract birds-sanitary`landfills being a primary example—be kept at least'10,000 feet away-from any runway used liyturbine-powered aircraft. More information re garding criteria for avoidance"of uses that car.attract wildlife to airports can;be found in FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-34 and 150/5300 33 Other flight;hazArds include land uses that may cause visual or electtomc.hazards to aircraft u flight or taking off or landing at the airport: Specific'characteristics to be avoided include sources of glaze or bright lights;=distracting lights that could be.mistaken for airport lights,tsources of dust steam or smoke that may impair.pilot visibility, and sources of'ele-ctncal interference with aircraft communica- dons or navigation� _ - -- ��Cr14 :'LMOnlado intemsdona/Afmw Land lire Compatibility,Plen:(Adopted Ap0119,2011) - - "I"oOA AIRPORT:LAND.USE COMPATIBIIITV CCNCEPTS APPENDIX C Table C1 Safety Zone Aircraft Accident - _Nominal Dimensions RelaONe v - -' -.%of Accidents NstNna o/AtekieoC , Zone QeacApNon (Callforma Airport Land-Use Risk: Rik in Zone ' = Planning Handbook)- . L:eve/ (Handbook Database) Runway Protection. -)epending upon approach vi- Very Landing undershoots - Amvals 28°/D-5&°l° _ _ - f Zone - slbllity minimums 1,200--feet High and overshoots;over- _Departures:_23%-- - _ and -minimum, 2,700 feet maxi-, - .---runs-on aborted-takeoffs;, 290/c - - -- - -_ within Runway "mumbeyond runway epos; loss of control on takeoff Total.33%39%- _ Pdmary:SG_rfece =.`125 to 500-feet from center- - - - -line adjacent to runway(zone _ -pdmarity on airport dimensions:establlshed by �. property;-airport PAA standards) ownership,encour- -. aged _ _ acreage(one runway end)_ a - _ - - 40, 9(RPZ:only) 2 inner Sale_ty 4ne Along extended runwaycen - High Aircraft at low-alt tude Aimveiv 9%-15 -' terfine to a:distance of 2000 with liinrted directional Departures:3°L°48% _= ' feet minimum,-6,000 feet: options in emergencies, Total B%722%a riiaxiinum beyond runway typically under 400 feet _ -ends - on landing;on takeoff, Acreage(one runway end), = engine at maximum -=44 to 114 - - stress- - _ 3 Inner Turning Zone -Fan-shaped area adjaoentto - Moderate Turns at low altitude on Amvals.2%-S% - - ,.- - -- - -zone 2 extending 2,000 feet , _; -arrive[for aircraft flying-. - Departures,.5%°-9% - =minimum;=A;000 feet maxi- light base leg present Total:4%-7Yoi _ _ - mum from runway ends stall-spin potential;likely - - ,Acreage,(one_ runway end), ; touchdown area if emer- - - _ - 50,to 151 _`: _ - _ `7 genc'y"at fow altitude�on _ takeoff,especially:-to left - of centerline Outer Safety Zone Along extended runway cen- Low to Low altitude overflight fo Arrivals 3°Pr-8% . . 4 - , - - - -- _ tenine extentlmg 3,500 feet - 'Moderate aircraft on stralghtan ap- Departures 2°I°-4°!c = -minimum, 1Q,000 feet maxi - - proaches especialty"in- Total:2%-S'/�.- mum beyond- nway end§ : strurtient approaches;on - Adreage(one runway an = departpre alrcraft>nor= _ - - - _-35 to 92 - mally_complete transition _ --- from t akeoff power and flap settings to climb - _ - - mode and begin.turnsrfo - - - en route heading;: - _ Sideline,Zone Adjacent to runway 500_feet Low to Low risk on landing; _ Arrivals 16%-3 0h 5 _ primarily on airport _minimum, 1,000 feet maxi- Moderate moderate risk from loss Departures 5 0/--8% property " mum from eentedine _ of directional control on -ToitiL 3°/-5� ,takeoff especially with - Acreage:varieswith runway twin-engine airc salt length - - - Traffic Pattern Oval area around other Low Significen'4 percentage of Arrivals: 'f0%21% _ 'Zone - --zones 5,000feetmmimum, accidents, but spread - Departures;24% - - (applicable only to _10,000 feet maximum beyond - over wide area,widely, ,39?/. _-- -general aviation runway ends;4,500 feet mm- . _ - _ yade_d causes = Total: 1B%29% - - - runways)';. °imum 6.000`-feet maximum _ - fro mrunway,centedine:_=. - -- - - -- Acreage;varies with runway length - - LAICntano-IntemationafAiMort Lund Ue CompatibilityPlen(AdopladApill f9,20f1)� APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAND USE CO PAT IBILITV�CO NCEPTS- - _ _ P1utl1N6 Figure C1 ` Z. Noise Footprints of Selected Aircraft ' • C>76vlera/AvhAon A6raalf` - TAKEOff Owosso vnn: aawnnnreaw HiParform6nce.SlrplaEr�puliPmgllarASplsrte _._ `, a �pnrr vnn vansOrykn vao: MM7sanmYrlaeON - "'"� `aredl,Twin•Enyini PrePdl•r:AiiWana Mefitan Tnlf*EndM TurbopropAYprr . 1g70eEr�&Wnee•JfR , - IONS Era BIAIMS6e Jet - - - - G - . H _ F.arly 1900e Era Business Jtl or Regional`A*w Jet _ rgr�q TAXEo" tANDep - - 1tr`•!" TM drawings on theft two pages S MME the relative noise IavalB p101f1Eb Smd1 HWWPW - by drMere aft raft types of araft slur" ndng and takeoff - — _ The contours represe mot momentary the moentary maxrri sound eMl expM"Ntoad - - - on•ta ground as the aircraft flies over.The outermost contour for egcn Omit aircialt indicates a 65 d8A sound level.Additional oon iou s are at 10 daA - r:. _ -_.__ _._ • .-.um „ ..=:Im ments(75,e5,and in mad cams 96 d". _ �remeh.no to Sala)- - 0-16 =LA%Oo ta n o lntemetional Aiijfort,Land Use Compatibility Plan .(Adopted April 19,:2011) _ AIRPORT-IANQ USE GOMPATf9tLfT-YGONGEPTS AFRENDIX C - _ .�l/N7fB.41/C18� TAKEOFF 9oae1p727-260 Sell with Hill KI - McDonnell Dou0ias M083 - -- - So"737-700 Series �• �_-> � - , s eow�as7-aoos.d.o � Y $� S . ANI/ANIllyA Mat Lockheed User 6A QM Kal Dynamip 0-1e f inure C1,eonhnued "- LAJOntariolntama"AirpoRlarld UseCbmpsbbil@yPlarfjAd9ptedApnt 19, 2fl111. - APPENDIX C AIRPORYLAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS _.Landit 'Threshold. '- a 20% 40% 60% 80%- F 5.000' •10,000' -5000' -- O -=5,1)04' - - - _ � °Notes - - -445 arrival aocidents In datsleae -each dot re preeerNB one accderrt sire - .contours represent reletiveimenahtlea(highest coroenlrBtrore)of Pointe m 20%incremeMS - , Figure C2 General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours - t,? All Arrivals C-18 LA/Onreno/n(ematrone/Airyort Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apnl 19,2011) ]r/ - £_ kRPOR'F_LAND'U$EC07 PATISfLdT9 CONCEPT$ APPENDIX C 20% 40% 0 % Depe[Wre " - €nd'or nRuriway - c - 5 OD(Y- Notes: -- 4Qtd gp"re-it cidaMa-in delabese-each dot-re{xesents'one-aoddentsft. - _ - eontouisrepresentre6 -Intens,ti"a igheet corxendns)_of points in 24%incrementS6 - - - Figure C3 General Aviation Accident Distribution Contours All Departures " 4VOnterio ltrtemetlonel Airport Land.{fsa°C;ompatibili Plen,(,4o ptedApnl 19, APPENDIX C 'A'IRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCEPTS O'°"PM Thls page was left intenbonall�blank _ • a " C-20 LA/On[ano Intematronel Aiiport Land Use Competl6iljty Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) _ APPENDIX D LAlOntario lnternatrbnal = ONT Avpwf Land Use Compatibility Plan-' �mvo vuN#�nk�_ NTARI@� ORTPLANNING APPENDIX D • METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE INTRODUCTION = The underlying safety companbifity cntena utilized m this Compatibility Plan is "usage intensity.'—the maximum number of people per acre"that can be present in a given azea at any one time. If a proposed use exceeds the maximum- intensity, it _:is considered incompatible and inconsistent -with the compatibility planning,policies. The usage,intensity concept is identified in the.California Airport I1md " Use Plannibg Handbook as the meanu' best suited for;assessment`,of land use safety compatibility with airports. The Handbook is published by the California Division-of Aeronautics and is,required under state law,to be used as aguide in piepazation oFairpon land use compatibility plans: --It recognized, though, that "people per acre' is common measure um other facets of land use planning. This Compatibikty Phu;-therefore also utilizes the more common measure of floor area ratio (FAR) as-,a means of implementing the usage intensity criteria on the local level.: This appendix both provides guidance on how the usage intensity-determination can be made and defines the relationships between this measure,FAR,`arid other measures found,in land use planning. For a discussion,of the rationale for use of people per acre as a measure of nsk exposure,see Appendix C = • COUNTING PEOPLE _ The most difficult part about calculating land use intensity is estimating the:number of people expected to nse-a_particular facility under normal circumstances. All people—not just employees, but also customers and visitors—who rnay;be on the propert-ai any.single point in time, whether indoors or outdoors; must be counted. The only exceptions are for raze special events; such as in air show at an ` airport, for:which a-facility is not designed-,-and normally not used and foc which- extra' safety _ precautions can be taken as appropnate Ideally 'die actual number of people for which the facility is designed would be known. For example, "the number of seats in a proposed.movie theater can be determined with high accuracy,once the theater size is decided. Other buildings.,though, may be built.as a shell and the eventual number of occupants not known until a specific tenant is found:'- Furthermore, even then, the number of occupants can change as future tenants change. Even greater uncertainty is involved with relatively open uses not -having fixed seating retail stores or sports parks,"for.example. When a dear number of measurable:occupanry.does not exist, other sources must be relied upon to estimate the number of people in a proposed'development Survey of Similar Uses'= A survey of similar uses already ii existence is oneopnon,, however gathering data can be time .'„ consuming and costly. Also, unless the 5ucvey sample,is sufficiently large enough and conducted at LA!oriterio Intemabonal Airport Land Use CompeBbdlry Plan(Adopled.Apnl 19,2011) D-1 ; ` AP,PENWX b °METHOO.S fOR:OETERM.INING CON'CPNTRATION-S OF P"EO PIE • various tunes; inconsistent numbers may result- Except for nticommmon uses for whieh occupancy levels cannot_Tie estimated through-other ineans,surveys maynot-be appropriate. Maximum Occupancy A second option for_esti_mating the number of people.who will be on-a site is to rely upon data' indicating the.maximum occupancy ofa hUilding measured"in terms of occupancy leadfacto s-the nutnber of square feet per occupant. The number of=people on-the site, assuming limited outdoor or peripheral uses,can-be calculated by dividing the total Ilaar area of a proposed use=ly the occupancy load factor. 'The chaflenge of this metliodotogy lies in establishing realistic_Fguxes for:square feet per- _ occupant, The number varies-greatly fria mone use to another and, for some uses; occupancy load factors can changeover.time As well. A commonly used source of maximum occupancy data is the standards set-in the Cah€omia$yil r Code (CBC.;The chart reproduced as Tafile-131 indicates the'vccupancy load factors for varioustypes of uses. The CHC is intended primarily for_purposes of structural:des'- esign,fire and safety andsepesents a legal maximum occupancy in most jurisdictions. A CBC based methodology consequently results ii =- _ -oc-cupanry,numbers that are higher than nor rial rna;dmum visage in most instances. The numbers Lao" _ are based upon usable floor area and do not take,into account corridors;_stairs, but4din- equipment - roonis, and other functions that-are pan_of a building's gross square footage. -Surveys of_aetiial occupancy load factors conducted,byvarious age ncfeshave'indicated that many refaitandoffice uses' are"generally occupied of no more than 50°/u of their rnaxunum occupancy levels, even at the--busiest tisiest times�f day._-Therefore, the Hmdbook indicates that the number of people calculated for office and retail uses cart usually he divided-in half to reflect the'actual occupancy levels before-making°zhe final= people per-acre determination .Even with this adjustment, the CBC-based methodology`typically produces intensities at the high end-of the likely range,-- Another source oFdata_on square footage per occupant comes from the facility management industry The data is used to-help;businesses detemune how much building space they-need -to build or lease- thus tends to be-more-generous than the Ci1C standards. The•tiumbers vary not only'by r}aetype of facility,as with the CBC;but also-by type of-industry. The following are selected cXamp;es- of square fo tage.perimployee gathered front's variety of sources. > =dr, call centers 150(-175- rY TYP A80 250 - +' Law,finance,real estate offices 300-=325 Research&devvslopmeiit;:lightuidus-try 300-500 d•, Health services 500 =? The numbers above do not take into account the customers whiff-may also die presenrfor certain uses. For'retail business,.dining establishments,-theaters,=and other uses where -customers outnumber employees, di either rect measures of occupancy—the number of seats, for esauiple=ot_other methodologies must be,used to estimate the potential number of people on the site - Parking Space Requirements For:many jursdictons and a wide variety of uses, the number' of-people present on a site can be calculated based upon the number of automobile parking spaces-that are required. Certam,limitations _ and=assumptions`miist tieconsidetad when applying this methodology,howcer. An obvious]imitation is that parking space requirements can be correlated with occupancy numbers Gnly where nearly all - D-2 - - ' (,-4/Ontado IritgmationQl Airport Land Use Compatitiflity Plan(AdapteOApril79,2079) _ METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE APPENDIX D users arrive-,by Private s elude rather than by public,transportation, walking, or other method • Secondly, the'jurisdiction needs:;to have a well defined parking,ordinance that lists parking space requirements-for awide range of?land uses'-For most uses, these requirements are typically.stated in. - terms,of the number of parking spaces thatmust.be provided per 1,000 square feet-of gross building size or a similar ratio. Iasdy,assumptions must be made with regard to the average number of people who will arrive in each car.-, Both of tha._cntical ratios aseoclated .mth-;this methodology=pazkmg spaces to building size and aecupants to vehicles—warp from one-furisdi4tion io.another even for the same types of uses he-following ratios are typical. Pprldng Space Rados—Tlsese examples of required parking space requirements are typical'of ' those found in ordmances„adopted by urban and subtuban,jurisdictions. The numbers are ratios of spaces required per 1,000 square"feetof gross floor area. Gross floor area is normally measured to the outside-surfaces of-a building and includes all floor evels as well as stairways, elevators, - storage;and mechanical rooms • Small Restaurants 10.0` Medical.Offices 4.ff 5 7` • Shopping Centers 4 0 5.0 Health Clubs 3 3 L67.6: • Business professional Offices 3 3–4.0 • Retail Stores • Research&Development 2 5–4- • Manufacturing L' 0 2 5 • • Furniture,Building Suppl_y'Stores 0,7 1.0i k. Vehicle;Occupancy—Data=mdicatm&. the:average number of people occupying each vehicle parking aka particular business or other land use(can be found'in various transportation surveys. The numbers vary"both from one"community,of region to another and over time, thus current local data is best if available. :The foRowing,dita represent_typical vehicle-occupancy for different trip purposes Work' =.1 05 12 • Education _ 12 -2-0 ' Medical "t.5 L'7- - • Shopping • Dining,Social,Recreational 1 7–2,3 USAGE INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP.TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT-MEASURES Calculating Usage Intensities= Once the number of people expected m a particular development_--both over the entire site and within - individual buildings-has been estimated, the--usage intensity can be calculated. The criteria in Chapter 2 of this Compah'W/ v Niff are measured to terms of the average intensity over the entire project site Lwonteno Intemational Airport land Use Compatibility Plan(Adapted Apni 19,2011) D-3 APP"E t1DIX "id D ' EINODS FOR DEIERM1 NiNO CflNCENFRAYLONS OV'PEORLE - � m - The average intensity is calculated--by-dividing-die total number of people an the site by the site size: A' 10-acre site expected to`.b7 occupied by as many as"1,000 people at a time;thus would have an average - intensity of 100 people.per acre.- °The site.siz&f equals the total size of-the parcel. ar parsers:-to be . developed: Having calculated the usage intensities afa.proposed development,a comparison can be made-nth the criteria set forth in the GampaliGtlt_ Plan to determine whether tfie proposal s consiRet t ot-mcoi ststent -with-the policies. - Comparison with Floor Area-Ratio As noted earlier,usage intensity or people per acre is not a common metric in land use;planning:-Floor. area ratio at FAR—the:gross square footage of the buildings on a site divided by,the site size--is a mole-common measure in land use planning. Some counties and-cities adopt-explicit FAR knits in their zoning ordinance or other policies. '- Those that do'riot set FSR limits often have other requirements such as, a maximum number of fl a building can have, tiiinirnum setback dtstances, fr'orri the prgperty'line and miniriium number of parking spaces: These requirements effectively limit the IlODT area ratio as well. To facilitate local jurisdiction implementation, the Safety Compatibility Criteria table in-Chapter-2 has been structured around FAR "measures to determine usage intensity 'limits €or -many des, of. ribpresidentiai land use development TQ-utilize FAR in this manner, a`criticalatldittonal piece of in€omnation is necessary to overcome the major shortcoming of FAR as a safety compatibility-measure. Theproblem with FAR is that it does not direcdy correlate'with risks to people because different types o£buildings with the same FAR can have vastly different numbers of people ins' -a low-intensity warehouse versus a high intensity restaurant, for example f6f,FAR to be applied as afactoeiti s-ettmg • -developrricnt:lmmitanons;- assumptions must-be made,as to how much space eacb person (employees and:others) in the building will occupy. The-Safety Compatibility Criteria table therefore indicates the assumed occupancy load €actor for various land rises. =Mathematically, the-rclation -u betweenusagc - intensity and FAR is: FAR=(allowable usage intensitu) x foccuoancv.load factor) 43,560 Where usage fl uent is nieasared,iii_terms of people per acre and ara ncy lead fadar as=square feet Person. Selection of-.the'usage intensity;=occupancy level, and FAR numbers-that appear in the Safety Compatibility table.was done in an-iterative mariner that considered"each of die ceimponents both separately and-together. Usage intensities were initially set svidi respect to guidelines provii3ed in the California 4irportI-and Uwe Ptdnxing H, ndd oak_(see Appendix C.of this Co*ati6elity Plan) Occur pan levels were derived from the CRC>.but were adjusted based upon additional research=from Both local and national-sources in the manner discussed eulier its tkiis appendix. The FAR limits were in itally caleulated_froi i these other two riunibem using the forinula above: -_ Comparison with Parking Space.Requirements=' As discussed-above, many jurisdictions have adopted-parlging space require bents that vary from one land use type:to-another. Factoring in an estimaxed Qehiele oeeupariey-rate for various an -uses as described earlier, the occupancy load -factor can be calculated` For example a typical parkjng spaci requirement for office uses is 4,0 spaces per 1,000 stjuare €eet or 1 space per 250 square feet. °If each D-4 1Wnt8rro Ih(Ometionel Airport Land()se bomlre6NMY Flan JAdopted April fB;PDTi) i` METHODS'FO"R DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE APPENDIX D vekucle is assumed to lie occupted by 1 1 persons the egcuvalent occupanry,load factor would be 1 • per{on pet 227'square feet. .Thisnumberjalls"square]} witkuri the range noted above that was-found through separate research of norrns used by-_the facility-management industry. As-.an added`note,"the 'occup'ancy load €actor -215 square feet per person indicated in the Safety " Compatibility Criteria table for_office uses is slightly.more conservative than the,above calculation produces." This means:that, for'a given usage intensity standard, the FAR_1imit in the table is"sltghtly more restrictive than would result from a bigher.occupanry load factor. LA/Ontedo Inteme_tione/Airport Land Use Competibtlrty Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) _ - D-5 APPENDIX o METHODS FOR DETERMINING CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE • Table • Occupant Load Factors Minimum - _ - - - use - -- Square Feetper Occupant - - - -_-1. Aircraf-Heingan;ono repair) - _ - - `500 - 3. Auction Rooms Assembly Areas Concentrated Use(without fixed seats)..:- _-_ ? 7- - _, Auditoriums_-;__ _- �.Ctiurches and Chapels _ -Dance Floors:- .Lobby Accessory to.Assembly Ocoupanry Lodge Rooms - - - Reviewing Stands --- '-.Stadiums - - - - - " Waiting Areas ` 3 4. Assembly Areas,Less Concentrated Lisa 15 Conference Rooms - -Dining Rooms Drinking Establishments F_ithibd Rooms. - - ' - _---Gymnasiums- -- - - - - _-Lounges - - 'Stages = - Gaming - `=t ----5. Bowling Alley(assume no occupant load for,bowling lanes) - _ a. Chitdrerts Homes and -Homes the Aged -". --"80 _-- - =:7_ Classrooms _ - ->20" _ - _-' Congregate Residences - - ---200 _ 10 Courtrooms - - 40 -10, Dormitories 340 _ --_ = ' 'fit. -Exercising Rooms -5 _ - - .13, Garage Parking _ - - - - - 200 -..`14. RealthiCare Facilities - _-i$0 - -`Sleeping Rooms - - - --120 - -=Treatment Rooms - = - - f-240 - _= - -.15: Hotels-and.Apartments -- __ =200 _ =-1$. Ifitcnen CommeCdal - _ - _ -_-200 - - - - _- i17. Library Reading Room - 'Stack Areas;-:- - _ '`•100 _ -t$. --Locker Rooms - - -5o ' 3g.= Malls:_ -_ :: '- - Varies'. .� Manufacturing Areas .. ,.. 200 -21. Mechanical Equipment Room=--- _ - --;500 _ -22. "-Nurseries for Chikiren(Daycere) -23, Offices - --700 - - -24. School Shops and Vocational Rooms - -- r`50 - -_ .x_251 Skating Rinks - - Soon ttie skating area, t5 on the deck - - _ 26.-_ Storage'and Stock Rooms Stores-Retail-Sales Rooms Basements and Ground_Floors `-- 30 - - Upper Floors - ---.60 - - - 28. Swimming Pools.- -- - 50 for the-poolarea. l5onthe-deck -- .29. :-Warehouses - 30, All Others 400 sue:.rgtif� ';g:eadr�2ooi;r�at<ip-a D-6 LA/Ontar b`intemationsl Airport Lar it t%se Cor17pehbd ty Rlaa(ArlopteoApiil=i>i,20Y � t APPENDIX E LA/Onlorio Infendhonal OIIT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan = vuneING NTARI ; APPEKDO E • , OAIRPORT PLANNING SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS The City of Ontario is responsible"for compatibility planning around LA/Ontario Internatioml - port and implementing the compatibility criteria set forth-in the LA/Oxtano international Airport)� ?hd Use 6.Vatfbifity Plan Chapter 1 describes how general plans and specific plans sari be triddifiecF to achieve consistency with compatibility plans. However,_implementation o£airport an use tompao ty}Mans go beyond -general ,plan consistency, othez types_o€ documents aze also needed to assist with implementing Compatibility Plan policies: Samples of such implertientation documents are included in this appendix. General Plan Consistency Checklist A Compatfhko Pfau is separate and distinct:from a jurisdiction's other land use-policy documents= _ general plans,.specific plans, and zbnmg ordinances—yet all of the documents are elipectedto be made consistent with each other through incorporation of=ihe compatibility policies into;the general plans and zoning.ordin an ces:= To meet.the consistency test, a general=,plan/polity document must do two things: - > Itmust speetficafly address compatibility-planning Issues either directly or through reference to a • ` zoning ordinance or other policy document and It must avoid direct conflicts,with compatibility planning Criteria. Table $1 provides comities and cities with-modifications necessary to make'tlleir general plans and other local policies consistent with the cotripatibility plan. Airport Combining Zone=Ordinance Chapter'l of.tYiis Comfiatibillty Plan desttibes one ojitign for achieving consistency, the adoption of an' airport overlay zone. : An airport overlay zone is 'one vvay of collecting various airport-related development conditions into one local policy document. Adoption of an airport overlay zone:is not required but is suggested as an option. "Table 12 describes some of the n potential components,of a -airport overlay zone. Buyer Awareness Measures . Buyer awareness is an umbrella category."for several types of ir_p mentation documents all of avluch have the objective.-of ensuring that prospective buyers witlun'an airport, nfluence area; particularly residential property, at informed about the-a impact on the property. ;:.The LA/Ontam 1ntema6ona1Ahpod Land-Use Compadbifity Pfnn-policies include each of these measures. - Avigation Easeinent-Avigation easements trans€ei certain property rights from the owner-o£the- underlying-property:to the owner of an airport or, in the-case:of military airports, to a YOCaY • government agency on behalf o€ the federal goverlinieiit (tile FJ S: Department of Y7efense is not LAIOntan.o IntemationalAirpoft Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 18,201 f) E-1 APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS - ' Om ar authorized to accept avigation easements). Specific easement dedication requirements are set forth • in Chapter 2, Also, airports may require avigation easements in conjunction with programs for noise insulation of existing structures in the airport vicinity. A sample of a standard avigation easement is included in Table E3: + Recorded Overflight Notification— A-recorded overflight notification informs property owners that the property is subject to aircraft overflight and generation of noise and other impacts. No restrictions on the heights of objects, requirements for marking or lighting of objects, or access to the property for these purposes are included. An ovfflight notification serves only as buyer acceptance of overflight conditions.- Suggested wording of an overflight notification is included in Table E4. Unlike an avigation easement, overflight easement, or other type of easement, an overflight notification is not -a conveyance of property rights. However, like,an easement, an overflight notification is recorded on the property deed and therefore remains in effect with sale of the property to subsequent'owners. Overflight notifications are -generally appropriate in areas outside the 65 dB CNEL noise contour,outside Safety Zones,and within areas where the height of structures and other objects-would not pose a significant potential of being airspace obstruction hazards. + Real Estate Disclosure—Local jurisdictions can also establish a policy indicating that information about an airport's influence area should be disclosed to prospective buyers for all properties within an airport-vicinity as part of a title transfer. The advantage of this type of program is that it applies to previously existing land uses as well as to new development. The requirement for disclosure of information about the proximity of an airport has been present in state law for some time, bur legislation adopted in 2002 and effective in January 2004 explicitly ties the requirement to the airport influence areas established by airport land use commissions (see Appendix A for excerpts from • sections of the Business and Professions Code and Civil Code that define these requirements). With certain exceptions, these statutes require disclosure of a property's location within an airport influence area under any of the following three circumstances: (1) sale or lease ofsubdivided lands; (2) sale of common interest developments;and (3) sale of residential real property. In each case, the disclosure statement to be used is defined by state law as follows: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport,within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject,to some of the annoyances or inconveniences' associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from Pierson to person. _You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before :you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Project Comment Worksheet Submittal Information As described in Chapter 2,proposed major land use actions submitted through the ONT InterrAgency Notification Process must include sufficient information to enable a comprehensive review of the proposed action. Table E5 provides a sample of the type of information needed for project submittals. • E-2 L417ntano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) QUM ; SAMPLE IMP EMENTATtON DOCUMENTS APPENDJX E - - - Table El General Plan• Consistency This checklist is intended to assist counties and cities with modifications necessary to make their general plans and other. - local policies consistent with-the compatibility plad�=ltis also designed to faalitate compatibility reviews of these- pas plans and policies- COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA � - General Plan Document- -d terns typicallytappear-dreally in-a general plan document. Amendment of the general plan will be re- _ _ - =quired if there:are tiny conflicts with the compatibility.plan - '+Land Use Map---No.direct conflicts should exist -be- tween proposed new land uses indicated on a general - -- _ .--plan land:use map_and the land use compatibility.cnte- - :- ria. - - Residential densities(dwelling units per acre)should not exceed the set limits Differences between gross - - _ - and net densities and`the. potential for secondary "-dwellings on single paroels(see.-pelow)may need-to - _- -` be taken into account. Proposed-nonresidential developmenT'needs-to be --- -assessed:with respect to applicable intensity-limits - (see below) - NO new land uses of a type listed as specifically - --prohibited should be shown within affected areas - _ - i Nolse Element—General plan noise elements typically-- include-criteria indicating the maximum noise exposure ;for which-residential development is==normally accepta-=, ble this limit must be made aDmistent with the eouiva _ - - ` lent compatibility plan.criteria. - - Z. +Hazard Element Incorporate airspace protection poll --cies These should be based-upon:Part 77 of the Fed- - - - _ - '_eral Aviation'Regulations,but may'-include:exceptions _ _ -- -for objects within the high terrain zone.' - "- LA/Onteno Intsmabonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 21Y'kfj APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS - Table E2 Sample Airport Overlay Zone • • • • An airport overlay zone might include some or all of the following components: +Airspace -Protection—An airport-. overlay district +Maximum Dens ttiesAntensities—Airport noise and should include airspace protection policies that estab- safety compatibility criteria are frequently expressed _ -lish restrictions on the height of buildings, antennas, in terms of dwelling units per acre for residential uses: trees, and other objects as necessary to protect the - and people per acre for other land uses. These stan- -airspace needed for operation of the airport:- These dards can either be directly included in an airport restrictions should be based upon the current version -overlay zone or used to modify the underlying.land- - of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 use designations..:For residential land uses, the cor-! Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace Subpart C. .relation between the compatibility criteria and land - -Additions or adjustment to take,into account-instru- use designations indirect. For other land uses, the ment approach (TERPS) surfaces should be made as method of calculating the intensity limitations needs to - necessary. Provisions prohibiting smoke, glare, bird be defined.-Alternatively, a matrix can be established. . - attractions, and other hazards to flight should also be -.indicating whether each specific type of land use is - included. - compatible with each compatibility zone. To be use- - - - FAA Notification Requirements-An airport overlay; ful, the land use categories need to be more detailed.- - zone can be used to ensure that project-developers than typically provided by general plan or zoning or- dlnan are informed about the need for compliance with the ceaand use designations. notification requirements of FAR Part 7T Subpart B ?Real Estate Disclosure Policies—The geographic of the regulations requires that the proponent of any extent and specific language of recommended real _ project which exceeds a specified set of height criteria estate disclosure statements can be described in an ' - submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or'Altera airport overlay zone. tion(Form 7460-1)to the Federal Aviation Administra- tion prior to commencement of construction. The - height, criteria associated with this notification re- - - quirement are lower than those spelled out in Part 77, Subpart C, which define airspace obstructions The - • purpose of the notification is to determine if the pro- posed construction would constitute a potential ha-: zard or obstruction to flight. Notification is not re-. - - - - quired for proposed structures that would be shielded. by existing structures or by natural terrain of equal or - greater height,where it is obvious that the proposal - would not adversely affect air safety. - - - +State Regulation of Obstructions—State law prohi- bits anyone from constructing or atering a structure or - - - altering a structure or permitting an object of natural - - growth to exceed the heights established by FAR Part _ - 77, Subpart C, unless the FAA has determined the - - object would or does not constitute a hazard to air na- vigation (Public Utilities Code,Section 21659). Addi- tionally, a permit from the Department of Transporta- tion is required for any structure taller than 500 feet above the ground unless the height Is reviewed-and approved by the Federal Communications Commis- sion or the FAA(Section 21656): . - - - - }Designation of High Noise-Impact Areas-- -. - - California state statutes require that mufti-family resi- dential structures in high-noise exposure areas be constructed so as to limit the interior noise to a Com- munity Noise Equivalent Level of no more than 45 dB., - -. An airport overlay district can be used to indicate the - - locations where special construction techniques may - - - be necessary in order to ensure compliance with this - - requirement. This requirement.also includes single- - family dwellings.- - - Source:California Airport Lend Use Planning Handbook(January 2002) - - - • E-4 LAIVntano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) SAMPti=IMPlEAIENTATION OOCUMEMTS �XPPLADIlFE - - - lable E3 • Typical Avigation AVIGATIQN EASEMENT; This indenture [Wade ibis day of 20_, between - hereinafter_, referred to as Grantor- and the City of-Los Angeles,Los Angeles World Aitports.(IAWA), a political subdivision in the State of California,that owns and operates IA/Oatano International lirpoft in the City of_Ontario,State of Cali- - forms,hereinafterrefened to as Grantee. The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and z;uffieiency of which_are'hereby.ac& c;v -dged :- does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns,a perpetuaLand assignable easement over the following' described parcel of land in which the'Grantor holds-a fee simple estate. The property-which-is-subject to Ihis ease- ment is depicted as - = on_'Exhibit A'.'attached and is more particularly described as follows: - -lIasert legal desmpnon of real prog ly] The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane ours the-real property. The plane is described as for-- lows: The imaginary plane above the herembefore described real property,as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and,consists-of=a_plane [describe approach transirion or'19orizontal=surface]; the.elevanon of said plane being based upon-the LA/Ontario International Airport official runway"end elevation of 944--feet-Above, - - Mean.Sea Level (AbISL), as determined,by the-LA/Ontario International Airport Layout-Plan, the approziffiate di- mensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein bq ref ` erence: - The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes,but is not limited to (1)- For the use and benefit of the pfiblic,the easement-and-continuing'right to fly,or cause or-permit the-flight by any and all persons,or any aircraft, of any and all kinds--now or hereafter known m,through,across,:;of about- any portion of the Airspace herelaabove described;and (2) The easement and right,to cause-or create;or permit or allow to be caused an dcreated within all space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Airspace laterally adlaeeiit to said real property, such noise,vibration,currents andother effects of air illumination and-fuel consumption as may, be inherent,in, or may arise or occur from ox during the-operation of aircraft of any and all kinds,Mo-w or he _ reafier known or used,.for navigation of or-flight in art,"and - (3) A continuing right to ear-and keep cleaz from the Airspace any portions of buddmgs, structures or improve= meats of any kinds,and of trees or other objects,including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildirim structures,improvements, trees,-,or other things which extend into or above said Airspace,and the right-to cut to the:ground level and remove,any trees which extend into-or abovc the[Airspace;and - (4) The right to mark and light,or cause or require to be marked and lighted,as obstructions to air navigation,nay and all buildings,strictures or other improcemeats,and trees or other objects,_which extend into or ab_ove the '---Airspace,and (5) =The right of ingress to,passage chili n and egress from the lieretinabove described real°properly, for the pur- _poses described in subparagraphs;(3)ind(4)above at reasonable times and after reasonable.notice. LArOntano International Airport Lor Use Compatibility Pie n�(A¢opted Apdf79,2D71),�-- ' - E__5 - - _ 'APPEMM E- SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS = For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Los Angeles • World Airports (LAWA), for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the LA/Ontario International Airport hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors-in interest or assigns will construct, install,erect,place or grow,in or upon the hereinabove described real property, not will they pemut or allow any building structure;improvement;tree,or-other object to extend into or above the Airspace so as to consti- - -- tute an obstruction to air.navigation,or to obstruct or interfere with the use of the easement and right§-of-way herein granted The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the dixectbenefit of that real property which constitutes the LA/Ontario International Airport, in the City of Ontario, State of California;and shall further be deemed is gross;being conveyed to the Grantee forthe benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or right-of-way,in landing at,taking off from or operating,such aircraft in or about the LA/Qntario International A!rP° or in otherwise flying through said Airspace. Grantor,together with its successors in interest and assigns,hereby waives its right to legal action against Gran- tee,its successors or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts,as described in paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the air- Poll,including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations..Furthermore,Grantee, its successors,and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mttigate such damages through physical modification _ of airport facilities or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. Howev er,this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a fundamental manna which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this casement and which results in a substantial increase in the in the impacts as- sociated with aircraft operations. Also,this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor,its suc- cessors or assigns of any rights_which may from time to time have against any sir carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenan ts and agreements tiro with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, • successors and assigns of the Grantor, and,for;the purpose of this instrument,the real property firstly herein bove described is the servient tenement and said Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) is the dominant tene- ment DATED: STATE OF ° } s - COUNTY OF }_ - , On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State personally appeared and known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same: WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public- _ - 'Source Calff mla Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) Table E3, continued • - E-6 - -+' - LAR7ntano International Airport Lard Use Compatibi*Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) .- - - -:SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION-DOCUMENTS'-APPENDIX E_ : Table E4 • Sample Overflight Notification flVERFI IGHT NOTIFICi1TI01d - This Overflght Notification=concetns the real property siivated in the City of State of California,_described as - [APNNo: This Overflight Notification provides notification-of the condition of the above described property in recognition -" of;and in corn CALIFORNIABi7SIHESS&PROFE$SIONSCODE Section 11010 and CAI.IFgRNiA C1V- - -IL CODE Sections 1102-.6, 1103.4 and 1353,effective January 1, 2004,and relitedstate and local-regulations and _ - consistent with policies.of then temwtive Process for the City of Oixtano and other pamcipating locat}urisdic- t ons for overflight notification provided in thed.A/ppiano IntewationalAirport I aad Use:Compatibility Plan . N077CE OFAIRPORT IN P7CINITY. This pmpery a located in ge vii nity of an airport and within the airport r fence -area. The prviper[y may he-ruh�'ed to.rdriie of the anmoyaxcer or inconveniences asronaded with proximity"to m airport and aircraft-- operokoxr(fo example: �iar'se, vihrat:brr, overflightr vradorr). Individual nnntivrtier to t bore annoyaxcei can vary from=per on to -Perran. You.liauld cvxn&rwhat airport anxoyaxcrr;if igi-afett the Pmpert}�beforeyou coVkkyour-pwhate and whether they- are acceptahk.toyor. • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over the operation of an cra ft m flight and on the runway,apd.taxiway surfaces at I.A/Cratario International Airport. The 1 ss,therefore,exclusively re- sponsible for airspace and air traffic management,including ensuring the safe and efficient use of navigable air- space, developing aix traffic rules,=assigning the use of airspace and_controlling:air traffic:-:Please coifraet the FAA for more detailed infom�atidn regarding overflight and airspace_protection.issues associated with,the op- eration of military aircraft. - - - - Airport maintains information regarding hours of operation an&other relevant-Information regarding airport operations. _Please contact youi,local airport operator for`mom detailed information regarding airport specific operational issues including hours of operation: 'Phis Overflght Notifcation shall inn with the Property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right,title or interest in the Property. Ef elive Date.* . 20 LAIOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Pleti(Adopted April 19,1011) APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS - Table E5 Sample Project Submittal • • • +- Property,location data(assessor's parcel number, street address,subdivision:lot number). + An accurately scaled map depicting the project.site location in relationship to the LA/Ontario International Airport boundary and runways. + A description of the proposed use(a), current general plan and zoning designations,and the type of land - use action being sought from the local agency(e.g.,zoning variance, special use permit,building permit). + If applicable, a detailed site plan and supporting data showing: site boundaries and size; existing uses that will.remain;location of existing and proposed structures, open spaces, and water bodies; ground ele- vations(above mean sea level) and elevations of tops of structures and trees. Additionally: • For residential uses, an indication of the potential or proposed number of dwelling units per acre ' (excluding any secondary units). • For nonresidential uses, the total floor area for each type of proposed use, the number of auto park- ing spaces, and, If known,the,number of people potentially occupying the total site or portions the-, reof at any onetime. + Identification of any features, during or following construction that would increase the attraction of birds or cause other wildlife hazards to aircraft operations on the airport or in its environs. Such features include, but are not limited to the following. Open water areas Sediment ponds, retention basins. Detention basins that hold water for-more than 48:hours. Artificial wetlands. + Identification of any characteristics that could create-electrical confusing or bright lights, glare, smoke, or other electrical or visual hazards to aircraft flight. ,- + Any environmental document (initial study, draft environmental impact report, etc.) that may have been • prepared for the project. + Any staff reports regarding the project that may have been presented to local agency decision makers. + Other relevant information that is determined to be necessary by the affected agency to enable a corn- prehensive review of the proposed action. • E-8 - -- L.AA00rda/o International Airport Land Use compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) = APPENDIX F IA I e f Airport L an d Use C ompo lbilfyPlan �r DWP APPENDIX F • LA/0NTARI0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Exhibit F1 Altemative Protests Resolution No. 9534 RESOLUTION NO. ss ea A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, ES"IABLISBONG ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR LAND USE PLANNING WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE ONTARIO rNTFRNATIONAL AIRPORT IN LWU OF REINSTATING THE WEST VALLEY AHtMRT,LAND USE CONEMSSION WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et. seq.provides for the establishment of an Airpert Land Use Commission (ALUC) in every county in which there is a public use - airport served by a scheduled airline;.and - - - - - WHEREAS, prior to passage of Senate Bill No. 443 (effective June 30. 1993). Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (b) required each county to establish an ALUC .ht such circum arrces; and - - W IEREAS, Senate Bill No. 443 amended Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (b) by • eliminating the mandate for ALUC's.in order tore:ieve-counties and other public agencies - supporting ALUC's of the duty to incur umeeeseary expenses in certain aspects of airport hod use planning; and WHEREAS. the Orti City Council adopted Resolution 93-120 in November of 1993 withdrawing from the West Valley ALUC; and WHEREAS, the West Valley ALUC was disbanded in response to Senate Hill No. 443- . after all affected public agencies, including the City of Ontario, withdrew from the Joint Powers - Agreement, which had established individual ALUC's for the East,.West, and Mountain/Desert planning areas of the County of San Bernardino; and WHEREAS, the State of California no longerminiturtes the County of San Bernardino for administration of the ALUC program; and WHEREAS. Assembly Bill No.2631 (effective January 1, 1995), amended Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (b)by reinstating the requirement that local agencies, such as the County of San Bernardino, establish an ALUC; and WHRR&AS, Assembly Bill No. 2831 also provided the option of establishing an alternative procedure to the establishment of an ALUC which allows local jurisdictions to make land use decision fur areas within a public use airport sphere of iallutawc as designated by the Comprehensive Airport and Use Plan; and WHEREAS, establishment:of the alternative procedure set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1 rasher than reinstating du.Wed Valley ALUC w_ ill eliminate redundant reviews and streamline processes; and • LA(Ontano International Airport Lard Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - F—t APPENDIX LAI MARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPAFIBILMY PLANNING-DOCUMENTS'-- - - • Exhibit F7, Continued WHEREAS, die City of Ontario is in compliance with all-app licabliairport land uae planning regulations and requirements,with the exception of die recently enacted changes to-the Public Utilities Code requiring reinstatement of an ALUC or establishment of an alternative procedure;for snaking land use planning decisions within the sphere of influence of the-Ontario International Airport and WHEREAS. verification of this;compliance is set forth in the Certificate of Consisfency issued by the West Valley ALUC prior-to its dissolution;." = _ �VEI6 W, the West valley ALUC >dopacd the Airport Environs Elamem of the Ontario General Plan as the Comprehensive Airport-1 t nd Uw,Plan for the Ontario.tigernationoil- Airport; and WHEREAS; the of Ontario is obligated under the new provisions of the Public y Utilities Code to establish alternative procedures for the review and processing of amendmeeets - to the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the sphere of influence of fie Ontario International Airport or defer local land use authority to an ALUC. NOW, TIIEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, that the City"Council,hece6y* adopts the alternative procedures set forth in Subdivision(c) of Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1 for review and processing of amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for _ the sphere of.influence of the Ontario International,Airport, and for voluntary mediation of • disputes. It is further resolved that: 1. Proper land use planning will be accomplished for areas within tie spieie'! iutlueoce --of the Ontario International Airport pursuanr to Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part I of Division 9:of the Public Utilities-Code in accordance with Subdivision(c) of Station 21620.1 an%l- 21 Proper lend use planning will be accomplished for areas within the sphere of influence of the Ontario International Airport by using as guidelines the Airport Land Use Planting ` Handbook published by Division of Aeronautics of the State Department of Transpottation:'and any other applicable federal aviation regulations;;and 3:- Proper land use plannhq will be accomplished for areu wits ttfte mph=of Influence of the Ontario Intematiottsl Airport Airport though alfheftmce m the A Environs Blemau of tlse _ .- Ontario Cenral Plan, and " 4. Any amendments of the Airport Environs Element of the Ontario General Plau, including amendment of the airport Environs Land Use Plan; will be processed in accordance _ with the State Zoning, and -;Development Laws and any-other applicable laws, ordinances', andlorresohitions regulating airport land use platmmg: and 5: The City's planning efforts for areas within the sphere of influence,of the Ontario `International Airport, including amendment of the Comprehensive_Airport Land Use Plan, will involve notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, asst other public agency; and F-2 •LAA9ntarro Intemabona(Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apo!19,-2011) LAIONT AR)0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS APPENDIX F Exhibit F7, Continued • 6. The Airport Mediation Board would serve as We modWor'of dimpides arising from the amendment of the adopted Comprehensive Airport Lad Use Plan- and 7. No rociliatios will be required-beamae no other City has tdaodins to puma mediation;_and B.--Ths entire area of the 65 CNECcontour for the Ontario hear nadomal Airport lies within the City of Ontario: and_ 9. `Irie City's CMMW Phir and'Sptxi& Plans are consiSUM with the adopted Conprehenalve Airport Land Use Plan; end: 10. The Planning DcparUnent shall be responsible for p.-eparing and processing amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan waere necessary; and t 1 The City Council will be responsible for approving throe amendments; and 12, The adoption of the foregoing alrtxmtve procedures are exeagtt ftma the provisions of the California E,nvitomne std Quality Act, Public Raotares Code Section 21000 et. eeq. I hereby certify that the above-resolution was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Ontario at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 1995. - • pE ply =V� 'FtPOA� ,0 City of the City of Ontario * pGC'MER 1t i Al LAIOntano Intemahonal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) -- -F-9 - APPENDIX F LAIONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND U-ECOMPATIBIL17 PLANNING-OOCUkENTS - - - • Exhibit F2 Alternative Process Language Approyal Letter from California Division of Aeronautics STATE nF�Em M �orATmr wtm HOlnl A('ENCY - £DMIINOn BROAMIR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS-M.S.M40 - . - - 120 NS7R EET - - i F P.O.BOX 942874 - SACRAMENTO,G 94274-0001 - - - - - - _ --- _ -. PHONE (916)6544959 --- FAX (916)653-9531 - - - =T7Y 711 - - - - March A 9,2011 Mr.Jerry L.Blum- _ Planning Director- Ontario Planning Department- -"- - - - 303'Fasst B Street Ontario-,CA 41764 - Dear Mr.Blum.-_ The California Department,of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of-Aeronautics (Divisio ), received a-;letter from your-office'dated February 15, 201.1, regarding the amendment of-the'- - _. alternative process for LA/Ontario International:Airport. Your letter mentions the background with respect to the approval of the San Bernardino County Alternative process by,the Division in 1995 ' • Since that time, the impacts from Ontario International Airport.have grown to affect neighboring jurisdictions. The amended alternative process outlined in Chapter 2, Sections 2-4 of the February .2011 Public Draft LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility.Plan-(ALUCP)have been reviewed and are=consistent with the=processes outlined in Public Utilities=Code Section- tied 21670.1. The Division will give our final of the amen eltomative process once we.can determine the affected,jurisdictions will within a reasonable amount of tune prepare, adopt, and implement the policies and procedures outlined in the ALUCP. Thank you and if you shouldhave any questions,please contact me at(916).654-7075--or by email at ron.bolyard®dot ca gov, Sincerely�>/� p �yt,,_ I✓LrCs1p� - - RON BOLYARD;Aviation-Planner Office of Aviation Planning. Exhibit F--3 -- Alternative Process Final Approval Letterfrom California Division of Aeronautics (Pending) F-4 LA1Ontsii6 International Airport Land Use CompafiblW Plan(AdoUW APHI 19r 2011) � r .APPENDIX G LAIOntario International - NTARI�' Airport Land Use Compatibility oAWM t"PLANNING NTARIOM-e- APPENDIX G • �tIRPORTPLANNING = GLOS6ARY OF.TERMS ` Above Ground Level(AGLj- An elevation-datum given in feet above ground level. Accident Potential Zones (APIs): A set of safety-related zones defined-by AICUZ'studies for areas beyond the ends of nvlitary airport runways. Typically, three types of zozes`are established; a clear zone closest to the runway end,-then- APZ I and APZ 1i. The potential for aircrafr accidents and the corresponding need for ]and use restdcdons is greatest with'the clear zone and tiit_ninishes with in- creased distance from the runway Air Carriers; The commerdal system ofair transportation, consisting of the certificated air carriers,gtr taxis (including commuters), supplemental-air carriers, commercial operators of large-aircraft and air travel clubs. Air Installation Compatible Use Zones(AICUZ): A land use-compatible plan prepared liy.the US IJepaztmeni:of Defense for military airfields. AICUZ plans serve as recommendations toll ocal goo= - ernments bodies having jurisdiction over land uses surrounding these facilities Aitcraft Accident: An occurrence incident"to flight in which,as a result of the operation of an -aircraft,, a_erson (occupant or uonoccupant) receives fatal or serious injury or an aircraft receives substantial • agd` + Except as provided-below;'sabstantral domagc means damage or structural failure that adversely af- , fects the_structural strengdi,.'performanee, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replaeemenf-of the affected=component:' =Engine failure, damage"limited to an engine, bent_fairings or cow&rig, dented skin, small puncture " holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, damage:to landing gear, wheels,tires, flaps_engine accessories,-brakes,or wingdps are-not considered substantial damage. - Aircraft Incident: A mishap associated with the operation of an aircraft is which tieitlier fatal=orse- rious injuries nor substantial damage to the-aircraft occur. Aircraft Misltapc The'collective term for art-aircraft accident or an incident: Aircraft Operation: The airborne movement of aiiccraft at an airport or about an en route fix or at other point where counts can be tirade. There are two types of operations'.local and itinerant An oper- ation is counted for each landing and eachdeparture, such that a touch-and=go flight is counted as two - operations: (FAA Stats Airport: An area of land nr watei.that is used.or intended to be used for the landing and takmg'off of aircraft,and includes its buildings=arid facilities if,any. (F'AK V);-. - Airport Elevation: The highest point of an°airport's useabie runways, measured in 'feet above mean sea level. ;(AIM)- _ WVOntwk inlemebonalAirpofhLand Use OgmpahbilityPlair f doptedApril 19,2041}- APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS -" - Airport Land Use Commission.(ALUC):-A commission authorized under the provisions of Cahfor- • ma Public Utilities Code,Section 21670 et seq. and established(in any county within which a public-use airport is located) for the purpose of promoting compatibility between_airports and the land uses sur- rounding them. Airport Layout Plan (ALP): A scale drawing of existing and proposed airport facilities,their location on an airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to demonstrate con- formance with applicable standards. Airport Master Plan'(AMP): A long-range plan for development of an airport,including descriptions of the data and analyses on which the plan is based; Airport Reference Code (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the opera- tion and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport (Airport Design AC) Airports,Classes of For the purposes of issuing a.Site Approval Permit,The California Department' of Transportation,Division of Aeronautics classifies airports into the following categories: (CCR) +`A0cwhWra1AirpW or Heliport An airport restricted to use only be agricultural aerial applicator air- craft.(FAR Part 137 operators). + Emergency Medical Smites(EMS)Landing Site: A site used for the landing and taking off of EMS hch- copters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at of near an medical fa-- dhty and (1) has been designated an EMS landing site by an off ter authorized by a public safety agency, as defined in PUC Section 21662.1, using criteria that the public safety agency has determined is reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters and (2) is used,over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month' with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits,and (3) is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations and (4) is used only for emergency medical purposes. Heliport on Offsborr Od Plaeform. A heliport located on a structure in the ocean,not connected to the shore by pier, bridge,wharf, dock or breakwater,used in the support of petroleum exploration or production. + Personal-Use Airport An airport limited to the non-commercial use of an individual owner or family and occasional invited guests. + Public-Use Airport. An airport that is open for aircraft operations to the general pubhc and is listed in the current edition of the Airpost/Fadlity Dirreteg that is published by the National Ocean Service of the U.S.Department'of Commerce: +, Seaplane Lrnding Site An area of water used, or intended for use, for landing and takeoff of seap- lanes. + Spedal-Use Airport or He4wrt An airport not open to the general public, access to which is con- trolled by the owner in support of commercial activities,public service operations,and/or personal use. • G-2- - LAAOntado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Man(Adopted W 19,2011). - - .S�tOSSARI`DFT.ERMS APP ENDIX-6 - - • ► Te.Vormy Hskropter oniing-S ite A_-site other-than-an emergenry medical service'landing.site zt or neat a medical facility,which Is used for landing and taking of€of helicopters and (l) is used or intended t6 be used for less than one year;except for recurrent annual events and {2) is not markedor lighted to be distinguishable as.a heliport and (3) is not.used exclusively for helicopter operations. Ambient Noise Level- the level of noise that is 0 encompassing within a given environment for - which a single source cannot be determined. It is usually-a composite of sounds from many'and vaned sources near-to and"far from the'receiver. Approach Protection Easement: A form of easement that both conveys all of the rights of an aviga- tion easement and sets-specified litnitations.on the type of land uses allowed--to be developed`on the property. Approach Speed: The recommended speed_contained in aircraft manuals used by pilots when making _ an.approa�h to landing.- This seed vvitl vary for different segments of an approach as well as for air- craft weight and configuration. jAINq- Aviation-Related Use-- Any facility or activity,directly associated with the air transportation of per- sons or cargo or the operation, storage,or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically,include runways,_taxiways,and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Avia- tion Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, terminal buildungs, etc • Aviganon Easement A type of easement that typically conveys the following rights: �'_A right of-way for free and unc bstructed'passage of aircraft through the airspace over the'property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement (usually set in accordance,with FAR Part . 77_criteria). - 3'A right to.subject the property to noise;vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions`asso -elated with normal airport activity. A right toprohibit`the erection or growth of any_structure, tree, ar other abject that would`enter the acquired airspace, A right-of-entry onto the property,with proper advance notice, for the purpose of removing;-mark- ing,or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace. +,.-A-right to prohibit electrical interference_glare,misleading lights,visual itnp'airrnents, and other ba- - zat& to aircraft flight from being created on the property. Based Aircraft: Aircraft stationed at an airport on a long term basis California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Statutes adopted by the state legislature for the purpose of maintaining_a quality environment for the people of the state-now and inxhe future. The `Act establishes a process for state and-local-agency review of projects, as defined in th_e implimentin _ guidelines,that may adversely affect the.environment. Coifing I3eight above the earth's surface;to'ihe lowest 'layer of clouds or obscuriiig plienamena. (AI4 LWntado Intemational Airport Land Use Compabbi7ify Plan fAtlopted APnI 14 20111-t_ _ G-3 APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS - "L Circling Approach/Circle-to-Land Maneuver. A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft • with a runway for landing when a straight in landing from an instrument approach is not possible or not desirable. (AMI) Clear Zone: The military airport equivalent of runway protection zones at civilian airports. Combining District: A zoning district that establishes development standards in areas of special con- cem over and above the standards applicable to basic underlying zoning districts. Commercial Activities: Airport-related activities that may offer a facility, service or commodity for sale, hire or profit. Examples of commodities for sale are: food, lodging, entertainment, real estate, petroleum products, parts and equipment. Examples of services are: flight training, charter flights, maintenance,aircraft storage,and'tiedown. (CCR) Commercial Operator. A person who,;for compensation or hire,engages,in the carnage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property,other than as an air carrier.: (FAR 1) Community Noise Equivalent'Level(CNEL): The noise metric adopted by the State of California for evaluating airport noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day, ad- ' justed to an equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during evening and ` nighttime periods relative to the daytime period (State Airport Noise Standards) Compatibility Plan. As used herein,a plan,usually adopted by an Airport Land Use Commission that sets forth policies for promoting compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them. - Often referred to as a Compnllensm Lmrd Use Plan(CLUP). Controlled Airspace: Any of several types of airspace within which some or all aircraft may be subject • to air traffic control, (FAR 1) Day-Night Average,Sound Level (DNL): The noise metric adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for measurement of environmental noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day,measured in decibels and adjusted to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during nighttime periods. The mathematical symbol is L&.' Decibel (dB): A unit measuring the magnitude of a sound, equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound, specifically a sound just barely audible to an unimpaired human ear. For environmental noise from aircraft and other transpor- tation sources, an A-nzighted.round level(abbreviated dBA) is normally used. The A-weighting scale ad- justs the values of different sound frequencies to approximate the auditory sensitivity of the human ear. Deed Notice: A formal statement added to the legal description of a deed to a property and on any subdivision trap. As used in airport land use planning, a deed notice would state that the property is subject to aircraft overflights. Deed notices are used as a form of buyer notification as a means of en- suring that those who are particularly sensitive to aircraft overflights can avoid moving to the affected areas. Designated Body: A local government entity,such as:a regional planning agency or a county planning commission, chosen by the county board of supervisors and the_selection committee of city mayors to act in the capacity of an airport land use commission. Displaced Threshold:' A landing threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway(see Thnrhold). (AIlvi) • - G--4' LA/Qntaric International Airport Land.Use.Compab'biW Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - P1'`'w'" GLOSSARY OF TERMS AFPENt3lX G • Easement: =A less-than fee-title transfer of:real property r4lits.from the property-owner to the hoolder of the easement. Equivalent-Sound Level(L, The level of constant sound that, in the given situation and time pe nod,has the same average sound=energy as does atime-vatyingsound. FARpart 77: The pair of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace.- FAR Pan 77 Surfaces: Imaginary"airspace surfaces established with relation to eachsunway of an air- port. There-are five-typesof surfaces. (1) primary; (2)=approach;;(3) transitional f 4)Horizontal;and f5) conical. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA):-The U.S.'governrnent agency that is responsible fox:ensur- irig_the safe and efficient use of the nation's airports and airspace.; Fedetal Aviation Regulations•(FAR): 'Re iions.formallyissued by the FAA to regulate art com, merce. Findings: Legally relevant subconclitsions that expose a government agency's mode of analysts of facts, regulations, and policies, and that bridge the analytical gap-between raw data and ultimate dec? sign. Fixed Base Operator'(FBO): A'business that operates at an airport and-provides aircraft services to the general public including, but not limited to, sale of fuel andoil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, ' " and repair; parking and;aedown or storage"of aircraft flight training; air taxi/charter operations, and specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance,;painting,overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography,aerialhoists,orpipeline:patrol. General Aviatiotr: That portion o€civil aviation that encompasses all facets of aviation except;air cat-, riers. (FAA Stats) . Glide Slope.- An electronic signal-radiated by a component of an ILS to provide vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. Global Positioning System (GPS): A navigational system that utilizes a network of satellites to de- termine a.positional fix almost:anywhere on or above the earth. Developed and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense;GPS-ha's been made available to the civilian sector for surface, marine, and- ;. aerial navigational use. For aviation purposes, the current form of GPS;guidance provides en route aerial navigation and selected types of nonprecision instrument approaches. Eventual application of GPS as the principal system of navigational guidance throughout-the world is anticipated, Helipad: A small, designated.area, usually with a prepared surface, on a'heliport airport-, land- ing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff,9anding or-parking of helicopters. (A� _ Heliport: A facility used for operating,basing,housiag;and maintaining helicopters-, (HAI) Infill Development that takes place on vacant proper y largely surrounded by existing development, especially development that is similar in character. Instrument Approach Procedure A series ofpredetet"ed maneuvers.f6r the oiderly-irat sfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a lapding-of LNOntado Intemabonel Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apol 191 2011)._ APPENDIX G -GLOSSARY OF TERMS OEM.� to a point from which landing may be made visually. It is prescribed and approved for a specific air- • port by competent'authority (refer to Noirpn n Approach Prscedim and Pred ion Appoacb Procedun). (ADA) Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules governing, the procedures for conducting instrument flight. Generally, IFR applies when meteorological conditions with a ceiling below 1,000 feet and visibility less than 3 miles prevail. (AIM) Instrument Landing System (ILS): A precision instrument approach system that normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer Mark- er; (4) Middle Marker; (5)Approach Lights. (AIM) Instrument Operation: An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation where IFR separation.between aircraft is provided by'a terminal control facility. (FAA ATA) Instrument Runway: A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a preci- sion or nonprecision approach';procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved. _ (A Inverse Condemnation: An action brought by a property owner seeking just compensation for land taken for a public use against a'government or private entity having the power of eminent domain. It is a remedy peculiar to the property owner and is exercisable by that party where it appears that the taker of the property does not intend to bring eminent domain proceedings. Land Use Density: A measure of the concentration of land use development in an area. Mostly the term is used with respect to residential development and refers to the number of dwelling units per • acre. Unless otherwise noted,policies in this compatibility plan refer togmrf rather than met acreage. Land Use Intensity: A measure of the concentration of nonresidential land use development in area. For the purposes of airport land use planning, the term indicates the number of people per acre attracted by the land use. Unless otherwise noted,policies in this compatibility plan refer togmss rather . than act acreage. Large Airplane: An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight. (Air- port Design ACS Localizet(LOC): The component of an ILS that provides course guidance to the runway. (AIM) Mean Sea Level(MSL): An elevation datum given in feet from mean sea level. Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA): The lowest altitude,expressed in feet above mean sea level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during circle-to-land maneuvering in execution of a standard instrument approach procedure where no electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1) . Missed Approach: A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be com- pleted to a landing. (AIM) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): The U.S. government agency responsible for in- vestigating transportation accidents and incidents. Navigational Aid (Navaid): Any visual or electronic device airborne or on the surface that provides point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. (AIM) • G-6 - LAIOntado Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) ' - qLO"AAY OF TERMS -."P EMDJX G- • Noise Contours: Continuous lines of equal noise level usually drawn around a noise source,_such as _ an airport oi'highwiy, The lines,are generally drawn %ii 5-decibel-incncme t.s so that they resemble ele - vation contours in topographic maps. " Noise Level Reduction (NLR):' A measure used to describe she reduction in sound tevcl from envi= , con rental noise sources occurring between_the outside and the intide of a-structure, Nonconforming Use. "An existing land use that does not-conform to subsequently adopted or b amended zoning or othet land use development-standards. Nonprecision Approach Procedure: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no elec- tronic glide slope is provided. (FAIL; l) Nonprecision Instrument Runway: A runaway with aft approved or planned straight-in instrument - approach procedure that has no existing or planned precision instrument approach-procedure. (Airport Design AC} Obstruction:. Any-object of natural growth; terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or altera- tion, including equipment or materials,used=therein,the height of which exceeds the:standards-:estab- _ fished in Subpart C of Federal Aviation Regulations Pant 771 QiVertr Affeang Natigabk,4irrpace._ Overflight: tiny distinctly visible and/or audible passage of an aircraft in flight,not necessarily directly overhead. Overflight Easement: An easement that describes the right to`overfly the property above a specified surface and includes the right- to subject the property to noisf, vibrations,fumes, and emissions An _ overflight easement is used primarily as a form of buyer notification Overflight Zone: The"azea(sj where aircraft maneuver to enter-or leave the traffic patrem, typscally defined by the FAR Part-77 horiiontal surface. Overlay Zone: See Caen nine l3iatiict. Planning Area Boundary: An area surrounding an airport designated by an ALUC for the purpose of airport land.use compatibility planning conducted in accordance with provisions o€the State Aeronau- tics Act. Precision Approach Procedure:_ Astandard-instrument approach procedure where an electronic glide slopeis provided. (kAR 1) . - Precision Instrument Runway: A nmway vith an existing or planned precision instrument approach procedure..(Airport Design AC) " Referral Area: The area around an airport defined by the planning area,boundary adopted by in air- port land use commission within which certain land use proposals are to be eferred to the commission, for review. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ): An area-(formerly called a ckar Zane) off the end of a runway used to enhance_the protection of people and property on the ground.=(Airport DesignAC)` Safety Zone:- For the purpose o€airport laird use planning, an aiea near an airport in;which land use. restrictions are established to,protectthe safety of the public from potential aircraft accidents. • Single-Event'Noise: As used in herein,the noise from an individual aircraft operarion-or overflight. LAlOntario Intemationat Airport Land Use Compa ffbitrty Plan(Adopted April 18,2911)- - = G-7 APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS Single Event Noise Exposure Level(SENEL): .A measure,in decibels,of the noise exposure level • of a single event, such as an aircraft flyby,measured over the time interval between the initial and final times for which the noise level of the event exceeds a threshold noise level and normalized to a refer- ence duration of one second. SENEL is a noise metric established for use in California by the state Airport Noise Standards and is essentially identical to SoxndExpotxm Leael(SEL). Site Approval Permit: A written approval issued by die California Department of Transportation au- thorizing construction,of an airport in accordance with approved plans, specifications, and conditions. Both public-use and special-use airports require a site approval permit. (CCR) Small Airplane: An airplane of 12,500 pounds or less m_aximum certificated takeoff vleight. (Airport Design AC) Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A time-integrated metric (i.e., continuously summed over a time pe- riod) that quantifies the total energy in the A-weighted sound level measured during a transient noise event. The time period for this measurement is generally taken to be that between the moments when the A-weighted sound level is 10 dB below the maximum. Straight-In Instrument Approach: An instrument approach wherein a final approach is begun with- out first having executed a procedure turn; it is not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing weather minimums, (ARA) Taking:, Government appropriation of private land for which compensation must be paid as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is not essential that there be physical seizure'or appropriation,for a taking to occur, only that the government action directly interferes with or substan- tially disturbs the owner's right to use and enjoyment of the property. • Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS): Procedures for instrument approach and departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airports. There are four types of terminal instrument procedures: precision approach,nonprecision approach,circling,and departure. Threshold: The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing (also see Ditplgeed Tore- s&4. (AII Touch-and-Go: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway. (AIIvf) Traffic Pattern: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at,taziing on,or taking off from an airport. The components of atypical traffic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind leg,downwind leg, base leg,and final approach. (AINI) Visual Approach: An approach where the pilot must use visual reference to the runway for landing under VFR conditions: Visual Flight Rules(VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual con. ditions. VFR applies when meteorological conditions are equal to or greater than the specified mint mum-generally,a 1,000-foot ceiling and 3 7mile visibility. Visual Runway- A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach proce dures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan. (Airport Design AC) , • G-8 LA10ntano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) - - - Y FTR`M APPENDIX G ' - _ GLOS SXR O E S • Zoning K police power,measure, enacted prinSarily by units of hocal govemmenr, in which the.etam-- mumty is divided into districts or zones within which-.permitted-and special uses ate:established as are regulations.governing tot size, building bulk,; placement, and tither development standards: Require- : ments var from-districtto-district;-but they must be uniform withi districts: A zoning ordinance con- sists of two parts: the text and a map: Glossary Sources FAIL 1 Federal Aviation,Regulationsl?art l,;.Definitions and Abbreviations AIM: Aeronautical Informatiop Manual Airport Design AC: Federal Aviation Administration,Airport Design Advisory circular l SQf 53QG-43 Cm I california code of Regulations,Title2l,Secti6n 1525 et seq,DhOon'ofAerotioxtics FAA ATA: Federal Aviation Administration;AirTraffuAcnvity FAA Stars: Federal Aviation Administration Stalirtic&lHandbook afA*fion HAI: Helicopter Association International NTSB: National Transportation andSafery-Board- G-9 GUOntario Intemeb'onal Airport Land Use Competibility Plait(Adopted'Apnl ' - APPENDIX O GLOSSARY OF TERMS This page was left intentionally blank. • • G-10 r L.AIVntano Intemsho al Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) ! APPENDIX . LA1Ontori6 International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan N LNTARI&-,� APPENDIX H LANNING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City of Ontario A �O Planning Department a California Environmental Quality Act 303 East"B•Street ti Environmental Checklist Forms c(909)395-2036 Phone:(9091395-2036 O Fa:(909)395-2420 Project Name:LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan("ALUCP or Compatibility Plan") Project Sponsor: City of Ontario Planning Department,303 East"B"Street;Ontario,California,91764 Contact Person: Lorena Mejia,Associate Planner,(909)395-2276 Project Location: LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County as illustrated on Figure H3. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport,owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airports(LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP),Is the Airport Influence Area (AIA); the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or overflight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes • portions of the Cities of Ontario; Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Pomona, Claremont and unincorporated,-portions of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties as illustrated in Figure H2. Project Description: The function of the ALUCP is to promote compatibility between ONT and surrounding land uses as provided in the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, section 21670 et seq.).,The proposed ALUCP provides specific limitations and conditions for developing future residential, commercial and other noise and risk sensitive uses surrounding ONT. The proposed ALUCP consists of several components including: airport and land use information; compatibility policies and criteria, compatibility zone maps and procedural policies. The proposed ALUCP for ONT would supplement the Airport Environs section of The Ontario Plan (Ontario's General Plan), which currently serves as ONT's airport land use plan, by providing land use compatibility policies and criteria for ONT and surrounding areas. The preparation of the proposed ALUCP' was guided by the California, Department of Transportations'California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook(January 2002). It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA;it does not regulate existing uses. Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor has any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA)and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). LAWA began the master planning process for ONT, but suspended that effort in 2008. Before its planning process was suspended, LAWA developed a tentative proposal for reconfiguration of the runway system that would • LArOntario Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) H-1. ' APPENDIX N" "ONT A1UCP,ENVIRDWh1 ENTAk REVIEW- - Us W. • accommodate potential future passenger and air cargo volume in 2030. The State Aeronauts ALt " requires that the ALUCP "be based on a Fon_g-range master plan or an airparflayout plan,as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of3he Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth. Of the airport during at)east the next 20 years (Pub.r.Utilities Code,§21675(a).) Therefore,while the ALUCP includes an airport layout plgmthat shifts ONT's;runways to the east and south far airpoi3=land use planning purposes;tie Lity has no approval authority over that layout nor does:inclusion of that layout it the ALUCP facUltate expansion'of=ONT's operations. Any such expansion would have t.0 be approved by LAWA as part of an Airport Master Plain, General Plan-Designation: General Plan Designations vary withln,ONT s AIA. Zoning: Zoning varies within mrs AfA. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e-g., permits, fiinancing approva) rr participation agreement): The Airport Land Use Co at approval from the California Division of, Aeronautic and participation,agreements .from the affected jurisdictions within the County of San Bernardino-- Environmental Factors-Potentially-Affeded; The environmental factors=checked, below-would be potentially affected by this project-,itwolvmg at least one-impact-that is a"POteMially Significant Impact" :as indicated by the checklist on the following:pages. - Q Aesthebcs Q Agriculture Resources - _ �` Air Quality = - ❑, Biological Resources 0' Cultural Resources L] Geology%Soils _ "0 Greenhouse Gas Emission; 0_ Hazards&+tazardous.Materials --- 0 Hydotogy{water Quahty Land Use/Planning 0. "Mineral Resources '- � Noise - - Q_ Population JHousing-- - RubHc Services __ (] Recreation o_ TransPOrtation/Traffic _ Utigties/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(TO'be_completed by the Lead Agency), On'the basis of this initial evaluation. I find that the proposed Project COULD NO--have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE _ - DECLARATION will be prepared: 1 find that although the proposed'project could have a significant effectors the environment;therewill net be a-significant effect in this case because revisions in,the project.have been"made by or_agreecl to by the project_proponent.A-MITIGATED NEGATIVE 6ECLARATIO14 will be prepared. - - - - 1 find that the proposed project_Mv Y have a signiticant effect on the_environment,and an fNVtRONMENTAI - _ IMPACT-REPORT.is-require H-2 - _` - - LATOntaro Intamehonal AIMorRLand Use Compatibility-Plan fAdopted Apnl 19,2011). - ONf ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H - Q I flnd,that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant" or "Potentially signifiicanYUnless • B y nalyzed in an earlier mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately a document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier.analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. '< . Q I find thatalthough the proposed project.could have a significant effect on the environment, becauseF all _--- potentially significant effects(a),have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION - ` pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or.mitigated pursuant to that earlier,EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or.mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed ;-project,nothing further,is required. - - Signature: dam- Date:January26,2011 Name(print or type):Lorena Meii Title:Associate Planner LANntario Infamationa/Airport Land Use CompeNblllly Plan(AdopledApril 19,2011) --H-3 - • APPENDIXW _ONT ALLfCF ENWRONMENTAL REVIEW This page was left tntentiomrlly bfank. H-4 1A10r tano lntemational Airport Land(!se Gbmpetibihfy Plan{Adopted Apnl 19,201 1) x = m 4 • x m i a f = aC 6 Z LL c = v O J y { W p O U v � O E y 9 v m `o zi a @ m - - w 9 u 0 d o ¢ � - - J 0 00000 0 w - O. Z Z> C ° w r m a 8 U _ y a CCC m O O qp Y O pP Y O o a r 3 S o C Q m m � a 8 Q N o Q C � E c = o e a �D 0,000 ~©11a � $ ,,r,� {�,,,�\ _ raj �. � urcwl ls���%� nbe r \ QL - a»nn w a qq yy a 3 3 a9MMt. 3 d h r . g 653Ce+. 'Siwfy' Tj. �gL � _ 611tl11'1 s °� ` �y `m ]n,y .t n+�tl00 awash� aneobn - ZZ I 4 n3VIN '� !Ml NIA i y 1tl i msrao_ xsrsr � A sasu � _ td3 NXMa3 jj Pf 'M3bOt w�3K]I11 {F' _ Miw]1M" F F W1 - - C/.x FL ( R OXrtL LRLfAfln � ON]l 1J �\ _ YWIn. n3M1M � biMtlR arLVna]x p� � u]xnnf� ,lual y Bunn, '� rm y9atlr2 0 rawo� a]Yxe O eq � ��y s,�,y. 2 9x11 tl3111VN rS ]MIYN WMIrM f s10Np4Y, ` xMa ,ia>�� � a mau yo9are uu�l]� MYw J � I IBI !^ (Ib[U W' Nr1TYUtl 9Y 1YIb 3' 11OyySMp < - Fff Ls, �va]nn � 9xn Z axu Tale °naml Me9lg _ Z q 2a rn]olaraw - Z wo.L. 5F� ik G C o 3o a = tsswJ�O p xsa _�- g b dsiw r,N wcuwss rwxsJ� 8s - _ W - � + CLL L) 15N]LXP1 FY Z !9 T1ntJ M l 1 l#LM ryayR, E 1 _ � '9 SIW pCS V E W LwM V - ' Cvatm 8 Vin•, sw]]eL+ .y, ,� o _ 01w L 1 vu ��]a�sea { rrouv �'O S L Ym u�w z � a W L] 1i�+PORI�iONT�ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS- 1. AEmEncs Potentlally Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigotion Signi/iront No - Would the proposed pr_o- I Impact 101pact - - (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X _ vista? - - (b) substantially damage scenic resources, --- - _ including, but not limited -to, trees, rack - ,X outcroppings, and historic buildings Withina - - - state scenic highway? -- '-- (c)- substantially degrade the -existing visual -- - character or quality of the site and its _ - -X - I surroundings? - _ (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare - - which would adversely affect day or nighttime - _ _ =X - views in the area? DiscussiON OF EFFECTS - - Thresholds (a) — (d):The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would,it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general -_ plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing • general plans. Therefore, the proposed.ALUCP would not directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista,- -" damage scenic resources, degrade the existing-visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, or create a new source of light or glare, and, as.such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Also, the proposed ALUCP`would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport-Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies'general plans,of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impact.., MITIGATION None Required. • LArortt no International Airport Land Use CompabbildyPlan(Adopted April 19,201 1) - H-7 APPENDIX H ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW-- � +oirrruwwxc - • 2. AGRICULTURAL&FOREST RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources ore sigopcontenvironmentafeffects, lead-agencies may.refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessrhent-Model(1997),prepared:by the - California Department of Conservation as-at) optlonal model to use in assessing impacts o&dgricull and- farmland In°determining whether impacts to forest resources, including- timberland, -are significant - - environmental effects, lead agencies may-refer.to Information compiled by the California-Department of Forestry and Fire Prdtection regordmg the"state's inventory of-forest land, including the-Forest andi-Range =- Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment-project•and-forest carbon measurement methodology- - _ - - provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) - - - -- Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than =- Significant Mitigation Significant No _ - - d the proposed project: Impact Incorporated Impact Im ct - ,(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique "Farmland, or-. - _ -- - - -- Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmlandj, as shown on the -maps prepared pursuant.to the - _ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? - - - - (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,ar a Williamson Act contract? - --_ (c)_- Conflict with existing zomngfor,or cause rezoning of, _ forest land (as.-defined in Public Resources Code _ - section 12220(g)), timberland. (as defined by Public - _Resources Code section 4526);or timberland zoned - .x Timberland Production (as defined by Government • - Code section 51104(g))v (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of, :forest land to-non-forest use? - - -- _.-- Involve other changes m the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could-result in :conversion of-Farmland, to-non-agricultural use-or, - _- conversionofforestlandtonon-forest use? .- - - _ DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS - - - Thresholds (a) (e):-The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction; or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted_by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on-top-of planned land use designations found•tn existing general general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) directly.or indirectly convert Prime' Farmland; Unique-Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively,- "farmland")to a- non-agricultural use; or (b) conflict with existing-zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract;or(c)conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land (as;defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section4S2b),of -=timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g); (d) 'result-in the loss of forest land-or conversion of forest land to non-forest usbisincei there is no-forest land within the Airport Influence Area (AIA);(e) involve other changes in the existing environment- that, due to their location or nature, Could result in the conversion of Farmlandto a non agricultural H—B., LA/Ontario International Airport-L and Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apnl 19, 2011) MW - - ONT ALUCP-'ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H use. The;proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the • AIA above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. In addition,the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis(Appendix I) evaluated potential general plan inconsistencies with the proposed ALUCP and did not identify any J. agricultural or forest general plan land use designations within the AIA.Therefore,there would be no impact.,, - MITIGATION - -Z- None Required. LA/Ontado Intemational Airport Land Use Compebbft Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) APPENDIX 14-` ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 3 AIR QuAC Ty , - (Where dvailable, the signiflcortee criterfo:established by the applicable oir quaGtC�rnonogement orroir pollution_control district may tie relied upon,tamake the following determinations.) " Potentially - - Significant - Potwlaliy unless less Than - SIVIfU7oM Mitigation Significant No - Would the proposed project: blow Incorporated _ Impact Impact 1 - (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the - X applicable au quality plan? - (b) _Violate any air.;quality standard or contribute - - - - - substantiallytoan.existing or projected air quality - - X violation? _ (c[ Result in a cumulatively considerable nefincrease ofany criteria pollutant for whichthe projectreXion - -_ is'-non-attainments-under an applicable-federal or state-- ambient air quality -standard (including - - releasing r emissions that--exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? _ _ - (d) Expose sensitive-receptors to substantial_pollutant _ - X concentrations? - - -_ (e):-.Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial = x _ numberofpeople? - - - -;DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS - Thresholds (a) — (e): The-proposed ALUCP does not propose,or involve any n%w development, •. construction,or physical changes to existing landuses'or the environment,nor would if authorize°new forms of development that are Trot othertivise per_mitted_by the relevant-jurisdiction's generat plan. , Rather,it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use_designations found in existing generaf plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not'propose any physical or operational changes to LAJOtItar(o International Airport f`ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations all authority_over ONT rests With;Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA)and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Although the City of Ontario,the City.of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino will have to a .jUS( their.General Plan.poil' ies to account for additional development restrictions'contained in the" ALUO, those adjustments Will -not authorize development-beyond what was assumed-in the development of the South coast Air Quality Management Plan.-,Therefore; the ALUCP would" not directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan;violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to,an existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria,pollutant foryvhich the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards;expose selwsitive. receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;,or create objectionable odors-affecting a sub la number of people; and, as such, would not impact the environment or result in any impacts to atr _ quality. The proposed ALUCP-Would not encourage levels of development,in any area Jocatedw(thin he Airport Influence Area (AIA)-above those projected within the affected:agencies'general plaim of- , H-10 LA/ontetio intamafionalAirpoR�1:andUse CoropedbiUty Plan(Adopted;Apn!1sr 2011), _ w-rw ONT ALUCP,ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW"APPENDIX H - which the environmental effects were already, adequately analyzed in their respective certified • general plan environmental documentation, Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITI n_ G O None Required. • LA/Ontano International Airport:Land Use Compahb*Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - H-11 APPENDIX M--FONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - ©• tn�r«r� - - - • 4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Potentially _ - PotMNgNy Significant Unless Less Than slpaifkmtt Mitigation Signlftmnt No the proposed project: 1 Incorporated thwart - _ Have.a substantial adverse effect, either directly or -- through -habitat.<modifications, on any species - identified as a candidate, sensitive,'Or special status species in local-or regional plans,- policies, or -- regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and wildlife Service?-_ - - - (b) Have a. substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural:community identified - - in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the - - _ _X _ .California Department of Fish:and Game or t15 Fish ' and Wildlife service? _ (c) Have substantial adverse effect on`_federally - _ protected wetlands as defined_by Section 404-of the - _ Clean Water Act'(indudmg, but :not limited,to, marsh, =X _ Vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, - - - - - filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? - - _ (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any,_ - - native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species or _- - - with established native resident or migratory wildlife _ �X -_ -- ,corridors,or impede the use of native wildli_fiiiursery - sites?, - (e) Conflict with any iocal: policies or -ordinances - • - protecting biological resources= iuch as--a tree" _ % ' - r ervation,policy or ordinance? ft flict.with the provisions of an adopted. Habitat- Conservation- - _ Plan, Natural.Community Conservation _ - - - -- .or other approved local,re_glor(a),.or state habitat ervation plan?.- DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS' - Thresholds (a) — (f)i The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new developrr15 . construction, or physical changes to existing landuses-or the environment;nor wouldit authorize'new forms of development that are-not otherwise permitted by the_relevant Jurisdiction's general plan Rather,it overlays further limitations an top of planned landuse designations found in existing general plans Additionally;the proposed ALUCP does not_propose any physical:or operational changes to- LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) n_or does the City have_any authority over operations, all _ :authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World-Airports(LAWA)and Federal Aviation Administration-., (FAA). Therefore, the ALUCP would not-'directly or,;indirectly impact biological resources or'their habitat,or conflict with applicable policies,protecting`biolog'calresources or an adopted or approved habitat conservation plan, and, as such,-would not directly Impact the environhent or result in any _ direct impacts to biological resources..:The proposed ALUCP would:hot encourage .levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area(AIA)above those'projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately. - H-12 - L-Alontaiio4nteui4itiontilAirood Land Use Compatibility phatil(AcloptedApril 10,mv - - OwwwiHC ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL.REVIEW APPENDIX N analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there • would be no impacts= - MITIGATION - None Required. • • LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) -'- , -= H-13 APPENDIX H` DNT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL RE,v kEW vunMns • 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - - - - - - "Potentially - - Significant " _ Potentially Unless Less Than stgnifioant Mitigation Significant No - Would the proposed project: Impact Incorporated_ impact Impact -`-, --- (a) Cause a substantial.'adverse' change in -the - -- -- _ _ significance of a historical resource-as defined in - _ §15064.57 - - - - - - (b)- Cause- a substantial adverse-change ink-the" signifcanceofar) archaeological resource 7( ursuantto§15064.5? _ (c) -'Directly or --indirectly destroy a unique - -paleontological resource or ;;ite -or unique _ _ X -_ 'geologic feature?- - (d) Disturb any human remains,-including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?- - -- -DISCUSSION OF-EFFECT$ - - - `Thresholds (a) — (d) The proposed ALUCP does_not propose or involve any new development, construction,or physicalchanges toexisting land uses or the environment, not Would it authorize-new _forms of development that"are not-,otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general;-plan. Rather,it overlays furtherlimitations pn top of planned(and use designationsfound in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or-indirectly-cause a substantial adverse change irf the significance of a historical resource or-an archaeological resource; directly-destroy a -. unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside: of formal.cemeteries, and, as-such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to cultural 'resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of°development in arty area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above- those projected within the affected agencies'general plans,of which the-environmental,effec&were already adequately analyzed( in their respective certified geaeralplan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. -MITIGATION _ = - None Required. • - - H-14 LA LIOntanalnt9mationalAirportlandUseCompatlbllltyPlan{AdoptedApn118, 2Qt1J - ONT ALUCP ENVFRONMENTAL REVIEW-APPENDIX K 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:_7- i potentially -" Potentially Significant Unless Less Than - rant No Id the pro ct - (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial - - adverse effects.,including the risk of loss, injury.or - :'X - - death involving: -_ (i). Rupture of, a known:earthquake`_fault, is- delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo -_=Earthquake Fault Zoning-Map issued by the -State Geologist for the area or based-on'other _ -_ -x (substantial evidence of a known fauk?'Refer to _ _ Division of Mines, and Geoldgy.` Special - - Publication 42. - - -_, (ill Strong seismic ground shaking? - `-X _ ' (iii) Seismic-related ground,:- failure,, .including -x - - ,-liquefaction? _ (iv( Landslides? - - -- _ X (b) .Result in substantial soil 'erosion or,the::loss of x topsoil? , rc _ .. _ (c) -Be located on ageologicunit or soil that is unstable, _ - - -` or that would become unstable as a result of the _ =project, and potentially result in on,-or.off-site X - - - -- landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,`liquefaction - - - or collapse? - - (d)- Be located on expansive soil;:as defined in Table '`• .18-1-B of the Uniform Building_Code(1994),creating- X - -- - ` substantial risks to life or property? ' > (a) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the - _ - - - - use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal] - X systems where sewers are not available-for the - - _ disposal of wastewater? DOCUSSION OF EFFECTS - - Thresholds (a) (e): The proposed,ALUCP does-not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore,the proposed.ALUCP would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, liquefaction, or,landslides; result in,substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on a geologic unit or soil that is Unstable, potentially resulting in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence;,liquefaction,-or collapse be located on expansive soil;or have soils incapable of adequately supporting;the use of septic tanks; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to geology and soils. The proposed'ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected:agencies'general plans, of which the environmental effects • LA/Ontafo International Airport Land Use,Compalibilify Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) -- -_- 11-15 APPENDIX HP ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENT-Ai RE'.V I:E.V1r - O nu�xix� • were already adequately ana(yxed In their respect+ve certified general plari:. environmental documentation..TFserefore,tfjere would'tie rtia impaets ' - ;- .MITIGATION - - - 'None Required. H-1 6 ' LA/Oriteno Intematione!Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(AQapto April 18,21111) ,. DNT ALUM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H Z. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - - _ • Potentially - --- _ Significant - Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Would the proposed ro'ect: Impact No Impact - (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a x significant impact on the environment? - - (b)- Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or _ - - - _ regulation adopted for the purpose-of reducing _ - x - the emission of greenhouse gases? " _ DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS = - Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment,nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. ` Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land Use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT)• nor.does the City have any authority over operations; all - authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles-World Airports(LAWA)and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)_ The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within.the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in _their respective certified • general plan environmental- documentation. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP will not cause any increase in greenhouse gas emissions,and there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2Q11) ` H-17 - - 'APPENDIX H-_-CNT ALUCP @NV IRON VVN TA L REVIEW - • 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - - Potentially - -_ - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant No - - - - Impact Impact Itb) reate a significant hazard to: the public or the "- _ - nvironment through the routine transport;-use or _ - _ -)f -- _- isposal of hazardous materials?:' Create a significant hazard to the public or the - - - environment through reasonably -foreseeable upset. - "x _ and ,accident conditions involving the-.release of - hazardous materials.into the environment?- - - (c) Emit hazardous ;emissions, or.-handle hazardous or _ acutely hazardous r-materials, substances or waste _ - — -x - - - within one=quarter'mile of an existing.or`proposed - - - school?' (d)-Be -located on a=site which is included iih a list of - - hazardous materials sites compiled `pursuant -to - Government Code section-559fi2.5-and, as'a result, --- - - _ '1f " - would.it create a-significant fiazard Lathe public the- would - - - environment? - -.`(e) For a-project located within an-.airport land.-use plan- or, where such-a--plan has-hot'been adopted, within - - - - - two miles of a.public airport or public use airport, - - - X- would.the project:result in a safety hazard forpeople _ - residing or working in the project area? -- -(f) For a.project within the vicinity.of a private-airstrip, - - _- - -_ would the project result in a safety hazard for people X • ?., residing or working in the project area. - _ (g) Impair-.implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency _- - - evacuation plan?' - - - - -- (b) Expose.people:or structures to asignificant risk of loss,' injury_ or death involving wildfires, including where ,X -- wildlands are adjacent tc urbanized areas or where - - - - - - - residences are intermixed with wildlands? aISCUSSioubf EFFECTS - - Thresholds'(ar - (d).& (f) — (h). The proposed A WCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, orphy5ical changes to existing land uses or the environment,nor would it' -authorize--new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by=#Be ielevanL jurisdiction's genera plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top 6fpl9nn6d land use designations found in existing general plans.. Additionally,the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontarie International Airport-(ONT);inor does-the.City-have any authority over 'operations;all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and federal Aviation -Administration (FAA):'-Also, the proposed°ALUCP does not.' the transport,.use or disposal of hazardous;materials; the emission- or- handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances; or waste; or the:location of'_a building; structure,-or.public facility dri a hazardous materials site compiled by the State of California pursuant-to Government Code section 65962.5, The proposed ALUCP would not affect the incidence ofihazardous material safety hazards In the-area; H-.5 : Use Comps66ility Plan jAdopted April 19,2 01 F}, - ONT ALUCP�EN'i-RONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N result in hazardous emissions wlthm.one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; affect any • sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites; create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; or affect emergency response plans or the Incidence of wildland fires in the area. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans,-of which the •'environmental effects were:already adequately analyzed in their respective_certified general plan environmental documentation. :Therefore,there would be no impacts. Threshold (e): Pursuant to the State Aeronautic Act, the proposed AUjCP establishes criteria and Safety Zones by which,safety hazards relating to aircraft activity would be evaluated. The criteria are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off-airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people within the Safety Zones. The-Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario and land uses were designated in the Ontario Plan to be consistent with airport operations. The proposedALUCP further reduces risks of aircraft accident occurrence by setting policies that, consistent with,existing federal regulations, limit the height of structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airport's airspace as defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations,TERPS.and FAA.criteria.The extent of the areas where regulations apply.are illustrated in Appendix 1 The proposed ALUCP would also decrease airport-related safety hazards by limiting incompatible development within the Safety_Zones. The proposed ALUCP would result in a beneficial impact by • reducing the number of people exposed-to.airport-related safety hazards, including aircraft accidents, consistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act. Due to the reasons stated above,the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts relating to hazards and.hazardous materials, but could limit development in areas of concern. Therefore,any potential impact would be Jess than significant., MITIGATION None Required. LAIOntario International Airport Land Use CompadMity Plan(Adopted April 19,,2011) - `-- --14-19 APPENDIX tf� ONT AL"UC�P ENVIRONMENTAL R£Nl£W - � vuwexic • _ g, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - _ Pote-n lolly Potentlafly significant J Less Than - Significant Unless Mitigation i Significant AID Would the proposed project: Impact Moomarated impact ilimpli - (a) Violate any water, quality standards or. waste - _ discharge requirements? _ X (b)r Substantially deplete groundwater supplies.or interfere substantially with groundwater - __ - recharge such thatthere would-be a net deficit 'in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local - -- _ groundwater table level (e.g.,-the production - rate of pre-existing nearby:wells would--drop tp - _ alevel which would not support existing land _ -uses-.or planned-uses for which permits-have - been ggranted) ? - - - - - - (c) ,Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of-:the site or area, including through,-_-the _ _- _ _ alteration of the course of a stream or river;:in - -_X a manner which would result in substaotia4 _ erosion or siltation=on or off-situ (d) `Substantially-alter the existiogdrainage pattern - - of:<he site or area, including througfi-the - = alteration of the course of a stream or river,or -- _ _ - substantially- ncrease the rate or amount`-f i _ surface runoff in a manner which would result - _ . . in flooding on--or off-site? (e) Create or contribute runoff water which would' - - - - _ - exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide R '.substantial --additional sources of-.polluted - _ runoff? - (f} Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing_within a 1DO-year flood hazard - - - area -as mapped_on a federal Flood,Hazard ry or Flood Insurance Rate Map - -_ - ,X - - _ -.- Bounda =or other =-- _ _ - flood hazard delineation map?: - __- fh) Place within a-=100-year flood hazard area _ - - -_ structures which.would"impede, or redlect _ - _ - --X - flood flows? (I) -Expose people or structures to a sighi Cant risk of loss, injury or death Involving flooding, _ including floodmg-as a.result of failure'of_a - , - _ - levee or dam? Expose people or to-inundation-try -X - - - seiche;tsunami,ormudflow?- - - - - 'DlscussioN OF EFFECTS. . .Thresholds (a) -. .Up The proposed ALUGP does not`propose;or involve any new development, construction,or physical changes to existing land Uses or the environment,nor would it authorize new' forms of_development-that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant-jurisdiction's general plan. Rather,it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found irt.existing general "-plans. The the proposed AWCP would not violate_any water quality standards,"affect H-20 " LA%Ontano interne tiona/Aiiport Land We oompetibility Plan(Adopted Apnl f9,20f 1) '- �ONT ALUCPENVIRO NMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H - groundwater supplies; substantially alter drainage'patterns; or expose people or structures to- a • significant risk involving flooding, seiche,tsunami,or mudflow; and, as such,would not directly impact the environment or resultan any direct Impacts to hydrology and water quality. The proposed ALUCP _ would not encourage;levels of development in any.area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies'general plans, of which the environmental effects Mere already adequately analyzed in their" respective, certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. _ MITIGATION None Required. LAiOntarto International Airport Land Use CompatO ity Plan(Adapted Apol 19,2011) -_- H-21 APPENDIX 14 ONTA LfC'P ENYiRONM&tX R6fEW - rumnHc •'_ 10. LAND VSEPIANNING _ Potentially - -- - Significant - - Potentially Unless less lhon _- Significant Mitigation Signfount _ - Would the proposed pro impact Incorporated impact No Impact(a)-, Ph sicall divide an established community:?---- -- IN Conflict, with any; applicable land-use plan, - policy,.. or regulation 'of an:-'d8enq with - junsdiction over the project (iriduding, but` not - - - limited to the general .plan,.specifi[ plan,..local - X - coastal program, or zoning ordinance)-adopted for the purpose of avoiding or nilfigating-an - _ _ e _ environmental effect? _- --- (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation - -- plan or natural community conservation plan7_; DISCUSSION.OF EFFEcrs 'Thresholds (a) & (c) The proposed ALUCP does not propose or-involve any new development, -Construct on, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize'new forms of developmenrthat are`not othervriseperrtiitted by,the,reievant urisdiction's geneial-ptan. - Rather, it overlays further limitations ontop of lilanned land use-designations foundin existing genera I plans. ONT has operated as an airport since the 1920s, and the City,has tong planned;tor appropriate . • land uses surrounding ONT. :Therefore; the proposed ALUCP would not physically divide an established community or conflict Wtth any'applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community' conservation'plan, and would not directly or indirectly impart the environment or result in any direct or indirect to land use and planning.:Also,the proposed ALUCPwvould not encourage levels of �ilevelopment in any area iocated within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general-plans of-which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed.in their respective certified general plan ertvironmental documentation.- Therefore, there would be no impacts:- 7hreshoid(tr): T#te proposedf RLUCP may_require that affe4ted'agencies alter their general plans and zoning to reflect the noise and_safety restrictions set forth,in its policies - -The proposed,ALUCP is a .mitigating document that .establishes Land use measures "designed to ntinimize the publics exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards arountl the ONT. Appendix V Evaluates"potential inconsistencies between the proposed .ALUCP and:the general:plan land use designations of affected agencies and did, not identify any general plait land use tnconsistenciesT Moreover,,:state law, (Gov. Code §65302.3) requires that applicable general-plant be revised if necessary to be consistent—With—an adopted ALUCP. It is important.to note-that the ACUCP ii intended,pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect public health;safety, and welfare, tytrough the.adoption of land use measures that H-22 _LAIOri"bifamallonal Aaport Lanfillsm Compatibility Plan(AdoptedApnl 19,2011) OnONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California • Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. • t • LA/Ontado International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) '" H-23 APPENDIX W;-ONT ALUCP-ENVfROtJIAt L R Wig. - • � 1 MINERAL RESOURCES - _ --__ Potentially _ Potentfafly Significant Unless Less Than - _ -... M/Upotton significont No Would the ro sed p - INWO Jappoct _ - ;(a) Result in the-loss-.of availability of a known - - - - -_ .mineral resource.that would be'of value to the. - X - - - _ region and the residents of the state?_ (b) Result in the Joss of availability of adotally - - -_ important mineral' resource recovery site - ?' _ -- local a local gengral plan'specific plan or other land use plan? _--DISCUssION OF EFFECTS `.The proposed ALUCP does hot propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, norwould it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather,,it_overlays further ' limitations on top of planned.,land arse designations found in:existing general plans, further, no mineral resources are located Withm the,noise and safety zones potentially affected by the ALUCP: Therefore; the proposed ALUCP wouldnot cause theloss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region andthe residents o'f the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally-Important'mineral resourceTecovery site.-As such,the proposed ALUCP would not directly dr.indirectly,impact the environment'or result in any,direct or_ndirect impacts to mineral resources. ' • The proposed ALUCP would not encourage,levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence: Area (AIAf abovethose-proiected within the_affectetl agencies"general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequateiy analyied in their respective certified general plan environmental dotumentation. Therefore,there would be no,impacts.- _ - MITIGATION None:Required • H-24 WZ7ntsdo Intemafional Airport LarW Lisp Compadbility Plan(AdoptedAprif 19,20111 ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N 12. NOISE • PotentiaW Paten bllJr Significant Unless Mitigation. - Would the proposed project: L. immool _ Incorporated (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the x - - local- general :plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? - (b) Exposure of persons to or-generation of :excessive--: groundbome vibration or - x oundborne noise levels? - (c) A substantial permanent increase In ambient - - - - noise levels In the project.vicinity above levels - - x -existing without the project?- - (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in - - -ambient.noise levels in the project vicinity - - x above levels existing without the project? (e) For a project located within an airport land use - plan or, where such a. plan-'has not been - - - - adopted, within two miles of a public airport - x or public use airport,.would the project expose - people residing or working in the project area -to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private _ airstrip, would the project expose people - - x residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? - - DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS • Thresholds (b) (d) & (f): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or entail any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment,nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally,the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports(LAWA)and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes the criteria by which the public's exposure to airport-related noise would be evaluated and reduced by limiting the development of noise sensitive land uses within the 65 + d8 CNEL. Therefore,the proposed ALUCP would not result in the exposure of people to increased noise or vibration levels, and, as such, would not impact their respective environment or result in any impacts related to noise. Thresholds(a)&(e):The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that addresses land use measures to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix I evaluated potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any-general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code §65302:3) requires that applicable general plans be revised as necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - H-25 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCp ENyIRONMEN7Af REVIEW • It is important to note thaft-, ALUCP i�mterrdedlpursuant to Public Utilities Code`sectlon-21670 et seq., to protect public health, safety, anO welfare, through the adoption.of land'use measures that minimize-the public's exposure tolexcessive=noise and safety hazards; and isguided by the California Airport Land-Use Planning Handbook_ As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT:sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the paraeters Identified In m the-California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.`Therefore'any potential impacts would be less than signIfij cant" MMGATION None;Required., H-26 - LVOarano intemationa/Aimod Land Use CompaNbffity Plan(Adopted April 18,2011) ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENIAL REVIEW APPENDIX H, _ 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING - • t Potentially 1 -- Significant 1 Potentially Unless Less Than - significant Mitigation Significant No Would the proposed pro' Inmrporow hwact impact _ (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, _ - either directly (for example, by proposing new X.. homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, - _ through extension of road or other infrastructure)? ,(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement -- _ .X housing --: :(c) Displace- substantial numbers of - people, - necessitating. the construction of replacement - X housing elsewhere? -- - - DISCUSSION OF EFFECrs - Thresholds (a)- (c): The proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly induce population growth; rather, it would limit the location and distribution of residential and non-residential land uses within the Noise and Safety Zones to minimize potential noise impacts and safety-concerns. The Noise Impact Zones limits new residential development within 65 db CNEL and prohibits new residential land uses within the-70 dB CNEL noise contour. To evaluate the potential population and • housing displacement the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency, Analysis (Appendix 1) identified and evaluated potential land use inconsistencies within the Noise Impact Zones. The Noise Analysis identified one jurisdiction,the City of Ontario,to have a Low Density Residential general plan i land use designation within the 65 dB CNEL. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development would not result-in displacement of potential housing units,since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development.-, The Safety Zones identified within the proposed ALUCP are contained within the City of Ontario and Safety Analysis portion of Appendix 1. identified Low Density, Residential general plan land use designations within the safety zones. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development within that zone would not result in displacement of potential housing units, since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. Therefore, there is no impact since the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct impacts to population and housing; create the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial or public use structures thereby-necessitating the construction of replacement housing,facilities,or infrastructure inother areas. • LA70ntano Intemafional Airport Lend Use COfrfpatibilify Plan(Adapfad April 1g,2011)_ `-- --H-27 APPENDIX H ONT;ALU-Cp ENVIRONMENT?ktfWViEW • 14. PUBm SER O-S - -- - Potentially - Significant - _ potentially Unless Len Than Significant Mitigation SlgniflmM = ..�the Proposed orolect ...., .. .-.-: impact Incorporated Impact No Impact - (a)_.Result=in substantial adverse:physical Impacts - - - - _ - associated with the provision-of new--or es - " - physically altered=governmental=fadlities,need for new or physically altered.}governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause--- - ° - X - significant environmental impacts, in order to - - - maintain acceptable service-ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) -Eire protection? - - - - (ii). Police protection? � -- - - - X = (iii)--_Schools - liv)-Parks? - (v) _Otherpublicfacdnles� - - - X--- D ISCUSSION OF EFFEGTs Thresholds(a):The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any newdevehipment,construction or physical changes to.existing hand uses or the environment; nor would it authorize new forms of • development that are not otherwise permitted by the-relevant jurisdiction..% general plan. Rather, .it overlays.further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general-plans. ' 'Additional y,the proposed ALUCP does not propose anyphysical or operational changes to LA/Ontar`io International Airport(ONT) nor does the .city have any authority over operations; all authority over. ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and €ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) Therefore,=the proposed,ALUCP would not`create' a need-:for any new or `physically altered governmen€al facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or .indirect impacts related to public services. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development_in- any area-located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)-above those projected within the affected. agencies general plans, of which-the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in-their respective_certified_general plan envirorirnental documentation.,- Therefore, there would be no -impacts. MmW►noN - _ None Required. - • H-28 LA/Ontario International Abporf Land Use Compeflbilily Plan(Adopted April 18,2413) - - ONT ALUGP"ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N 15. RECREATION _ - • T Potentially _ !Prow-pr -' Significant PoteuffiV Unless Less Than Siongilmat Mitigation Significant Would the - rated impact No Impact = (a) Increase the use of existing.neighborhood.,; and regional parks or other_recreational :facilities such that substantial physical -- % - - - - deterioration of the facility would occur or - - be accelerated?- .- -(b) Does the project. include.'-recreational - - - facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational .facilities that - - - % -have an adverse_physical:effect.on the - environment? - - - - DISCUSSION of EFFECTS - - Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUGP does not propose or involve any new development, construction,or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment,nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP.would_not increase the use of existing'neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and does'not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and,as such, • would not result in any direct or.indirect impacts to recreation.'The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area(AIA)above those projected within the affected agencies general plans,of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective-certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • LA/Ontario International Airport land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) - H-29 - ` APPENDtX-- ON7-ALUCP ENVIAONMEtiTAL REy1Ew � - - • 16. TRANSPORTATION�TRAFFIC - - - .- . . - Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than - - Mitigation signif wnt No _ ouId the proposed project: ;, Incowraw laww impact Conflict with an applicable.plan, ordinance-or policy - establishing measures of effectiveness for the - - - _ performance of the circulation=system, raking into - _- account all modes-of Transportation including mass _ transit- and non-motorized -travel and .,relevant _ - R - components of the-circulation::system,,in but _ - not=-limited to intersections, streets, highways and - - - freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and macs - - transit? - (b), Conflict with ary applicable congestion management- program, including,:but not limited to,-level of-service standards and travel demand measures;".or other -- _`,- - standards-.established-by-the county,congestion - - - ---- '- - management agency for -designated roads or - - - - _ highways? - -- (c) Result in a change-in air traffic patterns, including _ - - either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?; _ hazards -i-df r - - - d Substantially increase aza ds dueto a de; eatu e _ r _ - (e:g.ssharp curves- or dangerous intersections) or - - _ incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? - (e) Result_in inadequate emergency access? ^g' - • -(f) Resultin inadequate_parking capacity? - _ X -(g) Conflict with adopted policies,;plans, or programs -'_- - .regarding 'public, transit 'bicycle, 'or :pedestrian - - - facilities, or otherwise-decrease`the performance or - safety of such facilities? - - -_ - _ DISCUSSION-OF EFFECTS -Thresholds (a) - (g) The-propose d ALI CP does not propose or-involve-any new development; construction,or physical changes to existing land uses pr the environment,nor would it authorize new forms of development that-are not otherwise permitted by the relevant)urisdiction=s,generai plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land L use designationsIoond in-existing general - plans_ Additionally, the ALUCP does not propose`any physical or operational changes to LA/Sniarip International Airport (ONT) nor does the_City have any authority over operations;all authority over ONT rests,-with Los Angeles World Airports (lAWA) and Federal Aviation Admini$tration_-(FAA). Therefore,-the proposed ALUCP:would not: (a) conflict with awapplicabie plan,ordinance of policy. establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all-modes of transportation including mass transit; (0)'conflict with an applicable congestion management program, Including, but not limited to; level of service standards-and_travel demand measures, or other standards established by, the county congestion ':management agency' for designated roads orhighways;_(c) result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either An increase in traffielevels or a-change in location that results in substantiate safety risks; (d) increase hazards due _ ".to a design feature {e.g„ sharp;curves or dangerous::intersectipns) or incompatible vises (eg.,;farrit F1 40 . LNOntarlo Interns 6-onal.Aimort Land Use Compatibility Plen fAdi ptadllpol 19,20 1.1) rowm- - DNT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H equipment);(e)result in inadequate emergency access; (f) result in inadequate parking capacity or, (g) • conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public-transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the proposed - ; '- ALUCP would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to transportation or traffic. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of:development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies'-general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately-analyzed in their respective certified general plan, environmental documentation. Sherefore,_there would be no impacts. , MITIGATION - - - - - None Required. LAIOntado Infemational Airport Land Use-Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,ml i .-H-31 - - ENYIRONM APPE NOI% H ONT ALUCP ENTAL--REVI W VLViNNG . . __ . . • _ 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS _ - Potentially. - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than - - Significant Mitigation Significant No uld the proposed project: rated Impact I _ (a)_Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the - - - _- applicableRegional Water Quality Control Board? _ _ -x - (b), Require or result in.the construction of new-water or - - wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of - _ - - existing facilities,-the construction of which could _ - - - cause-significantenvironmental-effects? - (c) Require or result.in the construction of,new-storm - water-drainage facilities or expansion of;gxi;ling - _ R - facilities, the construction-of:-which .could cause -_ significant environmental effects? - (d) Have sufficient-water,supplies available to serve the - _ - project.from existing entitlements and resources, or - are new or expanded entitlements needed?In making - - this determination,,the City shall consider whether the X _ _- project is subject<to the water Supply assessment - requirements of Water Code Section 10910,1 et. Seq. - -(5B 610), and th'e":requirements of Government Code - Section 664137(58.221). _ - (e) -Result in a determination._by the wastewater - - - - - treatment provider; which serves or may'serve the - - -_ project, that .has adequate,capacity Yo serve the -.X .project's projected demand.-in addition'to • - provider's existing commitments?. (f) Be served by a .landfill with sufficient permitted rapacity, to accommodate the`project's solid waste _ 1( disposal needs? _ -(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and . - `-x .- r ulations related to solid.waste? e ed -- -'DISCUSSION-OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - jg): The proposed ALUCP does Rot propose or involve any new development, construction, or physicatchanges toexisting land usesar the environment, nor would it authorize new _ forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather,it overlays further limitations on top_of planned land use designations found in existing general plans., Therefore,the proposed'ALLICP would not result in the construction of new wastewater or- tormwater facilities, and would -not require additional water`supplies,'or wastewater or landfill capacity, and .'as such, would not result in any director indirect Impacts to-utilities ano service systems._The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located yllthin the Airport Influence Area(AIA)above those -ojectedwithin the affected-agencies general plans, of which the`environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in-their respective certified general planenvironmental documentation Therefore,there would be no impacts. MmYmrr�llnoY None Required , • _ - H-412 4A(Ontarb InternetionalAirportLand Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,201:1) - ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N 1$. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - Would the proposed project: (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially _ reduce the habitat or afish or wildlife species, - cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below -self-sustaining .levels, threaten to x.;- eliminate a plant or animal community,.reduce - the number or restrict the range of a rare or _ endangered plant or animal or eliminate _ important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?:: (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term. environmental goals to the - - X - disadvantage of long-term environmental. - - goals? - (c) Does the project have impacts that are _ individually limited, but cumulatively - - considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project X are considerable when viewed in connection - - -with the effects of past projects,the effects of _ other current project, and the effects of - -• probable future projects.) (d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings,either directly or indirectly? - - DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS - - - Thresholds(a):The proposed ALUCP does not propose or in any new development,construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on-top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally,the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife - population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable;_or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the AIA`above those projected for these areas in the local • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility (Adopted April.19,2011) - _H-33 APPENDIX N_ _OKT 9t Lk ENV IRONMEN,-T At REy1Ew • agencies respective- general plans of which-She envlronmerrtal_ef icts were already adequately. analyzed in the certifed,generaf-plan environmental documentation. Nothing in>.the,proposed ALUCP wouldsesult in indirect impacts-such as the construction of housing, development of,othet-types of iand uses„or the expansion of any infrastructure that Would require an analysis of potentially significant Impacts o wildlife, their'habitats,importanI examples of Ca#i#ornia history; or-human beings. In-addition, tl±e proposed ALUCP would not result`in the displacement of existing residential dwelling<units,- commercial, industrial, or. public” use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure#n other areas, , Which may result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife,their habitats, important examples of - California history,or human beings. Therefore,there would be no impacts. Thresholds (b) -(d): The proposed ALUCP regulates.Nture incompatible land uses specific to noise, airspace protection; safety and overflights impacts around INT. Moreover, because the proposed ._ALUCP is regulatory,in nature and will mot-result in any new development, construction, or physics I changes to:existing land uses or the environment,it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Indeed,-the proposed ALUCP serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid - certain noise and-safety impacts that might otherwise be cumulatively significant:=Therefore, any potential impact would be less than significant. • Mm�ri nori None Required. H 4 L;4 b ter141nternation9l Airport Land Use Canpedi ility Plan(Adopted April 19,20t f) W - - ONT ALUCP'ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H REFERENCE MATERIALS • The following reference materials are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15150; 1. -State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics,California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,(Last updated January 2002) 2. Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for_LA/Ontario International Airport 3. California State Aeronautics Act, Pub. Util.Code, §§ 21001 et seq. 4. Ontario General Plan Final EIR/Master Environmental Assessment - - 5. City of Ontario General Plan (The Ontario Plan) adopted January 2010 6. General Plan of the following cities: Fontana,Montclair, Upland,Rancho Cucamonga and Chino. 7. The General Plan of the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. `- All documents listed above are on file, and are available for public review, with the City of Ontario Planning Department,200 N.Cherry.Avenue,Ontario,California 91764,(909)395-2036. • • LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use.Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apnl 19,2011) - --H-35 r Al All I APPENDIX.I LArOnfario Wernahona! Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan LANNING _ &NIMI� APPEN DIX I ING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (GP Consistency Analysis) evaluates the potential for conflict with existing general plan land use designations that may result from implementing the proposed compatibility policies and criteria of the LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) within the Airport Influence Area (AIA). All four compatibility factors (overflight, airspace protection,noise, safety) were evaluated as part of the GP Consistency Analysis. A series of maps were created as part of the analysis evaluating potential general plan land use inconsistencies with the proposed Compatibility Plan. Overflight Analysis Summary: None of ONTs overflight policies,regulate the use or development of land but they do include provisions for real estate disclosure and/or overflight notification,consistent with state law. Airspace Protection Analysis Summary:Federal Aviation Administration ,(FAA) FAR;Part 77 airspace protection regulations were designed to ensure that structures and other uses do not cause hazards to aircraft in flight within the vicinity an airport. Hazards to flight include physical obstructions to the navigable airspace, wildlife hazards, particularly bird strikes, and land use characteristics that create visual or electronic interference'with aircraft navigation or communication. The policies that protect airspace protection surfaces implement existing federal and state law. • Therefore, the Compatibility Plan addresses the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 77 notification requirements,as well as the obstruction criteria identified in Part 77 and the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures. These policies don't displace future development and/or land uses. Figure 18 illustrates the extent,of airspace protection surfaces for ONT. Noise Analysis Summary:The noise policies restrict the development of future noise-sensitive land uses within areas exposed to 65+dB CNEL. Under the proposed Compatibility Plan,most noise-sensitive land uses, including low density residential land uses(less than 8 du/ac), would not be compatible within the 65+CNEL noise contours and,therefore,could have the potential to be displaced in areas surrounding ONT that are exposed to 65r+ dB CNEL. Noise Analysis Figures I 1 - 17 represent those areas where general plan land use designations could be considered incompatible and future land uses could be potentially prohibited and displaced to areas outside of the impact area.` Potential displacement was evaluated for residential and mixed-use general plan,land use designations within the City of Ontario. Parcels that are contained within or traversed by the 65+ dB CNEL were evaluated for potential displacement. Within,the City of Ontario, the analysis identified four areas labeled (A- D) where the 65+db CNEL had a potential for displacement(Figure 42). Area A contains the Guasti and Multi-Modal Mixed Use Land Use Designations that allow multi- family residential uses with a density range of 25-65 du/ac and 20-80 du/ac respectively. The 65 dB CNEL contour traverses portions of the Guasti and Multi-Modal Mixed Use areas as • LA/Ontano Intemetional Airport Land Use Compatifillity Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - 1—1 APPENDIX f GENERAL KLAN C0NSt$TENCKREVLF-W - _ ru++xinc _ illustrated in Figure 1 3 :However,3hese Mixed Use areas can be developed by keeping the residential components nutAf the 65t d,6 CNEL-or may developwithin by meeting the following requirementsr(I)the.residentia1 development is morethan 8 dwelling units per acre(PolicyN1) (2) 45 dB interior noise< levels are-attained (Policy N4) and; (3t an'avigation•easement Is _ dedicated to the Airport owner(Policy S03). There-is no displacement of potential housing units within Area A-_,since development-may still occur by implementing the Pol-Icies,within the Compatibility Plan. Area,B contains sensitive land`use'designations (e.g., Low and Medium Density Residential) W ithin the 65 d8 CNEi contour that have already been developed. Since these=land uses exist, ° the Co mpatibility Plan will not cause displacement in Area'B as illustrated in Figure 14. - Area C contains portions of the East Holt Mixed Use area that allows multi-family residential land uses with>a density range of 14-40 du/ac.(Figure 15). East Holt Mixed Use area can also beldeveloped by keeping the residential components out of the 65+ dB CNEL or developing - within by meeting the following requirements:4) the residential development:is more than,8 dwelling units per acre(PohcgNl); (2')45 dB interior noise levels are attained(Policy N4)and-(3) an avigation easement is dedicated:to the Airport owner(Policy SPl) There is fio displacement of potential housing units within Area C since development may still`nccur by implementing the Policies within the.Compatibil'rty Plan Area D contains blocks of low densityresidential uses (2- 5 du/ac) that have already been • - developed Since these areas hive--been -developed the Compatibility Plan-.will,not cause ¢isplacemenYin-Area 0(Figure(6). This area does contain vacant parcels scattered throughout that are considered infill-and would be allowed to develop with a residential use as long as 45 d8 interior noise level is, attained (Policy N4) and an avigation easement is`dedicated;to the Airport owner(Policy SPS).Thereforethere is no housing displacement within Area D _ The 65 dB CNEL noise contours also affect portions of the City of Fontana and unincorporated parts of San Bernardino County. The areas affecting Fontana and San Bernardincir County contain industrial general plan ustclesignatiotxfwfiich are consistent with the Compatibility-Plan. Also;it is important to note that the majorityof3hese affected areas are developed-and the Compatibility Plan-does not apply- to existing larid'uses(Figure l 7). Safety Analysis Sumrtiary - five safety_Jzones around ONi would affect both the intensity of development(i.e., number of.peopie allowed per acre of land) and total permissible floor area of any future building developed.•The-five7 safety-zones are based on criteria established by,the California Department: of Transportation (Caltrans), as-described in the California Airport_Land"Use Handbook (January 2002), and intended'to reduce riskito persons and property on the ground and in the air;The safety portion of this a_riialysisis illustrated-in-Figures 19-J 11 The objective of the Safety Analysis-is to identify the Compatibility Pian's.potential ta.clislilace-future- within residential development .the reconfigured Safety-hones. The policies;and criteria_are Intended to reduce-risk-.by limiting—land uses and concentrations of people within the imme8iate vicinity of ONT. The' 1-2 '- LA/Ontarid Intemat ono!Airyort Land Use CnrnpeBb##Y-Plan(Adopted Apol 19,201 1) n,veww GENERAL GENERAL REVIEW -APPENDIX 1 - Safety Zones Identified within the proposed Compatibility Plan reconfigures'and updates existing Safety • Zones to be consistent with the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; The reconfigured Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario. ._The Safety Analysis identified Low Density Residential general plan land use designations within the Safety,Zones; however, those areas have already been developed and, as existing uses, are not subject to the Compatibility Plan. Since the Compatibility Plan does not apply to existing land uses and only applies to future development, the reconfiguration of the Safety Zones will not result in the displacement of existing or future housing units. Consistent with state law the Compatibility Plan also restricts land,uses such as schools within the safety zones. The GP Consistency Analysis identified the location of existing schools,and found that there were no public schools currently located within the.proposed safety zones: G Date Sources The GP Consistency`Analysis was a Geographic Information System {GIS) based study, utilizing-GIS data sets of general plan land use designations and Compatibility Plan policies and criteria to establish thresholds for the analysis.The GIS data utilized for the analysis was acquired from the cities of Ontario, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, counties of San Bernardino and Riverside, and Mead & Hunt,Inc. - LArOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apol 18,2011) - 1-3 ; APPENGIXI GtNeAALPLAN CONSISFENCYREC+IEW - - Th/s page yns ieJt fnfentionally blank, • I-d WOnte(io infemationa/AirypR Land Use Gompabbility-Pkn(Adopted April 18,20a 1I _ T N T • yy� q C C J J J Y C z z z ter'• W aim K R O Y D 4 Y L U m m m L m C v w ¢ z $( � 0 000 W r I I ii p C m v y i L W R O 2 u «©�� (,l d_ ....r,v.. ,., ; m n J m o O cri a o - A i.. y C 3 c LL oiwx > u 1 at+ N O [)� ��I O RS, C Q C o > MO C � q C r.o ws C C C Y]°aO E9 ]i F rNOnw v. br..v sn R -•vqp - o J C N q C m ..wtlwc YLN• 1 r' :.y tlaa.eJ 3 � a C - C 3 m]n>n tloN,aY � e gip," k •,M j � O m O e •rn , ,NC•e ..ow m m� m yr•uNtlN as ] wa Yn.o-u v Wv N O �Cbb www"' � • tl,]. ]a,a i v .rm.v �� � b � W� a,� � � W o a E • W W 1D - T � L sY �r YS x/ 1 Z B ft Rt m I -aa0 m m°- I e C C N ..«©'I CL p Sq O q O V S O II 'e u V oN c� p 12 o N v 2 - W • � x en.o s� dd � ..� a g - 1O q a, y - 3 � w uuuln K -K. N.O - I Hill C N II 61 IR a 0.m` _ = Wls.e ��n k rc e ro C m 6 yy sj _ _ Y ranee. � • � w i � Z d O N C-� L » )f ! \ As- 0.r! � k { E He- ƒ - ~ R 3 $ � - § /2q KIWI | ! ! ` � ! {) !!!!I l=; ! � 3 !`= 22 2 ° �g 2 p . } ! ,\ : .G | g/ a: R■ � � ! \ k 2 \ ) \ / \ , . gg �� !l�tl � : . ! ! »,, !_ | ; � � J ; _ f es !« ; TI � ��/ � k ) ��� `� ` � ' ! § _ f w \ ) m D| , w w 2 a � 3 : ƒ � MI:or \ ) 0 M2 E 75 � \ \ | ! « \ { ! § { ) ) E ! \ � ® ) fB � � k � 7 ! « ( 0 ! - - % w > ƒ �| c NVNI13H _ _ • r A6 - N eOe c a ' &C IIE 11 3 Q m Q 3 = OEM 1 z ° Ar- C H .2 E � � C m" c 6 G 3 H • 4 t L a n $ o .2 C ° G q p E o • � ♦ 1 d O m • • IS C m N m O � C d p N q O p C O I d j 3 O 3 � o W � N ti •1 N ' �. • N O _ . O W Z r J \ N Q � •,•G ..p ..p' p. d J W m m 1 cf C A x_ - C Ym$ •u $SooOYCOE LL0 E m i Q Y 7 ¢ m Y3o mgs. m OT Nd y L � d 2 O Bi- cd- N C H . W d N Z Z Z D D D a �_ VpNp dSm��D9p O� � UC ` N BOB ]06m2 Ytg nU u a % N Ri Oil m z Z c Q J C W L a q J � m C O n C II O` E N u W d � C q N a m y � V 'O A E M a N v a N WIN �_Njj Y c w d _ « e JL h «p L Q w Y C � A E N a t v c w 2 MR YK d d = a U d m d a E m � W J L 11 tY' ®a tm ma 1 + yy Q A N d d� A N O O d WV E E C AD O G So\ m m d N J LL A p • 1 £ 4 3 N C.q 2 2 Z CII .. LLF N T+ C a O *i q Y N m g Sj— all ? N a gI o�owNa a =w E 3•:•H OH O u. s « O j - IAV „ m ` - e - _ - 31NON 'P O. R.R. P R .. V e _ - 1MV6V3.ltl � - 7 1 N � NV1106 m 2 .0 O q 9 t 2 N G - _ 1a1y o N L 0..O - � N Y W_`- C ` �r's-aian J NO :O Z N 3 Ntl3d L d d ; - N - -.Z of S W11Np N r„C 'J tt aY0 <f 11a3G3 � C O Q m -- _ W Olx R; a � �ROWM03 - O u V - 2 }}II . . W C• ._ yIYE`ORrVNV1;Vl<P714< � � � q = q d O _ a.,o �a - - op'. 3'HNVa j m0 -> O ; f£ 2 � - ! ■ . �( � § \ \ \ } } � ; « z : z ! { ■ # ! { J0uu ee § \ § 0 ® m ) 000 - \ � m ! ' 2 � � - ! cm � } ! f � .. . ! | ƒ _ CL - - . ! /\ 13: \\� § } $ ! \ - k ! ! § - _ { wi ) ! ! | f - § % $ 3"Mma cc } Olt ( _ | � k � « ; � ) { £ _ T 46E \ A/410 • 1 A N y. F - G A E N #o -a all L a - 4 alba uPoaaaal ' m[-� A � v f i py N �•. 9 S a�r°n a �_ � L y.�A C _ sBnG p .pWaure a A 4 u j rosovnoea LL � w - N O'N 2 L.' G t N...O _ �wfy daa ss3Wn n�� � t 33vrao ..ew Innrrx'J1a00 A m m r�wnnx oa+nn u d W_A � L _ S tlwaxn 1 awnlWt d � A — _ Nolrxv weonrv�o � 3 d sna�svl Z _ unwne 3 $ rxavn 3s' � T1- � Q - � - y.�g oultiry W y l Q .� >< caw»{ { £ °y. w•aa ONO�ur. 4 Iss � xu� N iV �u .r� tl.- ---:L • G m O A'L �F - t m 3 • - S y y K m odm ;L' c 3 M w O w v - c � ` 0 a� O v� � O. .N d 0 w Z JbNfI1L DOUR QI I / � V u Y! — f !/ 8 L OM O o O C N CL V d y W ` V C � j �OAM•uv N d q c Q fYLfi Q O N Y G OtlYl9rvn On�3MN QJ Y C G a 9 G 3 o L U 3 ' o 0 a y c m a vo d w 'Oe Lv_ m d d LL • • m m C i � h F 2 N c ye M Ltold y J � _ � E 222_. � �� ��� � • LL � � � A �� =0 Q LL 1 41 cm oo R q o Q y . ©11 ° i g N 3'y d NVNviins R m d m y X. W m zo IL O N — d A O C _ m C � • d n m v N d � N m C m C O ; — C C N q Q ii m 1 IL Ol c W C > m, N c z Q c o e'- 0' < L W q M m.0 W N W - O N ' CL t A W c-50 n Y R N E — U N Y u o a D E a it a Ati � 9. � wYe a � a O YY YIIiY ..� /r y W U c •— a L M>TLOn o O 'O - Z C bn i 3 S Ti p /s YYMY Y N4�YP W W W = D c�i c�i C Y C C 2 c� = m u 0 - N O i o E m O.d C C = • J N N Gy tl . YI u d U Q YYY i u a' c3 m �N it aN M 0 YYJ MMT.G G MM G "M C Em p j N a E 3 F o N.+DJYW W Y = i � 2 M O C S •v �,M y G CIG" M i C G YrYYU C m { !■{ W Y+ . �i ` G G M G i � � � I•. MYYrYlYO �� . � � � � � y A Ct e K AYYLY�WM d G Ml Ylgl-/M LL 9 1 I "IYIYY�IYI1 �+ o F I o 0 - �5 :8 _ ~ LL Z $ . o l oc i ooap 000 o f a � xM f Y 72 E «,« - � w�wl i �_ � � £ 31'IU x9e1vTJ uw i � AWn fYj �� L s Y #bl #fn xb `a YwNI.p «WCM - yy S uYl 3ua q ?a 6 3«o3fn wfw ""a .mx y wbMV.u3 pr wnu� -� S {pMb n1 LV � � $ ' N13billl • y y J 10I N _ 3 «iY]O yn19 - y' Y, •.wnoM � 3p y wc�� y� 1—n N J«fn>n§ x b« T ax+On anv+ -E IYMti AS' V brywl ro �� Fx § pn.A g awnfiN _L `q y'S mi�X3N NMUO� n>«m. 5� 3«m.tl3«Mn E � Y! « O O q YK v6X . �VI 1 1 'Z J Ea,f1D X an3Xe iy _t y X iS a— G < NOW ` � - -APPEND/f: ORT-PLANNING liicFi jERRAIN ZONE EXISTING.AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Infroduction Federal Aviation'Adtninistration (FAA) FAR Part 77 airspace protection regulauons'were designed to ensure that structures and other uses do not cause hazards to aircraft in flight within the vicinity, an airport.: Hazards_to flight include physical obstructions to the navigable airspace; wildfi€e hazards, particularly: bird stripes, and laird.use•characteristics that create,visual' or electronic interference- with'aircraft, navigation or,communication. Typically, proposed..sttuctures.:that penetrate FAR.-Part -77, Subpart B are` considered an airspace obstruction and 'requite an , aeronautical review by the FAA. However, FAR Fart 77,: Subpart B, Section 7715 of-the-. regulations also stipulate that `FAA review is nox required for new structures that would penetrate , the airport's airspace surfaces if the'proposed structure would be shielded by existing structures of- - a permanent and :substantial'charectec o€ equal or greater height :or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be-located in the congested area-of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the strwautre so shielded will not-adversely affect safety in air navigation." High Terrain Zone Study Area Setting • The underlying topography of an airport's airspace imaginary surfaces can play a stgmficari factor in determining the allowable height of a structure. Allowable heights nordh of ONT are reduced due to the rising terrain sloping:upwards-towards the San Gabriel Mountains and-,in somp areas the natural.terrain piercer°the imaginary surfaces. Tlie rising:terrain area north of ONT,.-referred . to as-the High Terrain Zone within thisstudy, is confined to portions of Upland, Ontario:and Rancho Cucamonga. Tire High Terrain Zone study,area is high y developed with a combinadon o€. residential; industrial and commercial land uses with a limited-number of vacant.paicels scattered_'' throughout that could:accommodate infill develapmerit. MethOdOlow This study utilized GIS methods and field surveys to identify existing obstructions within.the,High = Terrain Zone study`area. GIS 3D Analyst modeling techniques were utilized to calculate;the allowable heights by taking the underlying ground elevation and comparing it to the elevation of the controlling portions of'tlte FAR Part.77, TERPS, and OEI surfaces. The GIS 3D Analyst produced a2-dimensional color-banded map with=each color band representing a range of=the distance, measured in veitical feet, between the ground and overlying surface. The map illustrat ur es the allowable height range of a structure. Tlie'color'coded bands"are typically divided at 30 or 20 foot intervals as shown in Figure f-1': The areas north of ONT resulted- a series of concentric like elliptical shapes,with the inner-most elliptical shapes having allowable heights:o£less that 30 LA/Ontario Intemabonal ALparfLend Use CompaHbiW Wan(Adopted April 19,20f 1) APPENDIX J. HIGH TERRAIN ZONE& EXISTING AIRSPACE.OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY M feet. The outer-most elliptical shapes have allowable heights of up to 120 feet. The 70 foot color- • coded concentric elliptical shape was digitized itito a shapefile and is identified as the High Terrain Zone and the project study area. A windshield reconnaissance survey was conducted establishing that trees and Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles are the tallest objects in the vicinity. SCE was contacted for GIS pole height and location data but they did not have that data available. However, SCE did indicate that pole heights vary and SCE poles north of the airport varied in size,with some poles reaching heights greater than 80 feet. Since $CE pole data was not available, the City of Ontario conducted a sample survey of existing SCE pole heights within the High Terrain Zone study area. There were a total of 28 poles examined by City of Ontario surveyors. The City surveyors recorded an elevation height at the top and base of each pole to determine each SCE pole height. Figure J1 identifies the locations of he SCE poles surveyed and displays the allowable heights within the High.Terrain Zone study area. The sample survey of SCE.poles are cataloged on pages J9 -J17, showing a detail of the pole location and pole data. Figure,J2 displays the entire study area and shows the location of each pole with the associated pole height labeled above its location. Figure J2 also demonstrates how existing SCE poles have heights of up to 70 feet within areas of allowable heights of less than 30 feet. An important note to make regarding the High Terrain Zone study area is that the outermo concentric elliptical shape allows for heights of up to 70 feet and the inner most elliptical shape • allows heights that are significantly reduced and,in some areas,less thin,0 feet.The diagram below illustrates the rising terrain, the Part 77 imaginary airspace protection surfaces, and existing obstructions imaginary hoe. High Terrain Zone Cross Section of Existing Obstructions Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces 70' _Lxis�Obstruction Imaginary Line Existing Rising 70' Terrain 70' This survey also focused on locating concentrations of trees that pierce the imaginary surfaces. Figures J3 and J4 show the tree locations within the public right-of-way in conjunction with the associated height range. Figures J3 and J4 reflect street tree information for the City of Ontario. The City of Rancho Cucamonga did not have GIS data available for street trees within the public J-2 - LMOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apr#19,2011) • On v�aHnir� HIGH TERRAIN ZONE.&E ISTIN6 AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTAONS STVOV'AFPEND A J - • right of-way but did pi6vide their "Street Tree 3jesignations=per Stress' document This study reLed on City street tree docuitents,-SCE pole data'and recotinaissance information to doctfi tent _.existing airspace obstructions urithur the High Terra—Zone study area.The s4sting condid6ns`and obstructions docutttted within rite sturly.azea concentrated'around tajar streets focusittg on streef trees, SCE Pales and any other obstructions `can be found on pages Jls'-J32 Street_Tree information for the City. a€Rancho Cucat3i6nga can be found on pagesJ33 J36 Findings/Recommendations The City of Ontan6 'conducted`this stud yto.docutnent e3asting obstructions and help establish a - threshold for new construction within the High TetrJitt Zone stud area. Based on evidence provided in this study,it is recommended that-a threshold of 70 feet be established within the- Terrain Zone study area for new construction due to the height of existing—obstructions, which is _ Consistent with FAR Part 77, Subpart B,zSection 77.15. Therefore, a proposed-structure-a€Sip to 70 feet in height (subject to local agency zoning limits) within the High Terrain Zone Study Area should be exempt from FAA-aeronautical reviews. •` LAArontado Intemallonal Airport Land Use Compaubility Plan(Adopted Apm 19,;2011) J_ 3 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE�B EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY ONTARI G - - • This page.was!eft intentionally blank.' J_4 LAIOntsdo Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,201 1) • • i s o m a ,�._ n� � a .E � �' s x � .€ s° 8 � ; � R R 8- R o V� - y J jE v N W C a C� 0 r z r t • i �a. q` ` � � R DOE 9 A 9 p m 1110 Q a 1101 R bb � d $$ i o K ° JL_1O1 a a • m m � � v � 8 C1 � • 0E` ( � [ � \/\ HID � . ' �� � � m2 ■ # . ! I§/§ � - - ! m ■ ■ ■ : a //\/ : §) / ■ � . � . \ ■! zz , ! • £ , ` ! | ! ! !! ' � � � \ � � ! {:� @ : ! � > � |! ! . , | ! • ! � � � . � . | . / ! � ; l , ■!; ! ! ! � . . J A. A I : I K f � A f pr� • �l Jf ..5 !�q t ;'1 • �i e rk # 1.-� _ f # Y f Y . • - fl.`. ti to It a Ott f yYi r 'JR •� f• rfRJR Al • , • o t t • A P - Y. Y _ � 6 1Yt VUa 1 u � a f r lR♦t ` :f t:f f.� • • M M _ #rIf Rli.� )•_ _ _ . . � � � ■ $ ° § . DOE � � k ■ ■ ■ � - - ■ /\\l■ . � . . � - | [ ^ ®00/ . �. . � � | � ; !l = . � i ■ !¥ . � . � . � . . _ . {� I - . l � - � | • . � . � . P�■ t it • . t.# _�_rr HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Pole ID I Pole# 748823E Pole 53.10 ft Height a� 0 Base 4 ►°��► ►� '� - Pole ID Pole# 748842 Pole 44.63 ft Height Pole 1148.46 Top MSL 1103.83 Base Pole ID 3 Pole# 4387034E Pole 70.07 ft V � Height Pole 1210.42 Top MSL 1140.35 Base LAlOntario APPENDIX i HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Pole ID 4 � Pole# 87051 1 Pole 68.93 ft i; Pole 1155.20 ..1086.27 Base . d__ Pole 10 5 Pole# 1683056E ... 'T-T r- - --n•T t. :ate. . r -! � ■i. 1 hh I II ' ,}}i � ! Pole 61.23 ft K` Height Pole 1086.77 Top ' r� x'91 1 ,� � � a� '~M ¢■,' � ".''.� rt� �� 1025.54 Base E MO Pole 34.19 ft 6 Height Pole 1069.04 Top yy K� JJ�1 - � �� iK r• .L r 4 �.• r 71,i 111 •.�'a. r� MSL 1034.85 - J- 10 LAlonfarjo Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted AP61 19,2011) ONAMPW,KAN� HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J TAMQ--�- Pole OF 1986184E Pole 63.38 ft 6TH T Height Pole 1194.70 Top MSL 1131.32 Base Pole ID 8 Pole# 4310171E Pole 48.44 ft Height a,.. w� IR ..� Pole 1206.83 Base 125 220 500 1 . . ID ° THfSTiq Pole# 1138368E Pole 43.13 ft Height Pole 1202.98 Top MSL 1159.85 Base LAlOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) OBSTRUCTIONS . 1 ' APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN 70NE EXISTING AIRSPACE Pole Y 10 Pole# 1527073E Pole 56.26 ft Height Pole 1145.28:RbJ 4 . 4�'•� .-�~ ' •tom t Y2 -I v - � 1 •. MSL 1089.02 Base � I \ v Notes Pole ID Pole# 1240442E Pole 47.83 ft Height Role 1119.37 Top Pole ID 12 Pole# 987288E Pole 37.44 ft Height Pole 1085.16 Top MSL 1047.72 Base J—12 LAlOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) ihn„1 emu' 1 � �.{ y •i�L�l•L1 rt � �. r° 19 N r M a ONTAWHIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRU.CTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Pole ID 13 Pole 38.84 ft Height Pole 1062.76 Top MSL 1023.92 Base Pole ID 14 ISIS l � [ s e �• s _ � r. , 7 • ZS _ •1111 r.r• ��, e.._ 1_ _ iif _ ''®� 18 Pole 38.71 ft w•!1 a• � i .. w e 1 ll ..a_ q•/jJ!` .`.,'4s u, � a ■ r. r al[I G�Df:LTs 1094.89 Top 1056.18 Base Sic Pole ID 15 1 • Pole# 309726E Pole 69.42 ft Height Pole 1165.93 Top MSL 1096.51 Base LA,10ntanci Intemational Airport Land Uw Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) J-13 ' 1 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Pole ID Pole 37.87 ft Height Pole 1164.81 Top MSL 11!4 Base .� �, F .. .. t • Ss d.. _ r tr " 1 - � � ,� L���'Yj,,.' a ti37 LI ]• I�a :lY s`4U�'I�� A� r y • '� i Notes Pole ID Pole# 4270031E Pole 67.50 ft Height Pole 1157.08 Top E 1089.58 Base Pole ID 18 Pole# 4439574E Pole 71.78 ft Height Pole 1108.87 Top IMSL 1037.09 Base r y :�:73;Jeiofl ar� 125 no r 04_ry�ppp'ipi,.pnpl� HIGH TERRAIN ZONE d EXISTING AIRSPACE 06STRUCTIONS STUDY -APPENDIX J • Pole ID 19 i Pole# 4568409E Y a Pole 64.68 ft 19 Height w s Pole 1122.78 Top MSL 1058.10 Base - N Notes: B 145 150 500 - - Pole ID 20 N Pole# 452282E L s , ��.-------------------------->r------- Pole 46.00 ft --- - Height • o < p Pole 1124.13 Top oEERBR m 1 MSL 1078.13 Base K ME a Notes- 0 400 400 BDO - - Pole ID 21 •R Pole# 4168379E Pole 60.38 ft 1.-.- 21 Height Pole 1084.82 Top MSL 1024.44 Base Notes: • - LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) - - - J-15 - APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 3.EXISTING AIRSPACE.OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY OAippp(tT RIO-- . — • tTy" Pole# 4072044E z w Pole 64.92 ft z w Height F Pole 1134.83 Top MSL 1069.91 Base Notes: - sFee D 750 500 1 DDD Pole ID 23 EN ERPRI E Pole# 4428319E w Pole 60.86 ft < Height 23 w Pole 1091.88 Top • R T MSL 1031.02 Base — 1 Notes. I OFe 0 1 300 b0 Pole ID 24 TRA• RK RN A N f Pole# 4024696E T� Pole 49.18 ft Height Pole 1078.32 Top TR 24 MSL 1029.14 Base Notes: r area a .so no 0 J— 18 LA10ntarlo International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) • HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 6 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J - • Pole ID 25 N Pole# 1377501E —••� Pole 58.64 ft 25 > Height Pole 1147.25 Top MSL 1088.61 Base . Notes: v eet 0 125 250 500 - - - Pole ID 26 N Pole# 4246899E r—— Pole 47.49 ft Height • `���� Pole 1114.70 Top �'• MSL 1067.21 Base Notes: FM 0 45 8 Pole ID 27 28 Pole# 4632148E 4087861E Pole 60.83 ft Height 56.75 ft Pole 1089.55 Top 27 MSL 1028.72 Base 1092.20 Top 1035.45 Base • - LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) - _ -J-17 - - - APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE r3 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Os-� F 8rcAydi6er M :j DE00 BEBB � 7 mF ; / y wcNaRN MF1OME-2 ` < —NAwrx00 d 3% 6 80 INIE.BRAE CT BONN" u a ll i f o Z y YAAZ- ' — VJIIE-Bf i YALE-S Z HARVARB.-PL--u ,i. I P - • 4 ROlBWO -Cf RBB a i or PkhiA-sBRENAIP- SERVIAar i NARnrH—� GRAN - ortAx MGM I.4� g DRAB °4 s F. y � — o Soo 1.000 z,000 • i— 18 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) O1ILVT 1TA nR1r - ,��p'rv�A 10—e HIGH TERRAIN ZONE d EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J - Looking North on Sultana Ave at E St Intersection It Locki ng East on H St on Euclid Ave Intersection Looking North on Sutiana Ave at E St Intersection Looking East on H St near Euclid Ave Intersection - - • R _ Looking East on 4th St at Columbia Ave Intersection Looking South on Su Rana Ave at Princeton St Intersection Notes: • - LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apr#19,2011) - - - - -1 —19 - WNW--- • - APPENDI% J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Looking South on Campus Ave at H Street Intersection Lacking East on 6th Street on Campus Ave Intersection Looking West on Yale St at Campus Ave Intersection Looking West on Princeton St at Campus Ave Intersection • z L. rr•� Looking East on 4th St at Campus Ave Intersection Looking East on F St at Campus Ave Intersection i • i Nods J—20 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) • O,��pOn_pLgN,y�NG HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 6 EXISTING AIRSPACE.OBSTRUCTION S STUDY APPENDIX J _ • Looking North on Campus Ave at E St Intersection Looking West on Granada Ct at Ber"Ave Intersection a 'nv Looking West on 5th St at Berlin Ave Intersection Looking South on Berlin Ave at 6th St Intersection • Looking Easton 7th St at 11th Ave Intersection Looking East on 6th St near Hope Ave Intersection Notes: • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011)_ - J—21 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY o�l�gpn�-r p��H�� • Looking East on G St at Altyn Ave Intersection looking North on Bedr Ave at E St Intersection _ Looking North on Cucamonga Ave at G St Intersection Looking North on Grove Ave at G St Inlersection • Looking East on I St at Cucamonga Ave Intersection Looking East on 4th Sl at Cucamonga Ave Intersection �s 22 LA/OWario Intemenooal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19. 2011) OIL • �� vuNwNG - H16N TERRAiN ZONE B EXIS7INO AIRSPACE ORSTRUOTIONSSTUDV APG�NI37X J - 4c 4 BTBB =.--� F-RAYNdD YY0 BT� MYNOMDb e _ _ C ` < HIGHUMCT j �X LAND CT � NWNNO 7j IAy J K ° U ' "'fYCAY RECT 51Yi111tii�BT <_ _ ALMA ET Z -CARE-CF - ° BENEY DR - P ad _,HA T tMtNE,$ _ _ r s "i X11Y/iXORNE-BT • < BpiN BRAE-BT— BONNEBRAEY--< ar- 10 3 : YA12-8 YALE ST, -mli_ m BETOW NARYA HARVARD-P, - .< v7 < ORCHARD ai GRAN _ Ll - 13 .. _ Feet • 0 500 1.000 LA10nlano Intemational Akpo ll:and Use CompalltillNy Plan{Adopted Apnl 19;2011)) NfARI9-- APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY OeiRPCFiFUNNaG • Looking East on G St at AIyn Ave Intersection Looking North on Bethm Ave at E St Intersection looking North on Cucamonga Ave at G St Imersecgon Looking North on Grove Ave at G St Intersection Looking East on I St at Cucamonga Ave Intersection P Looking Easton 4th St at Cucamonga Ave Inters ection Notes: - J.-Z4 LA/Ontario Intemationa/Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) - • O�rllpp HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX-J - • PIANNNG - Looking North on CalawraaAve at El Morado Ct tnMraection Looking North on Imperial Ave at El Morado Ct Intersection - - Looking North Glenn Ave at 6th St Intersection Looking Weston Alvarado St - - - • i 1 " Looking South on BakerAv at Olive St Intersection Looking Easton 7th Slat Baker Intersection Notes: • - LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - - J—25 APPENDIX J. HIGH TERRAIN ZONE-S EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY -0NTARI9-r z z 2 Q -7TH-B /ipY.7! AOLM� ' a ' I e 4 as le $4 y o---� EKDT I EY-Y10'� ¢SS HOME M11 NE f, 4 MULBERRY-I z y 0 -�� � —< Bd1NE-B S i5 • 67H-SFO-- e ` 'R -S AkE-aT- Atfifi-z YAL!-Sf �l PRMCET0118T- -TARI17 I ko,7 ARD - -C (NEWOOD- -1 --- w _ - a SAY-$ r� Feet o ; soo i.00D z,000 Notes J-26 LAAUntado/ntemational Airport Land Use Compatibility pan(Adopted April 19,2011) • onvur+wn� HIGH TERRAIN ZONE d EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J - - Looking East on 6th St at Baker Ave Intersec4on Looking North on Baker Ave at 4th St Intersection Looking South on Sacramento Ave at 4th St Inters ection Looking North on Vineyard Ave at Jay St Intersec5on • to Looking Easton 5th St at Vineyard Ave Intersecgon Looking Easton 6th St at Vineyard Ave Intersection - - - J y • - LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - - - J_27 - 'APPENDIX J� HIGH TERRAIN ZONE.B EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS'.STUDY awe mrs - - EDELWEIBS W * DEERBRODRef. - MEADOW' 22 - 6 - ~ O- • to 0 3 8 W a o ; g F f U sm-R—.. .. W 9 V DOL f ARSORGLEN- qfq!! EHABOWCRO DR-$ y ME a 8 TIRST IMIDERLE'kP - a DEER-CREEK-WA _ - Feet 0 - . ..500 1.,000 2,000 J-28 LA/OntwM Intematlonal Airport Land Use Compodbl fty Plan(Adbpled April 19,2011) • O�iapppr-pUHgiy� HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J - • - to Looking Weston 5th St at Vineyard Ave Intersection Looking South on Vineyard Ave at 7th St Intersection _ Looking East on 6th St at Cucamonga Canyon Wash Bridge Looking South on Archibald Ave near 7th St Intersection - • Looking East on Sth St at Archibald Ave Intersection Looking North on Archibald Ave at 4th St Intersection - - - a I Notes: • LA/Ontarto International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) --- J_29 - - APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 18 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDYp ERUCT. . FIL LM • CT ,— - - TeiYl ST--14 eT-- M 6PAV - f6R r—BTH 8 - u ?c - !o IL _. DEIPU CT Ti L-M 2S 1 1 0 Y r u bM8 • IEM11RK3T E nXRPR18E.8T � i 27 23 u - La - . �NYANPEMAREA - aYe+.IIQµR a FYI B YIa•AII IIX RF an Feet 00 00 9 d 0 875 1,750 3,5 J—30 LA10ntano Intemational Aliport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 18,2011) • OHIGH TERRAIN ZONE R EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J • Looking East on 4th St at Turner Ave Intersection Looking North on Hermosa Ave at 4th St Intersection _ Looking South on Hermosa Ave near 6th St Intersection Looking North on Haven Ave at 4th St Intersection Looking East on 4th St at Haven Ave Intersection Looking South on Haven Ave at 7th St Intersection - Notes: • tA/Ontado Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) - _ - J—31 APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE S-EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Oq_pppg}pi�ryNM-p Looking West on 6th St at Cleveland Ave Intersection i e Looking North on Cleveland Ave at 4th St Intersection • Looking North on Milliken Ave at 4th St Intersection Leokilg West on 4th St al Milliken Ave Imerseclon Y'. • rMIFLookina South on Milliken at 5th St Intersection Y AN 1. Notes. J—32 - LA/Ontarlo International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) • HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 6 EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Common London Mature r / 80 ft Height Spread: 30 ft-40 ft The J } . • below identifies - y.11 y the London Plane Tree can be found within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. information was obtained from the Sunset Western Garden Book. Rancho Cucamonga Ontario LA10ntano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) J—33 ft. c ��. _ � w � _ •`r'�1_.� IOW � \^ I� 4(i r, <a�c • 1••'��` cures sir` • • • • � y . APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY 1 1 ' Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Common We � Beauty' - • Mature 35 ft-50 ft Height 20 ft The map below identifies the streets where the P Magnolia Grandiflora be found within the City `•� �r of • Cucamonga. Tree ��� •'•Ia1I • Garden information was obtained from the Sunset Western Book. Rancho Cucamnqa t o•��' ,1 ivm P ycfn4 � .;'� _ j.{ i ��A � ��• 1 ne I�f�A. N 1 c if lfir�l��i1 � ! rE — - _..w. h ♦a . §t � i • �t•i gµ � 7 u � L.�o.n• .I k r, e � i � 1... F ���—� mil rr� � y .•ri� ✓ `--- _ .. _. { .fie .Y a J—34 LA10ntano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, I 1 Bottle HIGH TERRAIN ZONE & EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY APPENDIX J Rancho Cucamonga Street Tree Information Common Tree Botanical populneus Mature 30 It-50 ft Height Spread: found The map below identifies the streets where the Bottle Tree can be of Rancho Cucamonga. obtained from the Sunset Western GardenK ancho r .• I�i� sY� -"•� ' -..� �, �r,. Mat •`dj�ji. �a�� � �a �� _ .. aa+.i '�y .. � � - a: � � „�1 Ilei� .' •..aJ� ' _ 9 • RI& Rancho APPENDIX J HIGH TERRAIN ZONE 8, EXISTING AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS STUDY Cucamonga Street Tree Information Common Canary Pine Mature 1 :1 ft Height Range:Spread: 1 below The map the Canary Island Pine can be found within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Tree information was obtained Garden Western Book. Rancho Cucamonga ontaft OPAL,A J—36 LAlOntario Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) :-�w F .rc='^p..atw� }' � _ �.. •.III ` :