Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/12/09 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 9, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel __ Com. Mannerino __ Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 10, 1998, Adjourned Meeting IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Tentative Tract 14207, Variance 91-03, and Tree Removal Permit 91-05. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related projecL Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. Aft such opinions shaft be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 o FRANK H. AYERS & SONS (ALBERTSONS) - A request to determine if a commercial center is being operated in a manner not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies in the vicinity, and a request to consider modifying the conditions of approval for the commercial center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue - APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14038 - DANIEL - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative parcel map for the subdivision of 2.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Maple Place - APN: 0208-961-11.. Staff has prepared a. Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS - The development of an automotive training center totaling 33,000 square feet on 3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive - APN: 0229-263-40. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES - A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 0227-691-01. Related File: Variance 94-05. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Page 2 TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES - A request for extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required minimum building separation from 15 feet to 8 feet and to increase the distance for the closest visitor parking space from a dwelling unit from a maximum of t50 feet to 240 feet for a proposed 153-unit detached condominium project on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 0227-691-01. Related File: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 128,197 square foot public storage project including caretaker's unit on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-041-09. Related Files: Variance 98-02 and Preliminary Review 98-05. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VARIANCE 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to reduce the required interior side property line setback and rear property line setback to 0 feet where the Development Code requires minimum setbacks of 5 feet and 20 feet, respectively, and to . reduce the number of trees planted along exterior building walls where the Development Code requires one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view for a public storage project on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-041-09. Related files: Conditional Use Permit 98-17 and Preliminary Review 98-05. ADOPTION OF LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES - A request by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to adopt updated local environmental guidelines for the review of all development projects within the City' of Rancho Cucamonga. Vl. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. SUBDIVISION TIME EXTENSION PERIODS VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Page 3 VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an ~ 1:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee. hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 3. 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964,2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CLiCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT December 9, 1998 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad BulleL City Planner Rebecca Van Buren. Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14207, consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Related files: Tentative Tract 14207, Variance 91-03, and Tree Removal Permit 91-05. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract14207 was originally approved in May of1991. InAugustof1998, the Planning Commission granted a time extension which extends the tentative tract, variance, tree removal, and design review entitlements until May 22, 1999. No further time extensions are aftowed. Concordia Homes recently purchased the site and is proposing new house designs on the approved tract. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The northern boundary of the site adjoins Heritage Park. The site contains an abandoned vineyard and is presently undeveloped. A ravine, which was filled upstream with the development of Heritage Park, runs north/south through the property. The ravine will be filled and the master plan storm drain facilities will be installed as required by the tentative tract approval. The pre-determined alignment of Wilson Avenue and Beryl Street impacts Lots 11, 14, and 28. A variance was granted with the tentative tract to allow these particular lot configurations to vary slightly from the development standards in the Very Low Residential District. ANALYSIS: General: Concordia Homes is proposing the same collection of house plans as those recently reviewed for its project on the east side of Beryl Street (DR 98-15). The collection contains three floor plans ranging in size from 3,188 to 3,865 square feet. Each plan includes three architectural styles: French, Italian, and Santa Barbara. The proposed development has a diversified streetscape with side-on garages, straight-in garages, front entry courtyards, and porte-cocheres. Desicln Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on November 3 and 17. 1998. The Committee recommended approval with conditions. which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Action Comments from both meetings are attached (Exhibit "F"). ITEM A Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 2 Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on November 3 and 17, 1998. In response to the Committee's initial comments, the slopes on the tierof lots north and south of Mustang Road were significantly reduced and all lots were provided with a minimum 15-foot deep usable yard area between the structure and top or toe of the slope. The Committee recommends approval of the revised Grading Plan (Exhibit "B"). Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is a request to revise the architectural features of a previously approved design review application. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the time extension for the tentative tract, variance, tree removal, and design review for the project site on August 31, 1998. Habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were prepared for the project site in June of 1998 (Chambers Group). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers habitat assessment and protocol surveys valid for one year; therefore, the prior surveys are still current. The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is still valid and applicable to this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-20 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site/Grading Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Fence Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Exhibit "F" - Design Review Committee Action Comments Resolution of Approval with Conditions SA~A BARBAIL~. CONCORDIA HOlmES PLAN I R3L,NCHO CUCA/~ONGA TRACT #13951 ITALIAN ...... CONCORD IA HON~IES PLAN 2 R,A. lqCHO CUC~klVIONGA TRACT PLAN 3 R,AN(Z:FIO CUC2A_,~IONC]A TRACT #13951 ITALIAN PLAN 1 R_A/'qCHO CUCA, IvIONGA TRACT r~rm~:mm, PLAN 2 R.~au~TCHO CUC~LIV[ONGA TRACT #13951 FRENCH rn.N:co pgTS.~EL.F .... CONCORDIA HOMES pLAN 3 IL, M'qCHO CUCA/VIONOA TRACT #13951 ~__B' erl D~]I{ ITI C]~ CONCORDL~ HOIVIi!S PLAN 3 3-CAR GARAGE OPTION ]R.A_N'C}tO CUC.~kMONGA TRACT #139~1 CONCORJ)L~ ItOMES DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren November 3, 1998 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14207 consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Density Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01 Background: Tentative Tract 14207 was originally approved in May of 1991. In August of 1998, the Planning Commission granted a time extension which extends the tentative tract, variance, and design review entitlements until May 22, 1999. No further time extensions are allowed. Concordia Homes recently purchased the site and is proposing new house designs on the approved tract. The northern boundary of the site adjoins Heritage Park. The site contains an abandoned vineyard and is presently undeveloped. Design Parameters: Concordia Homes is proposing the same collection of house plans as those recently reviewed for its project on the east side of Beryl Street (Development Review 98-15). The collection contains three floor plans ranging in size from 3,188 to3,865 square feet. Each plan includes three architectural styles: French, Italian, and Santa Barbara. The proposed development has a diversified streetscape with side-on garages, straight-in garages, front entry courtyards, and porte-cocheres. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad design:;issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. No major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: On the project to the east, the Design Review Committee recommended the single story Santa Barbara elevation be modified by replacing the three small windows on the garage with a single window with shutters and by adding a low courtyard wall. Concordia will make the same revisions to this project. The design of the perimeter wall should match the perimeter wall on the project to the east to provide a consistent theme wall along Wilson Avenue. The proposed wall is tan-colored stucco on both sides with a cap. Pilasters should be required at regular intervals along Wilson Avenue and Beryl Street. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area should be provided between the back of sidewalk and any walls in corner side yard situations to breakup the massing of the walls and minimize greffiti potential. Corner side yard walls should be shifted to provide a 5-foot wide landscape area between the back of sidewalk and the w,;l~s2,,~lanning Commission policy. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-20 - CONCORDIA November 3 1998 Page 2 2. All retaining wails exposed to public view should be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Desian Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van E~uren (presented by Nancy Fong) The Committee recommended that the applicant address the issues listed below. Revised plans shall be submitted for further Committee review under Consent Calendar agenda. 1. Provide windows and roof variation to the Santa Barbara style one°story plan. 2. Use various grading techniques to reduce the very high slopes for the tiers of lots at the north and south side of the proposed Mustang Road. 3. Continue the same design theme for block walls ~nd landscaping along Wilson Avenue as the established one at the north side of Wilson Avenue, west of Amethyst Avenue. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren November 17, 1998 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14207 consisting of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Backaround: This project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on November 3, 1998. The Committee recommended the project return on a Consent Calendar basis with revisions to the roof and front elevation windows on the single story Santa Barbara plan. Staff will present revised plans at the meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design ,issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. No major issues. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments dated November 3, 1998 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren, The Committee reviewed alternative elevations of the single story Santa Barbara plan (Plan 1 ). The committee recommended approval of the project with the Santa Barbara Plan I to have two recessed multi-pane windows, without shutters, on the front elevation of each side-on garage, to provide greater distinction between the Santa Barbara and Italian styles. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-20, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14207, CONSISTING OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 19.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062-051-01. A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 98-20, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. I~. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on December 9, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Beryl Street, south of Heritage Park with a street frontage of 670 feet on Beryl Street and a lot depth of 1,300 feet, and which is presently undeveloped; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is Heritage Park, the properties to the south and west are single family residences, and the property to the east contains single family residences, a church, and vacant land; and c. The proposed project is a request to revise the architectural features of a previously approved design review application for 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of land. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 2 b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the time extension for Tentative Tract 14207, Vadance 91-03, Tree Removal Permit 91-05, and the Design Review for the project site on August 31, 1998. Habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were prepared for the project site in June of 1998 (Chambers Group), which is less than one year from this date. The Planning Commission finds the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is still valid and applicable to this project. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannincl Division 1 ) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 14207 shall apply to this project. 2) 3) The front elevation of the single story Santa Barbara elevation shall be revised to show two recessed multi-pane windows, without shutters, on each side-on garage to provide greater distinction between the Santa Barbara and Italian styles. Revisions shall be shown on construction drawings submitted for plan check. The developer shall construct the tract perimeter fences and walls pursuant to the wall plan approved by the City Planner, pdor to final occupancy. Enqineerinq Division 1) All previously adopted conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 14207, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-43, shall apply. 2) Tract Map No. 14207 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-20 - CONCORDIA HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-20 DESIGN REVIEW, BUILDING ELEVATIONS, & SITE PLAN FOR TT 14207 CONCORDIA HOMES WEST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HERITAGE PARK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Gem~eral Requirements 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. Completion Date The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District. the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and Site 1. Project NO. prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project. this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans. building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. ' All site. grading, landscape. rr gation, 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 subd vision. or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 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. 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 wa s, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments. transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control. in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct a trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a m nimum, be fenced with two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeled' logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles. such as veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official. DR 98-20 Completion Date __ / _/ / / __/ / / / / / / / Project No Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. 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 Cib' Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Yz-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet. 6 inches above grade. 9. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 10. On corner side yards, provide minimum 54oot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 12, Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. C. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans, The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods, All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gaiton or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ~. of slope area. and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq, ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy, For single family residential development. all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units. an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. DR 98-20 Completion Date / Project No D. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements. and all other applicable codes. ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance Of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s). the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may inc ude, but are not limited to: City BeaUti~cat on Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Offic al. after tract/parcel map recordation and ' prior to issuance of building permiIs, ' + 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. Grading Grading of the subject properb/shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4, The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G, General Fire Protection Conditions Mello RoDs Community Facilities Djstrict requirements shall apply to this project. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. DR 98-20 Cornl~letion Date / / / / / / SC - 8.'27/98 ; 4 Project NO. DR 98-20 Completion Date A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e,, lumber, roofing materials, etc.), Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any. will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction. evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. All roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. $13200 in Fire District fee(s). and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. **Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers. hood systems, alarms. etc.} and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC. UPC. UMC. NEC. and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR C OMP LIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device. tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3, All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. I. Windows All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. 5 CITY OF I~,ANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 9, 1998 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong. AICP. Senior Planner DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS (ALBERTSONS) - A request to determine if a commercial center is being operated in a manner not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity and a request to consider modifying the conditions of approval for the commercial center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue - APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. (Continued from September 23.1998) ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to review the proposed control and mitigation measures tt"rat the residents and Albertsons have agreed to and to modify the Director's Review Permit to add some of the measures as conditions of approval, BACKGROUND: At the September 23 public hearing. the Commission heard publ,ic input regarding the nuisance problems as a result of Albertsons' business operation and reviewed the control and mitigation measures proposed by staff. The Commission directed Scott Thayer, a representative of Albertsons, and the adjacent residents (Thompson and Davies) to work with staff in finding acceptable solutions that address the nuisance problems of noise. security. and loss of privacy. The Commission then continued the item for 60 days. Copies of the September 23. 1998. Staff Report and Minutes are attached for review as Exhibit "A." ANALYSIS: This section of the report summarizes Albertsons' responses to proposed control and mitigation measures contained in the above-mentioned staff report and the results of the meetings that staff, residents, and Mr. Thayer have had since the last hearing. A copy of the October 21. 1998, letter from Albertsons is attached as Exhibit "C." A. SummaP/of Albertsons' Responses to the Control and Mitiqation Measures Proposed in the September 23 Staff Report: Replace the existing 6-foot block wall with a 12-foot high one. The lineal distance should be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Response: According to Albertsons, the cost estimate for this mitigation is in excess of $100.000, which is not economical. However, Albertsons is proposing to install a free standing, 9-foot high wall 1 to 2 feet away from the existing block wall, using Woodcrete ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS December 9, 1998 Page 2 products. They believe this proposed mitigation would address the noise, privacy and security problems. Staff Comments: Staff believes that the proposed 9-foot wall would reduce the noise impact and provide some. level of privacy and security. This issue will be further discussed in the report. Reorient the loading dock where truck engines would be at the west side and provide a 10-foot landscape buffer along the east and south property boundaries. Response: Albertsons states that the cost of reorient ng the loading dock including the 10-foot landscape buffer would run between $75.000 and $100.000. Albertsons disagree with the mitigation because they believe it would merely shift the noise to the south and the west sides while the landscape buffer would not provide the necessary security for the residents. Staff Comments: Staff still believes that reorienting the loading dock and installing landscape buffers would be the ultimate solution in addressing the noise and privacy issues. The major factor is the cost in doing this mitigation. Based on discussions with Albertsons and the residents during the last two months, this mitigation would not be pursued any further if the wall issue is satisfactorily addressed. Install sound dampening material to the loading dock, building walls, and site boundary walls. Response: Instead of installing sound dumping material, Albertsons requests demolishing the screen wall adjacent the loading dock in order to reduce the truck movements in backing into the dock. Staff Comments: Staff does not object to the removal of the screen wall next to the loading dock to allow more maneuvering space for trucks. The proposed sound dampening material will be further discussed in this report. The following are additional control measures that should be placed as conditions of approval for the shopping center: No delivery, loading and unloading, or the use of the trash compactor between the hours of 9 p.m and 8 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 p.m. to 9 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. Response: Albertsons states that the proposed hours on weekends are too restrictive. They proposed to continue the compressed delivery schedule of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. daily. Staff Comments: The control measure of the compressed delivery schedule between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. daily should be placed as a condition of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT · DR 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS December 9, 1998 Page 3 Maintain security fences and gates at the east side of Albertsons and at the southerly drive entrance and lock the gates between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 p.m. and 9 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. Response: Albertsons agrees to continue to keep the security fence locked between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. daily. Staff Comments: The control measure of locked gates between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. should be placed as a condition of approval. Provide security personnel within the shopping center to deter unwanted loitering activities in the back of the center and to ensure early or late arrival of delivery trucks would not be let into the back. Response: Albertsons states that security personnel is not needed on site because there are no loitering activities. Staff Comments: Having security personnel on site may ensure the security gates remain locked during curfew hours; however, the property owner and Albertsons have indicated that the cost for having security personnel is not economical. d. Prohibit the queuing of delivery trucks along the east property boundary wall. Response: Albertsons again responds that the proposed new free standing, 9-foot high wall will address the privacy issue. Staff Comments: Staff believes that this control measure should be placed as a condition of approval. Albertsons should replace the windows on the rear elevation of the adjacent properties (7390 and 7380 London Avenue) with dual-glazed windows for interior noise abatement. Response: Albertsons believes that the installation of a 9-foot high wall would reduce the noise decibels to second story openings to a level within City standards. Staff Comments: As discussed later in the report, Albertsons has agreed in concept to replace the second story windows with dual glazing ones for the residence at 7390 London Avenue. According to the Davies family, Albertsons has paid their share in replacing the dual glazing windows for their home at 7380 London Avenue. Summary of the Results of Meetinas with Residents and Albertsons: Staff met with the residents and Albertsons separately on October 6 and October 10. The purpose of the meetings was to find some common ground on the types of mitigations suggested. The residents ranked the following mitigations as the most important to them: replace the existing block wall with a taller one along the east property line, reorient the loading dock with a sound- buffered screen wall and an overhead cover, replace all existing windows at the west elevation of their homes with double-glazed ones for sound attenuation, and provide a landscape buffer PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS December 9, 1998 Page 4 along the east property boundary. Albertsons proposes to install a 9-foot high freestanding wail using Woodcrete products along the east property boundary, which they believe is sufficient to meet the noise, security, and loss of privacy issues. Exhibit "B" is the October 21, 1998, letter from staff summarizing the residents' wishes and Exhibit "C" is Albertsons' response letter. Staff arranged a final meeting between the residents and Albertsons on November 17 and worked toward acceptable solutions that address the nuisance problems. At that meeting, both the residents and Albertsons worked together and cornpromised on their expectations. They agreed, in concept, on the following mitigation measures: Install a separate 9~foot high wall 1 or 2 feet away from the existing block wall and appropriate return walls at each end. Detailed plans will be provided for City Planner review and approval. The proposed Woodcrete product for the wall materials is acceptable. Staff Comment: This mitigation should be placed as a condition of approval. Remove the existing screen wall adjacent to the loading dock to provide more turning space for trucks. Staff Comment: Staff agreed with the proposal, which only requires a demolition permit from the Building and Safety Division. 3. Provide sound insulation to the enclosure walls for the trash compactor. Staff Comment: This mitigation should be placed as a condition of approval. 4. Replace second story windows (bedroom, bathroom, and stairway) for the residents located at 7390 London. Staff Comment: This mitigation should be a private agreement between the affected residents and Albertsons. At the meeting on November 17, 1998, Albertsons agreed to provide detailed plans regarding the freestanding Woodcrete wall and the sound insulation for the enclosure walls of the trash compactor. However, Albertsons informed staff that there was a delay in obtaining the information from the manufacturer of the Woodcrete products and detailed plans are not available yet. Albertsons intends tO provide them at the meeting. C. Conclusion: Staff believes that both the residents and Albertsons have worked in good faith together and made significant compromises to achieve the agreed mitigation. The above- described mitigation measures, including some of the control measures listed in Section B of the report, should reduce or alleviate the negative impacts to an acceptable level. However, staff would caution the Commission and residents that some control measures requiring human intervention may not be 100::percent effective at all times. OPTIONS FOR COMMISSION: The Planning Comm ss on after conducting a public hearing, may take one of the following actions: ' ' /I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS December 9, 1998 Page 5 Find that the Conditional Use permit is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary. B. Find the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modification to the conditions is necessary. Find the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and, therefore, revoke the permit which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was continued from the September 23 public hearing. Notice of the continued public hearing was mailed to the affected residents. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the use is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and determine that the proposed control and mitigation measures are adequate to address the nuisance problems so the shopping center will be conducted in an appropriate manner. Staff recommends that the Commission modify the Director's Review Permit by adding the control and mitigation measures as conditions of approval, through adoption of the attached Resolution. Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - September 23, 1998, Commission Staff Report and Minutes Exhibit "B" - October 21. 1998, Letter to Albertsons Exhibit "C" - October 21, 1998, Letter of Response from Albertsons Exhibit "D" - Three Concepts of Reorientation of Loading Dock Resolution of Approval with Conditions DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 23, 1998 CITY OF R,-\NCHO CL:C,-\,MONG.-\ -- STA, FF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS (ALBERTSONS) - A request to determine if a commercial center is being operated in a manner not detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and a request to consider modifying the conditions of approval for the commercial center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue - APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is twofold. First is to determine whether the shopping center is operated in a manner that is detrimental to the adjacent residential properties. Second. determine whether there are additional control or mitigation measures that could address the negative impact. which would require a modification to the Directotis Review Permit. BACKGROUND: At the September 9. 1998. meeting, Pamela Thompson and Mr. and Mrs. Paul Davies, residents adjacent to Albertsons, spoke about continued nuisance problems they experienced from the store. They stated the continued nuisance problems were: truck noise. the loss of privacy, odor and soot from diesel fuel, and the loss of the use and enjoyment of their backyard. The Commission directed staff to prepare a report informing them of the options they have in addressing the nuisance problems. The Commission also directed staff to contact the air Quality Management District (AQMD). ANALYSIS: This section of the repor~ summarizes the history and chronology of the site, examines the effectiveness of the comrol measures that were in place and recommends additional control or mitigation measures to address the nuisance problems. Current Code Provisions: The shopping center was approved by the County in June of 1978 and was developed under the County standards. The Director's Review Permit is equivalent to the City's Conditional Use Permit. Because the shopping center is a pre-existing conditional use, the provision of the Conditional Use Permit will apply to the shopping center. Therefore, the Planning Commission may review the center to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval or in a manner not detrimental to the public health. safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.04.030, the Commission may modify conditions of approval to mitigate detrimental impacts. A Brief HistoN of the Site: The two major anchors of the center at the time it was developed were Albertsons and a hardware store (Exhibit "B"), By the late 1980s, the hardware store moved out and the building was vacant for several years. In October 1994, Albertsons submitted a request. which was approved by the City, to take over and expand the hardware store's building by enclosing the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - ALBERTSONS September 23, 1998 Page 2 garden nursery and reconfigerating the loading dock area (Exhibit "C"). In September 1995, exterior and interior improvements were completed and Albertsons was in business at the new location. Staff learned of the nuisance problems in January 1996 and requested that Albertsons submit an action plan to address the problems. Albertsons did not submit an action plan with long term solutions to the nuisance problems but responded by voluntarily compressing the delivery schedules. requiring trucks to have engines and refrigeration units tuned off while loading and unloading, and removing unnecessary wallpak light fixtures that aroduced glare. No complaints were received after October 1996. In July 1997, residents requested the Commission discuss the nuisance problems they continued to experience with the Albertsons store. The Commission directed Albertsons to prepare a noise study and directed staff to work with Albertsons and the property owner in addressing the problems. Albertsons submitted a Noise Study in October of 1997, which was reviewed and accepted by staff. Albertsons continued to adhere to the control measures mentioned above. Also, security gates and fences have been installed to block access to the rear of the building except for delivery, which is between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. Last February, the residents, representatives from Alberstsons, the acoustical engineer, representative from the property owner, and staff met and discussed the results of the noise study and the last remaining issue of the loss of privacy. Because the existing block wall is not designed to be raised in height, Albertsons proposed to install a free standing fence next to the existing block wall to address the privacy issue. The residents agreed to the proposal. Exhibits "D" and "E" are detailed chronology of the site. C. Effectiveness of Exisfincl Control Measures: The section of the report examines the effectiveness of the control measures in addressing the nuisance problems: Compressed Deliver,/Schedules: A major complaint was truck noise from Albertsons and other vendor trucks. Albertsons agreed to compress the delivery schedules to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. The residents stated that this control measure only worked intermittently because delivery trucks continued to arrive either too early in the morning or too late in the evening. Staff believes that the success of the compressed delivery schedules is dependent upon the conscientiousness and availability of the store manager and other staff in adhering to the program. Turnincl off Truck Encfines and Refriqeration Units: To further address the noise problems, Albertsons agreed to require their truck drivers to turn off the engines and the refrigeration units during loading and unloading. This control measure is effective if the truck drivers are conscientious about it. Again, enforcement depends upon store management. Security Fences and Gates: Albertsons installed security fencing and gates at the west and east side of the delivery driveway access to reduce the incidences of loitering in the rear of the property and to ensure that early or late arrival of delivery trucks would be kept away from the back of the building. This control measure should deter any unwanted and loitering activities in the back of the building. However, it is only effective if the gates are kept locked when the delivery hours are over. Trash Compactor: Albertsons also agreed not to operate the trash compactor after lO.p.m. and before 8 a.m. to lessen the disturbance to residents. This control measure has contributed in reducing some of the noise. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - ALBERTSONS September 23, 1998 Page 3 Proposed Free Standinq Fence Nex to the B ock Wall for Privacy: To address the loss of privacy issue, Albertsons proposed to install a free standing fence next to the existing block[ wall. The proposed materials for the fence are chain link and reen mesh St I g . aft agreed that a free standing fence would work but did not agree with the proposed materials, Staff believes that a more durable material should be used for privacy and for further reduction of noise. Chain link and mesh may not withstand high seasonal winds. A product suggested by staff to Albertsons was woodcrete. D. Results of the Noise Study: A Noise Study for Albertsons was prepared by an Acoustical Engineer Robert Kahn of RKJK & Associates. According to the Noise Abatement Section of the Developmen~ Code, the exterior noise cannot exceed 75 dBA at any time, and cannot exceed 74 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 5 minutes in an hour. 65 dBA for a cumulative period of no/more than 10 minutes in an hour and 60 dBA for a cumulative period of 18 minutes in an hour. The study showed that the noise level measurement was taken at approximately 7 feet away from the property line of the adjoining residences. The measured noise level is 74 dBA for 1 minute, 68.0 dBA for 5 minutes and 55.0 for 15 minutes. Therefore, the study concluded that the noise generated by the trucks is below the maximum level allowed by City Codes. Based on/he measurements, the study projected/he noise level at/he property line (block wall) to be 66.1 dBA maximum at any time, 58.8 dBA for 1 minute and 526 dBA for 5 minutes. The Residential Noise Standards is 60 dBA for exterior noise between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Again, the study concluded that the projected noise level at property line is just below the maximum level allowed by City Codes. The study, however, -recommended that to reduce the noise level at Ihe second story window facade. the existing 6-foot high block wall should be replaced with a 12-foot high one or the windows of the second story should be replaced with upgrades, The Study stressed thai this recommendation is not required based on City's Standards, One homeowner testified tha~ her windows were upgraded to double glazing with financial assistance from Albertsons as part of a small claims court settlement. E. Proposed Additional Control and Mitiqation Measures: The following are additional control or mitigation measures that should be considered by the Commission: 1. Replace the existing 6-foot block wall with a 12-foot high one. The lineal distance should be reviewed and approval by/he City Planner. ,Comments: This mitigat on. which was suggested back in 1996 by staff, would permanently reduce exterior noise in the back yard and noise at/he second story facade and provide privacy. Albertsons has stated that this mitigation is too costly: however no construction estimates have been submitted. ' Reorient the loading dock where,truck engines would be at the west side and provide a 10- foot landscape buffer along the east and south property boundaries. _Comments: This mitigation would permanently reduce the exterior noise as the trucks' engines would be facing the wesl side. away from the residences. The lO-foot landscape buffer would provide privacy and deter anyone from jumping the east property block wall. By requiring the 10-foot buffer and reorientihg the loading area. parking spaces along the east and south sides of the building would have Io be eliminated and/or reduced. The reduction of parking spaces may necessitate a Variance. Staff observed thai the parking spaces in these areas are seldom used. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - ALBERTSONS September 23. 1998 Page 4 3. Install sound dampening material to the loading dock. building walls and site boundary walls. Comments: This mitigation could reduce exterior noise. A study by an acoustical engineer would be needed to determine specific recommendations and to analyze their potential effectiveness. The following control measures should be placed as conditions of approval for the shopping ,: center along with the above-mentioned mitigation: No delivery. loading and unloading, or the use of trash compactor between the hours of 9 p.m, and 8 a,m. Monday lhrough Friday, and 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. Maintain security fences and gates at the east side of AIbertsons and at the southerly drive entrance and lock the gates between the hours of 9 p.m, and 8 a.m, Monday through Friday, and 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. Provide security personnel within the shopping center to deter unwanted loitering activities in the back of the center and to ensure early or late arrival of delivery trucks would not be let into the back. d. Prohibit the queuing of deftvery trucks along the east property boundary wall. Albertsons should replace the windows of the rear elevation of the adjacent properties (7390, 7380 London Avenue) with dual glazed windows for interior noise abatement. The Issue of Diesel Fumes and Odors from Delivery Trucks: A concern of the residents was the odor and soot from the diesel engines of delivery trucks. According to the Performance Standards in the Commercial District of the Development Code, any business activity or operation shall not be permitted to emit odorous gases or matter in such quantities as to be dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable and readily detectable without the aid of instruments at or beyond the property line. Staff initially contacted representatives of AQMD to obtain information on the emission standards for diesel fuel and to find out if the District has an enforcement procedure. According to representatives of AQMD, the District handles only stationary sources of emissions and not mobile source (emissions from trucks). Staff learned that California Air Resource Board (ARB) handles mobile sources of emissions. At the writing of this report, information about emission standard for mobile source and enforcement procedure from ARB is not available. Staff will provide information, if available, at the meeting. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis. staff concludes that the operation of Albertsons store creates a negative impact to the adjoining residences. The existing controls are dependent upon human intervention several times a day. 365 days a year. which has proven to not be effective. Staff also concludes that there are additional control or mitigation measures that could reduce or alleviate the impacts to an acceptable level. Pb~,NNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - ALBERTSONS September 23. 1998 Page 5 OPTIONS FOR COMMISSION: The Planning Comm ssion after conducting a public hear ng may take one of the following actions: ' ' Find that the Conditional Use permit is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary. B. Find the Conditional Use Permi~ is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modification to conditions are necessary. Find the Conditional Use Permit is no/being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke the permit which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in theInland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Notices and staff report were sent via certified mail to Albertsons and the property owner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission determine that the shopping center is not being operated in an appropriate manner and thai modifications to the conditions are necessary, Staff also recommends that the Commission direct staff in preparing a resolution modifying the Director's Review Permit by adding the appropriate conditions of approval and the time line in completing the mitigation. - Respectfully submitted. City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E' Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Location Map Original Site Plan Revised Site Plan Chronology of the Site December 1993 to June 1997 Chronology of the Site June 1997 to September 1998 Letter to Albertsons dated August 27. 1998 Noise Study Noise Abatement and Residential Noise Standards ':'S 9./.'6[ S.NOSI83E~W ,_/gu.~ ,C8 SO ! DVd P~O: CHRONOLOGY FOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM DECEMBER 1993 TO JUNE 1997 DATE 12-93 to present 2-94 8-94 9-94 10-6-94 10-19-94 3-15-95 9-95 1-8-96 1-22-96 COMMENTS/STATUS A review of the Code Enforcement files show that the site has been plagued with nuisance problems such as graffiti and illegal dumping of trash. Code Enforcement staff has worked with the property manager, Craig Dootson, to have the graffiti and trash removed in a timely manner and develop a plan of action to discourage the nuisance. Staff met with representatives of Albertsons. They proposed to take over the unoccupied Builders Emporium building at the east side of the center because they needed a bigger facility. The existing Albertsons store at the west side of the center would have to be closed. They stated that Albertsons stilt has a long term lease for the existing store and it would be in their interest to sublease their building. To use the Builders Emporium building, they would have to modify the loading area and enclose the outdoor nursery area. Staff informed them that the use is permitted and the expansion would need a Minor Development Review application. Albertsons submitted a Minor Development Review application (MDR 94-17). Staff reviewed three alternatives to the parking scheme in the back of the store submitted by Albertsons. City Planner approved MDR 94-17 with conditions. Albertsons submitted revised design to the loading area. The revised loading area showed it to be at an angle. City issued building permits for tenant improvements. Albertsons store in business. Planning Division received a letter dated December 27, 1995, from Dave Thompson. He described the nuisance problems consisting of constant streams of trucks and their noises; very early and late hours of deliveries; disturbances: and excess light and glare that spill over onto his property. He attached a copy of the time log for the nuisance problems in October in his October 30. 1995, letter to Albertsons. Staff responded with a letter to Mr, Thompson and informed him of the pending investigation on whether Albertsons has violated the City's performance standards. Page I of 3 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 2-96 to 3-96 4-4-96 5-96 through 6-96 6-10 through 6-18-96 6-27-96 7-96 through 8-96 9-3-96 9-30-96 10-3-96 Staff reviewed files and conducted site investigations. A letter was written to Albertsons. Staff identified the code violation of excess light and glare from the wallpak light. Staff cited the intense frequency of delivery trucks. which would create an adverse impact to the adjacent residents. Staff suggested mitigation for the noise impact and encouraged Albertsons to look into long-term solutions. Staff spoke with Dave Rumley, Albertsons' District Sales Manager, and Scott Thayer, Real Estate Manager, several times. Staff requested their cooperation in being a good neighbor. They agreed ~o continue the compressed delivery schedule, reduce the light bulb wattage, and provide shields to prevent light and glare spillages. Staff also requested a meeting with Albertsons to discuss long-term solutions. Staff continued to receive calls from adjacent residents. Staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Thayer of Albertsons and the adjacent residents. Dave Thompson. Bob Brush. and Mr. & Mrs. Davies. at the site. The residents told Mr. Thayer of their concerns. Mr. Thayer agreed to work with staff on finding solutions to meet the residents' concerns. Staff had several phone conversations with Mr. Thayer about setting up a meeting to discuss some suggested mitigation, such as reorieming the loading area, providing a landscape buffer, and/or raising the height of the block wall. Mr. Thayer stated that he would like to have' a trial period oi' the continued compressed delivery schedule and requiring their truck drivers to turn off their engines and refrigeration units while loading or unloading. He stated that Albertsons is reluctant to change the orientation of the loading dock because of their interior floor plan. He believed that the property owner should address the landscape buffer and the block wall. Code Enforcement Division received a complaint from Mr. Thompson about the parking lot sweepers coming too early in the morning (6:45 a.m.) Code Enforcement staff contacted/he properly manager. Mr. Dootson. who stated that the new contract services started last week and that he would inform them of the restricted time (between 7 am. and 10 p,m.) for sweeping the parking rot. Another complaint regarding the parking Iol sweeper. Code Enforcement contacted Mr. Dootson. He stated he has hired another company for sweeping the parking lot. Because of repeated complaints, staff sent another letter to Albertsons requesting an action plan to address the nuisance problems. Page 2 of 3 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 10-96 through 6-25-97 Albertsons has not responded to the letter and has not provided an action plan as outlined in the attached letter. Staff did not receive any further complaints from residents regarding noise issues, Page 3 of 3 CHRONOLOGYFOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM JUNE1997TO PRESENT DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 6-25-97 Mr. Thompson spoke at the Planning Commission meeting about the continued nuisance problems. 7-9-97 PlanningCommissionreviewedthenuisanceproblemsassociatedwith Albertsons' operation at this hearing. The Commission received comments from several residents as well as from representatives of Albertsons~ The Commission directed Albertsons to prepare a Noise Study and directed staff to work with Albertsons and the residents to resolve the issues. 8-18-97 Albertsons:submitted a Noise Study. 8-26-97 9-10-97 Staff reviewed the Noise Study and responded that the study was incomplete and inadequate in addressing some of the identified issues. City Planner approved the security fencing for Albertsons with a condition of approval requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. 9-18-97 Albertsons .objected to the condition requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. 10-15-97 10-29-97 Albertsons submitted revised Nosie Study. City Planner. extended the hours from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. after AIbertsons agreed to have all deliveries completed by 9 p.m. and Mr. Thompson did no/object to the temporary new curfew time if Albertsons continued to work towards a long-term solution. 11-18-97 City issued building pe,rmits for the security gates. Staff reviewed and determined that the revised Noise Study was complete and adequate in addressing the issues. The results and findings of the study stated that the noise levels did not exceed the City's standards. The Noise Engineer stated that the following recommendation would not be required based on the City's noise standards, but would further reduce interior noise: the existing wall could be replaced with a new wall up to 12 feet in height in order to block second floor windows or the second floor windows be upgraded 2-23-98 A meeting was held with representatives of Albertsons. the property manager, and adjacent residents to review the result of the Noise Study and any remaining i~;sues. The consensus of the residents was :2p~_~.7~_.;~,i~ that the security gates and fences helped in reducing the impact of the "F__-"Page l of 2 4-98 to 6-98 nuisance problems. The residents also stated that the lot sweeper still came too early in the morning. The property manager responded that they were in the process of hiring a new company for cleaning the parking area. The consensus of the residents was that the remaining issue was loss of privacy. Mr. Scott Thayer of Albertsons offered to install a chain link fence with green mesh materials for addressing the privacy issue. SIaff stressed the importance of using more durable material for the free-standing fence. Staff called Mr, Scott Thayer and stated that a free-standing fence would be acceptable but would recommend Albertsons look into using more durable materials for the fence. A product suggested by staff was Woodcrete material. Staff also reminded him to send details of the free-standing fence for CiIy Planner review and approval. Attachment: Letter to Albertsons dated August 27, 1998 Page 2 of 2 .'-u~us: 27. ,., . Sco:: Thayec Real Es:a:e ,Manager A/be~sens. Inc. I IB0 Wes~ Lambe,': Read P.O. Box 7500 Sres. CA g2522-7500 SUBJECT: ,-'.LBERTSON'S STORE NO. 5C5 AT 9775 BASE LINE RO.-'.O Den: Mr. Thayet: I '-'.'3,.~l.d like is take :his oa;or:uni ,/~o recap out los: shone :-~,'wetsa:ion re-atoZin~ ..'he issue /~":-~ -' -- 'h~ ass[ ' = ~ You believed :ha[ ;tivacy was ~he ,sn!y issue ~e,': :a be resolve_" 5at :ae adjacen: resi~en:s because :hey bid noc men[ion ~ha: noise was sdit an issue a: :he Feat=an/23 meeting. You proaose~ :a ins:all ~:ee s~anding w~Od posZs ',riCh '.road ~ences a::azhed ~o men ~ha~ ex~en~ adore ~ne hei~h~ o~ [he existing ~lsck wall far a:~ressing one privasy issue. The reason far a flee s:an~ing ~ence was because 7our engineer ~e:erm,ne~ ~ha: ~ne exis~in~ block wall agreed :3 '..,out ara'~asa! ..'a ins:all a free s;an_'L-.g fence alarm.-, 'he exist:nO block v..a~l Ce:Dra::...~ an.: :=~a~ie ma:eF:a~ :no: t m= .... -'- ~s '.'.'::::re:e ---- ..... ka a :a Send a leo:el eas; ;roeer:y bounda,"t and ,.,,,;H prozee-~ :a :ns;a;; ,: ' On Augus: 25. i Lzg. r received a :all from erie of ~he a~Za:en: resi_;en:s. the Thamoson family. '."ha csmala~ne~ aaou: can[~nued noise and ~ri.,'ac7 issues. The7 in~armea me ma~ ~he new score =eh','e:ies. the e=rnin~ oh'of:ru;k engines, e::. The). a:$o re;=es:~ ?[a~n:n~ Cemmission rewevs As a res~[t ~[ the re:uesk t~e C~ty Planner has s:~ed t~e ',ssues [:r CammissiDn dis:~ssian a: :me Sea:ember ~.; ~9~. mee::n~ The C::7 Pla~,:e: i~em~s :: s:~e~:e a D~bhc heating [~r tn~ sncs::ng :en:et Csn~::zsnal Use Permi~ :s rev,e.v '..,he:net ,: '.s 3:e'aT;n~ :n :3n/3rma,nge v,'~ih C::7's Cs:es an~ '.'/he:net a~,:,sna~ cgnd::'.gns of assrs','a: are nee~e: :9 aas.'ess :e~am nuzsanze Dr C.::......., ........ :'.:R..-',L~ERT .ALSERTSON'S STORE l,'au :D :on?n'.;e :a '.','cr:"; v,::h the a~;a:_-'n: :esZ,den:s ,-,ave ~n,' cues:ions abs-: 'h~ rev~ev,, arc:ass, ,Ir :[ ','c'J v,'3,,;'!d like [a dis:,,:'ss adr. Zress .,'he resi~en:s' can;erns. ~',ease ;all me a: (~3~) =77-275,0. Sincerely, CO,M,%IUN[TY DEVELOPS, lENT DEPART,%IENT PLANNING DIVISION S~_niar P~anr, er Brad Bullet. C::,/ Planner W. Cra;g Doa:son. Dave and Pamela ThamDs'~n residen:s I ! N ~ancho Cucamonga, California I BASELINE ROAD ' RKJK i RO~E~T KAHN · JOHN KA[N & ,~50CIAT~S INC. October 1, 1997 Mr. Scott R. Thayer Real Estate Manager ALBERTSONS, INC. 1180 West Lambert Road Brea, CA 92622-7500 Subject: Albertsons Store #606, Rancho Cucamonga Noise Study (Revised 10/1/97) Dear Mr. Thayer: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has completed a revised noise assessment for your Albertsons Store #606 located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The existing store is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Archibald at Baseline Road in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Exhibit A}. The site plan for the existing store is shown on the attached Exhibit B. The site currently consists of an Albertsons supermarket - located in the southeast portion of the site with a loading dock and trash compactor located at the rear of the store. The purpose of this noise study is to determine noise impacts from delivery trucks and trash compactor operations at the Albertsons store to the adjoining residential area. There are existing two-story and one-story residential homes located to the east of the loading dock and trash compactor. The homes to the east are located approximately 4 to 5 feet below the grade of the Albertsons Shopping Center, and there is a 5' 8" to G' 4" block wall along the east property line. The backyards and first floor facade of the homes are generally blocked as a result of the existing block wall, however, second floor windows of the homes are exposed directly to line-of-sight from the loading dock/trash compactor area. The trash compactor is enclosed within an 8 foot high metal wall with a door. The loading dock accommodates two tractor trailer trucks for loading and unloading purposes. On July 29, 1997 (Tuesday), RKJK obtained noise measurements at the site to determine potential noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas. The location of the noise meter is shown in Exhibit B. During the measurement period, it was not possible to measure noise levels directly within the residential property, therefore, noise measurements were made approximately 7 feet west of the wall adjacent to the residence. Based upon this information, noise projections were made to determine noise levels in the adjacent residential development. TRANSPORTATION pL,',,N,NING - GJS - TRAFFIC'ACOUSTICAL ExGINEERINC II I 'EXHIBIT A LOCATION M~P 19TH ST. (SR-30) BASELINE RO. SITE CHURCH ST. N RKJK MAXIMUM PROJECTED NOtSF_. L,_rVFI(dQ,~,A) IN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL BACKYARD Lmax ---- 70..¢ L8 = 55,9 MEASUREMENT-(dBA} I'P5 = 43.9 ,y~,~.~~ WITH TRUCK DELIVERIES L50 = 39.4 le BASELiNE ROAD EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN RKJK The instrument used was a LARSON-DAVIS Model 700 precision integrating sound level meter, programmed, in "slow" mode, to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring with a LARSON-DAVIS calibrator, Model CA 250. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod, five feet above the ground and equipped with a wind screen during all measurements. The above instrument automatically calculates the "percent noise levels" (LnJ for any specific time period. The percent noise level "Ln" is useful to evaluate intermit"tent noise sources. The percent noise level is the level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. Lgo is the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time measured, commonly used to estimate the "ambient" noise level. L~ is the noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time measured and can be seen as the "average" noise level. L~o is the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time measured, and represents the peak or intrusive noise level. Based upon our discussions, truck deliveries are supposed to be restricted to 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM to minimize noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas. A summary of truck activity during the measurement period is shown in the attached Table 1. It should be noted that two smaller DSD trucks did arrive before 8:00 AM. All of the larger Albertsons delivery trucks arrived and departed after 8:00 AM. During the measurement period from 7:45 to 9:11 AM, three large Albertsons trucks (18 wheelers} arrived along with one other Kibbler 18-wheeler truck. During the same period, approximately 5 of the smaller DSD trucks arrived delivering such things as pastries, beer and other small packaged items. During the measurement period, the trash compactor was operating as noted in Table 1. The number of truck operations that occurred during the noise measurement period represents the maximum number which are expected to occur at the site. RKJK discussed the truck delivery operations with Albertsons staff and confirmed that the four larger trucks (18 wheelers}, that arrived during the noise measurements represented the maximum number which was to be expected (see Appendix 'A'}. Noise measurements were made for several conditions during the study. Prior to the arrival of any trucks, ambient noise levels were measured and are shown in the attached Table 2. The Leq during this period was 50.3 dBA with an L,,~ level of 64.5. A measurement was also made prior to the 8:00 AM start time for a short period, however, it was influenced by dogs barking in the adjacent homes, airplane overflights and two small DSD trucks which arrived during this period. The major noise measurement was started at 8:10 AM and ran through 9:10 AM. These measurements were made during the period that the majority of the large delivery 4 TABLE 1 ALBERTSONS-9775BASEUNE RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRUCK OPERATIONS 7:45 AM TO 9:11 AM JULy2.9.1997(TUESDAY) NAME OF TRUCK Independanl: Coors Albeileons 11 (Dack) 7:45 8:30 7:47 8:17 8:10 8:03 Keebler (Dock} 8:58 9:11 Albensonl 13 (Dock) 9:11 TRASH COMPACTOR START 8:32 8:50 8:56 9:09 8:49 8:51 9:07 STOP NOTES StY1 in t~e dock when after 9:11. GENEFIAL NOTES Cef went by e( 8:58 I ITAt3LE 2 iProject: AlberTsons Z Da~e: 7/29/97 ITuesdavl Noise Study Job No.: 742-97-001 J sto~e #606 : 'P 7:55 S3.7 70,0 45.0 ~3.0 SS.5 52.5 (, 9: I I 74°3 85.0 4e,s 82.'~ 7~,5 74.0 I I SITE LOCATION MAP: See e~eche<l Exh~blt 8 6 I 1 I I I I trucks arrived and departed within the area. Truck drivers did their best to minimize the operational time of the trucks and turned off their engines once they had parked at the loading dock. Both engines, refrigerator units and other mechanical equipment associated with the trucks were turned off once they were parked at the loading dock, During the major noise measurement period, the Leq was 63.8 dBA with the L,,,~ being approximately 81.5. Other noise measurement parameters are also shown in Table 2. It should be noted that the noise measurement values shown in Table 2 are the noise levels within the Albertsons parking lot approximately 7 feet from the property line of the adjoining residences. ~ In order to assess noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas, noise measurements included in Table 2 were utilized to project noise levels within the backyard, first floor building facade and second floor of the adjoining homes. RKJK analyzed the home that was closest to the Albertsons loading dock. This localion represented a worse case noise impact with respect to the location of the trucks. The noise assessment did take. into account the grade difference between the Albertsons Shopping Center and the homes and also the existing block wall. Th___e projected noise levels at the closest adiacent.~e~idendal dwelling uOjts are shown in the atzached Table 3. The maximum noise level projected at the first floor facade or I~ackyard was 70.4 dBA and approximately 76:'4'dBA'_'o.utside.of the se_cond floor windows of the second floor homes. ,The second floor outdoor noise level is not considered an outdoor living area, however, it is used to determine 2nd floor, interior noise levels. Other noise projections are also shown in Table 3 and the noise worksheets are included in Appendix "B". According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.02.12 Noise Abatement, noise standards have been developed with respect to one property impacting another. The noise standards adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are included in the attached Table 4. According to the Development Code, the maximum noise level which cannot be exceeded.for any time within an adjacent residential property is 75 dBA, 74 dBA not to be_exceedecl, for.5_minut..es, 65 dBA not to be exceeded for 10 minutes, and 60 dBA not to be exceeded for 15 minutes. According to the Development Code, these standards arenaseal on the outdoor areKs of the adjacent residential development. The interior noise standards with windows closed are also shown in Table 4. Basecl LID0n our revipw, the noise projections and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code standards, the current Albertsons delivery operations do not exceed the noise levels within the backyard areas of the adjoininfi homes s~g as truck operations are restricted to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Also, the City of Rancho' 7 TABLE 3' ~ckyerd 51,7 69,4 61,9 55,9 42,9 38,4 Includes noise reduction from grade differential and existing wall. This location is not considered an exlerior living area end is utilized to determine 2nd floor interior noise levels. 8 TIMEFRAME Exterior Inter{or3 TABLE 4 P~NCHO CUCAMONGA STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ SYMBOL L_, MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE 0 DURATION MINUTES 7 AM - 10 PM 7 AM - 10 PM 75 NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA (dBA) 5 10 MINUTES MINLrI~S 74 65 59 50 MINUTES 45 Based upon Rancho Cucamonna Development Code Seaion 17.02, 120 - Noise Abatement for residential development. Based upon a windows closed condition. 9 Cucamonga interior noise standards for either the first floor or second floor within the homes are not exceeded for da~rtime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM). In order to minimize noise impacts to the adjacent area, all deliveries for the Albertsons Shopping Center should occur after 8:00 AM in the morning and should terminate before 10:00 PM in the eyening. This should also apply to the operation of the trash compactor during the same period. Albertsons should request all of the independent trucks to restrict their deliveries to these hours. Truck drivers should also attempt to maneuver their trucks as far away from the existing wall as practical. Although not required by City of Ranch Cucamonga code requirement, the only way to further mitigate the second floor dwelling units of the adjoining residential would be to: (1) construct a noise control barrier along the east property line of Albertsons from the southerly property line northerly approximately 180 feet with a height of approximately 12 feet. This height Of wall would be required to block the line-of-sight from the second floor homes to the adjacent loading dock area or (2) upgrade the second floor windows for those two story homes located from the southerly property line northerly 180 feet. Again, these are not a requirement to meet City standards, but would be the only method of minimizing noise impacts to the second floor of the adjacent residential area. RKJK has completed a noise study for the existing Albertsons #606 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Based upon our analysis, current noise levels do nnt appear to exceed the City 0f Rancho Cucamonga standards for 1he adjacent residential areas. It does appear that some of the DSD trucks do arrive prior to the 8:00 AM time period, and these should be restricted to the appropriate hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. AIthoufih not require based On City standards, the only method to further mitigate truck impacts to the adjoininfi area would b(~ to reolace the existjnq w~ll to a height of approximately 12 feet to brock secnnd floo[,windnws to the adjoining two- story residential units or uograde thP windn{tv~'nfrhe3e units, These are not required from a noise standards standpoint, but would minimize noise impact to the interior of the second floor units. Robert Kahn, Principal RK:kgd/7096 RKJK appreciates this opportunity to work with ALBERTSONS, INC., and if you have any questions, please give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOHI ~ .. NO. 20285 EXP. 913010t CIATES, INC. 742-97o001 Attachments APPENDIX A ALBERTSON'S STORE NO. 606 TRUCK OPERATIONS CHRONOLOGYFOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OFBASELINEROADANDARCHIBALDAVENUE FROM JUNE1997TO PRESENT DATE 6-25-97 7-9-97 8-18-97 8-26-97 9-10-97 9-18-97 10-15-97 10-29-97 11-18-97 2-23-98 COMMENTS/STATUS Mr. Thompson spoke at the Planning Commission meeting about the continued nuisance problems. Planning Commission reviewed the nuisance problems associated with Albertsons' operation at this hearing. The Commission received comments from several residents as well as from representatives of Albertsons. The Commission directed Albertsons to prepare a Noise Study and directed staff to work with Albertsons and the residents to resolve the issues. Albertsons submitted a Noise Study. Staff reviewed the Noise Study and responded that the study was incomplete and inadequate in addressing some of the identified issues. City Planner approved the security fencing for Albedsons with a condition of approval requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. Albertsons objected to the condition requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. Albertsons submitted revised Nosie Study. City Planner extended the hours from 6 p,m. to 9 p.m. after Albertsons agreed to have all deliveries completed by 9 p.m. and Mr. Thompson did not object to the temporary new curfew time if Albertsons continued to work towards a long-term solution. City issued building permits for the security gates. Staff reviewed and determined that the revised Noise Study was complete and adequate in addressing the issues. The results and findings of the study stated that the noise levels did not exceed the City's standards. The Noise Engineer stated that the following recommendation would not be required based on the City's noise standards, but would further reduce interior noise: the existing wall could be replaced with a new wall up to 12 feet in height in order to block second floor windows or the second floor Windows be upgraded. A meeting was held with representatives of Albertsons, the property manager, and adjacent residents to review the result of the Noise Study and any remaining issues. The consensus of the residents was that the security gates and fences helped in reducing the impact of the Page 1 of 2 4-98 to 6-98 Attachment: nuisance problems. The residents also stated that the lot sweeper still came too early in the morning. The property manager responded that they were in the process of hiring a new company for cleaning the parking area. The consensus of the residents was that the remaining issue was loss of privacy, Mr. Scott Thayer of Albertsons offered to install a chain link fence with green mesh materials for addressing the privacy issue. Staff stressed the importance of using more durable material for the free-standing fence. Staff called Mr. Scott Thayer and stated that a free-standing fence would be acceptable but would recommend Albertsons look into using more durable materials for the fence. A product suggested by staff was Woodcrete material. Staff also reminded him to send details of the free-standing fence for City Planner review and approval. Letter to Albertsons dated August 27, 1998 Page 2 of 2 CHRONOLOGYFOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASELINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM DECEMBER1993TOJUNE1997 DATE 12-93 to present 2-94 8-94 9-94 10-6-94 10-19-94 3-15-95 9-95 1-8-96 1-22-96 COMMENTS/STATUS A review of the Code Enforcement files show that the site has been plagued with nuisance problems such as graffiti and illegal dumping of trash, Code Enforcement staff has worked with the property manager. Craig Dootson. to have the graffiti and trash removed in a timely manner and develop a plan of action to discourage the nuisance. Staff met with representatives of Albertsons. They proposed to take overthe unoccupied Builders Emporium building at the east side of the center because they needed a bigger facility. The existing Albertsons store at the west side of the center would have to be closed. They stated that Albertsons still has a long term lease for the existing store and it would be in their interest to sublease their building. To use the Builders Emporium building. they would have to modify the loading area and .enclose the outdoor nursery area. Staff informed them that the use ~s permitted and the expansion would need a Minor Development Review application. Albertsons submitted a Minor Development Review application (MDR 94-17), Staff reviewed three alternatives to the parking scheme in the back of the store submitted by Albertsons. City Planner approved MDR 94-17 with conditions. Albertsons submitted revised design to the loading area. The revised loading area showed it to be at an angle. City issued building permits for tenant improvements. Albertsons store in business. Planning Division received a letter dated December 27, 1995. from Dave Thompson. He described the nuisance problems consisting of constant streams of trucks and their noises; very early and late hours of deliveries; disturbances; and excess light and glare that spill over onto his property. He attached a copy of the time log for the nuisance problems in October in his October 30. 1995, letter to Albertsons. Staff responded with a letter to Mr. Thompson and informed him of the pending investigation on Whether Albertsons has violated the City's performance standards. Page I of 3 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 2-96 to 3-96 4-4-96 5-96 through 6-96 6-10 through 6-18-96 6-27-96 7-66 through 8-96 9-3-96 9-30-96 10-3-96 Staff reviewed files and conducted site investigations. A letter was written to Albertsons. Staff identified the code violation of excess light and glare from the wallpak light. Staff cited the intense frequency of delivery trucks. which would create an adverse impact to the adjacent residents. Staff suggested mitigation for the noise impact and encouraged Albertsons to look into long-term solutions. Staff spoke with Dave RumIcy. Albertsons' District Sales Manager. and Scott Thayer. Real Estate Manager. several times. Staff requested their cooperation in being a good neighbor. They agreed to continue the compressed delivery schedule. reduce the light bulb wattage. and provide shields to prevent light and glare spillages. Staff also requested a meeting with Albertsons to discuss long-term solutions. Staff continued to receive calls from adjacent residents. Staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Thayer of Albertsons and the adjacent residents, Dave Thompson, Bob Brush, and Mr. & Mrs. Davies, at the site. The residents told Mr. Thayer of their concerns. Mr. Thayer agreed to work with staff on finding solutions to meet the residents' concerns. Staff had several phone conversations with Mr. Thayer about setting up a meeting to discuss some suggested mitigation. such as reorienting the loading area. providing a landscape buffer. and/or raising the height of the block wall. Mr. Thayer stated that he would like to have a trial period of the continued compressed delivery schedule and requiring their truck drivers to turn off their engines and refrigeration units while loading or unloading. He stated that Albertsons is reluctant to change the orientation of the loading dock because of their interior floor plan. He believed that the property owner should address the landscape buffer and the block wall. Code Enforcement Division received a complaint from Mr. Thompson about the parking lot sweepers coming too early in the morning (6:45 a.m.) Code Enforcement staff contacted the property manager, Mr. Doorson, who stated that the new contract services started last week and that he would inform them of the restricted time (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) for sweeping the parking lot. Another complaint regarding the parking lot sweeper. Code Enforcement contacted Mr. Doorson. He stated he has hired another company for sweeping the parking lot. Because of repeated complaints. staff sent another letter to Albertsons requesting an action plan to address the nuisance problems. Page 2 of 3 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 10-96 through 6-25-97 Albertsons has not responded to the letter and has not provided an action plan as outlined in the attached letter. Staff did not receive any further complaints from residents regarding noise issues. Page 3 of 3 I I! I I ! ! I OCT S 'cJ7 8:54 ~8, 1997 Ms. Nancy, Fcm~ Scnior plzan~r CornmatS' l:~vduFn-:n~ [X-parlmcnt City of Rsncbo Cu~-,,,ougs 10500 Civic Ccutcr Driv~ Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Albertsoa's Stove #606 No/-~ Study SEC Basethee & Ar~hlbald Rancbo Cucamonl~a, Cal/forula As it relaxes to the aoi:c study bcln5 prepared for zh~ above: rvf-crc:nc~ srorv~ you had asakcd for a ,.c~y of our truck ddi~.ry sobadult to dc'ta'miac wbcdr_r or n~ ~ aolsc r,---a~,~:s ,~-.r ~ taken c,u a Tuesday rnornln~J ~ou/d bc an iadlc. axioa of a worse case soma.rio fro' ~ truck ddivaics. Wid:l ~hk ill mitxt, AJbcrts~'s Tmasportatkm Muagtr ptovld~x.t ~ with the follcNri,nS ~nz~',fi,m~: a) Mcut ddi,,~i~s ~: nude o~ d~ rx~,;~'J ofTu,..~ys. 'l"auts~ ~ S..-turdays. b) Produc~ dcfvcacs arc madc cvc'ry ou'~r morning. c) Grocery dcti,,m:~es a.m madc cvcry at.ha' c'v~ning. Our Transportation M'~'L~cr does truck. bowers. thc:~ Albcns~n's trud:s and a f,:w of the ~ R'-rvic~ &~nry ,axxlocs tic|ira' t~,,-,dact to the s'~r=. NofmaJly then: would bavc bccn oaly two Alba't.son's w,H,-, ~ in this cast., a ~,., pmduc~ trurl had to ctmp o~ ax:k~oaa. I pr~luct the Luthc,7~rrt y~u ha~,:any qu~s6ons vfi'.h dx:f~,,-sohg-pk:a~nllmcaXUl4)611~|45' Sco~t R. Thay~:r ~ Es-m~ Managcr 13o;0 Bu'ttcr/Brian Mun'y/Gcrr7 HmkldMikc Hirz · Bob Banks/Daw APPENDIX D NOISE LEVEL PROJECTIONS NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT: ALBERTSONS - 9775 BASELINE JOB ~: 742-97-001 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 31-Jul-97 BY: R. KA/{N LOCATION: 1ST FLOOR FACADE OBS DIST= 68.0 DT WALL~ 38.0 DT W/OB= 30.0 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** BARRIER = 0.0 (0=WALL, 1=BERM) OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 OBS EL = 0.0 NOISE EL = 4.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 COFF BARRIER+ TOPO SHIELDING = -6.00 NOISE HTH EL= 12.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ LEVEL 68 58.7 76.4 68.9 62.9 49.9 45.4 SHIELDING 68 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 ADJ LEVEL 68 52.7 70.4 62.9 56.9 43.9 39.4 NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FPTWA - RD-77-108 DT WALL= DT W/OB= HTH WALL= BARRIER = OBS HTH= NOISE HTH= OBS EL = NOISE EL = DROP-OFF= COFF PROJECT: ALBERTSONS - 9775 BASELINE JOB #: 742-97-001 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 31-Jul-97 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR FACADE BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 68.0 38.0 30.0 6.0 0.0 15.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 15.0 (0=WALL, I=BERM) : BARRIER+ TOPO SHIELDING = 0.00 NOISE HTH EI_,= 12.0 (15 - 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 R.EF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ LEVEL 68 58.7 76.4 68.9 62.9 49.9 45.4 SHIELDING 68 0.0 0]0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ADJ LEVEL 68 58.7 76.4 68.9 62.9 49.9 45.4 ! I I I I I NOISE BAR_~IER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT: ALBERTSONS 9775 BASELINE JOB ~' 742-97-001 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 31-jul-97 'LOCATION: BACKYAP, D BY: R. KAHN (0=WALL, i=BERM) OBS DIST= 48.0 DT WALL= 38.0 DT W/OB= 10.0 HTH WALL= 6.0 BARRIER = 0.0 OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 OBS EL = 0.0 NOISE EL = 4.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 COFF BARRIER+ TOPO SHIELDING - -9.30 NOISE HTH EL-- 12.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 LS0 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ ~L 48 61.0 78.7 71.2 65.2 52.2 47.7 SHIELDING 48 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 ADJ LEVEL 48 51.7 69.4 61.9 55.9 42.9 38.4 NOISE BA.RRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FI-TWA - RD-77-108 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS JOB #: 742-97 LOCATION: BACKYARD ( I ~{- ~f,-~,-,_.. u~-.~ DATE: 01-~ -97 BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 39.0 DT WALL= 38.0 DT W/OB= 1.0 HTH WALL= 6.0 BARRIER -- 0.0 OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 OBS EL = 0.0 NOISE EL = 4.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 COFF DIST (F (0=WALL, 1-BERM) BARRIER+ TOPO SHIELDING = ~13.90 NOISE HTH EL-= 12.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE LEVELS (dBA) ~ Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 LS0 REF LE~'EL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50~~ 5 PROJ LEVEL 39 62.3 80.0 72.5 66.5 53.5 49C0 SHIEI/)ING 39 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 -13~L9 ADJ LEVEL 39 48 4 66 1 58 6 52 6 39 6 35![ 1 ........................ i_, .... ' ........i ........' ........' .........i-- NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD=77-108 PROJECT: ALBERTSONS - 9775 BASELINE JOB #: 742-97-001 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 01-OCt-97 OBS DIST= 43.0 DT WALL= 38.0 DT W/OB= 5.0 HTH WALL= 6.0 BARRIER = 0.0 OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HI"H= 8.0 OBS EL = 0.0 NOISE EL = 4.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 COFF ( 0=WALL, I=BERM) (15 BARRIER+ TOPO SHIELDING = -11.40 NOISE HTH EL= 12.0 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 P~EF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ LE~rEL 43 61.7 79.4 71.9 65.9 52.9 48.4 SHIELDING 43 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 ADJ LBV~L 43 50.3 68.0 60.5 54.5 41.5 37.0 Rsnc~,o Czzcc, r?:orzgc, Development Code Sections ! 7. 02. ! t 0 ~ 17.02 [ 20 Continuance of Hearinqs. Any public hearing may be comrnued from ~ime ~o time by lhe body or official conducting the hear ng. subjec~ to limitations provided by Jaw: and in such case. no further notice need be given+ Section 17.02.120 - Noise Abatement Purpose. In order to contr01 unnecessary. excessive. and annoying noise and vibration in the City. it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such noise generated from or by all sources as specified in zbis Section Decibel Measurement Criteria. Any decibel measurement made pursuanl Io the provisions of this Section shall be based on a reference sound pressure of 20 micro-pascals as measured w~th a sound level meter using the "A" weighted network (scale) at slow response. C. Desianated Noise Zones. The properlies hereafter described are hereby assigned the following noise zones: NOISE ZONE h All single and multiple family residential properties. NOISE ZONE I1: All commercial properlies. Exterior Noise Standards 1. It shall be unlawful for any person at any loCation within lhe city to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on the property owned. eased. occup ed. or otherwise controlled by such person. which Causes the noise level when measured on the property hne of any other propert/to exceed the basic noise level as adjusted below: a+ Baszc Noise Level for a CumulatjvS' period of not more than 15 minutes m any one hour: or Basic Noise Level plus 5 dBA for a Cumulative period of not more than 10 m~nules in any One hour: or c Basic Noise Level plus 14 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 5 minutes in any one hour; or d. Basic Noise level plus lS dBA at any time. If the measurement location is a boundary between two d~fferent noise zones. the lower noise level Standard s_hall apply 3 If the intruding noise source is conbnuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be doletrained. Ibe measured noise level obtained while the noise is in operabon shall be compared directly to the allowable noise level standards as specified respeclive Io the measuremen['s Iocabon. designated land use. and for the time Of day the noise level is measured The vFXFt'?F i f' "'HI" Rar, cho Cucan':on~.,2 Developmen.,' Code Sec:ior:s [7.03.070 c~ 17.0~.0,5'0 Drainage swaies. zurb and guY, or. or similar drainage structures. shall be kep~ clean and free of debris. trash. sod. vegeta[ron. or otner malerial in a manner that permits proper drainage. Section 17,08.080 - Performance Standards In~enI. The intent of this section is to proloci properbes in all residential districts and the health and safety of persons from environmental nuisances and hazards and to provide a pleasing environment in keeping with Ihe nature of the residential character. The perlefinance standards set maximum tolerability fimils on adverse environmental effects created by any use or development of land. AdminiStration and Measurement The standards of this sectnon shall be enforced by the Planner, Upon discovery of any apparent violation of these standards. the C~ty Planner shall investigate using such instruments as may be necessary. If a violation is found to exist. me violalion shall be abated as a nuisance as prescribed in the Municipal Code C. Exemptions, The following Sources of nuisances are exempt from the provisions of this Sect:on 1. Emergency equipment, vehicles and devices. Temporary construction. maintenance. or demolition activities between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.. except Sundays and Nat,onal hobdays. O. NQi~. No operation or activity shall cause any source of sound at any Iotaben or allow the creation of noise on properet owned, leased. occupsed. or other'wise controlled hy SUCh person. which causes [he Ambient Base no~se levels to exceed the following standards. and as corndined in Se ',nn~,f~120.~%~ Table 17708,080-D -Residential Noise Sta Maximum Allowable Location of Measurement 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55dgA 60dBA 40dBA 45dBA 17 0345 3/95 Motion: Moved by ,%lannerino. seconded by Tols:oy, carried 5-0. Io adop~ the consera calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02 - CITY OF RA NCHO COCAMONGA - A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in State law. (Continued from September 9. 1998) Chairman McNiel observed that staff had requested the matter be continued to October 14 1998. He opened the public hearing and there was no comment. ' Motion: Moved by Stewart. seconded by Macias. to continue Developmere Code Amendment 98-02 to October 14, 1998.,~Mation carried by the following vote: AYES: MACI~,S:~',.~NNER NO. MCNIEL. STEWART. TOLSTOY - - carried C. DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS (ALBERTSONS) - A request to determine if a commercial center is being operated in a manner not detrimental to the public health. safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. and a request to o consider modifying the conditions of approval for the commercial center in the Neighborhood Commercial District. Ioca ted at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue -APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. Nancy Fond. Senior Planner. presented the slaff report. She report, ed that staff contacted an environmental consultant who specializes in air quality and was told Ihal only a handful of air loxic components are scientifically recognized as cancer causing, She said lhe health risk threshold is set by the Environmental Protection Agency and depends upon a 24-hour concentration. peak hour concentration. and the way and rate of disbursement. She said it was the professional opinion of the environmental consultant that it would probably be a scientifically insignificant level. Ms, Fond pointed out that the Developmenl Code has performance standards which state that no business activity or operation shall be permitted to emit odorous gassos or matter in such quantities as to be dangerous. injurious. nauseous, or otherwise objectionable and readily detectibfe without the aid of instruments. She said staff believes the residents' concerns are legitimate and the operation of Albertsons creates a negative impact on ihe residenls and additional control measures are needed lo address the problems. She provided three alternative layouts for reorienting the loading dock. Commissioner Mannerino asked how far' below grade a truck would be parked when using the loading dock on Alternatives B and C. Ms. Fond responded those alternatives would require redlading to lower the level. She showed pictures of the existing loading dock. Brad Bullet. City Planner. noted thai the alternatives were conceplual drawings to show potential alternatives for the Commission's consideration. ra~her than engineering drawings or accurate architectural drawings. Planning Commission Minutes Seplember 23. 1998 ,Ms. Stewa~ asked h' a 12-foo: wa!E is a realistic possibi!i~y. Ms. Fong replied it would be possible but the cost factorwould be quite high because ~he exis[ing block wall would have to be remo,;ed and replaced with a retaining wa![ plus the height of the wall and it would require cooperation from all of the property owners to allow the contractor to do the work. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pods Tranchina, 7409 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. stated lhere is a 12-foot high wall along their back yard that was installed by Albertsons. She said she has no problems with Albertsons and wants them to stay in their location. She indiEated Albertsons has been very cooperative and said they hear more noise from the public library across the street. Dave Thompson. 7390 London Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga. stated that he had formerly criticized staff for not conducting a public hearing when Albertsons moved their location, but he would like to acknowledge now that he would not have foreseen the problems that have been experienced. He thanked the City for allowing a public hearing at this time to try to address the problems. He stated there had initially been a lighting problem which Albertsons fixed. He indicated deliveries have been compressed into an appropriate time but he felt security is still a problem. He repo,'ted that about six weeks ago there were three to four men sitting in his back yard and they exited over the wall when his wife took their dog into the back yard. He stated that privacy and noise are still problems. He noted that from 8:00 a.m. until mid.afternoon it is very noisy. He agreed wi[h the control measures suggested in the staff report; however. he felt the winFlows on the south side of his house are also impacted. He observed that no one had taken a sound reading from his house. He noted that addressing the noise by installing dual pane windows only works when the windows are closed and it would preclude their opening the windows for air circulation. He hoped a resolution is reached. Ralph Sirone. 7403 Archibald Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga. staled he lives adjacent to Albertsons on the Archibald Avenue side. He reported that three to four years ago there had been problems with truck deliveries at all times of the night adlacent to his bedroom but lhe problem was resolved when the City pos[ed signs restricting deliveries. He said they no longer have any problems or hear the trucks. Patti Davies. 7398 London Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga. stated her house is on the other side of the wall from the loading docks. She noted that when the previous speakers from Archibald had problems, the loading docks were in their original location prior to AlbertsonS' move. She reported that Albertsons paid for dual pane windows on the back of her home. She provided a brochure on a noise control fencing material. She favored reiDcaring the loading docks and indicated trucks currently have to back in and out Nvo to three times because it is such a tight squeeze, She challenged the noise study because she said no one had taken any noise readings from her house or those of her neighbors. Dan Coleman. Principal Planner. stated the numbers in the noise study came from a computer model based on the distance from lhe wall and/he noise level. Ms. Davies observed that it is necessary to pay someone to monitor noise in order to use the amphitheater at Red Hill Park and she said she would like to have a monitor set up in her back yard. She stated she cannot use her back yard when trucks are there. She mentioned that a lot Planning Commission Minutes September 23. 1998 of drivers are courteous and turn off their unks ,,..'hen they are parked there but some do not. She said that AIber..sons is a,.;'are of ~he probiem. Harry Nelson. 7350 London Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga. stated he had iust purchased the property adjacent to the Davies. He reported he had gone to Albertsons and asked them if ~hey lock the gate at night and was assured they do: however, he had checked the gale for the last ten days as he left for work at 4:30 a.m. and/he gate was not locked, Scott Thayer. Real Estate Manager for Albertsons, 1180 West Lambert, Bred, stated he had hoped that the measures previously implemented would take care of the problem. He observed that the neighborhood east of the shopping center was built in 1978. the same year the shopping center opened. He said he understood that the neighbors want _quiet enjoyment, but he pointed out that it is a commercial center. He explained that when Albertsons moved to the vacant hardware store site. the City requested thai b,vo walls line lhe loading dock area. He felt those walls now act as an amplifier of the noise. He gave a brief background of the problems and the measures they had taken to address the problems, He pointed out that they had submitted an acoustical study which shows they do not exceed the noise standards set by the City. He questioned if reconfiguring the loading docks would satisfy Ine neighbors. He suggested a concrete fence 4 feet high with a visual block of mesh malerial above that. He indicated they are trying to address the problems in a cost effective manner and stated that a 124oot high retaining wall would cost in excess of S100 thousand. He offered to work with City staff and the residents in addressing the concerns. Commissioner Maclas questioned lhe market hours and security arrangements. MLke Hirz. Albertsons Store Manager. 9775 Base Line Road. Rancho Cucamonga. replied that the store is open from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. He reported they use store personnel within the store and do not have any outside security. Commissioner Macins asked if Albertsons had evaluated the dock reconfiguration alternatives. Mr. Thayer replied they had not as they had only received them at 3:00 p.m, today. Commissioner Matins asked if Albedsons is open Io entertaining possible solutions. Mr. Thayer responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias observed that Albertsons conducted a noise study and he asked if they had considered the possibility of assisting the homeowners with double pane windows. He commented that would be more cost effective than 8 wall. Mr. Thayer responded that noise is only one issue. He thought the privacy issue is more important to the residents. Commissioner Matins felt the problem has to do with quality of life. He suggested the market consider security to deal with truckers who leave their motors running and also loitering. Mr. Thayer replied that external security is expensive. Commissioner Macias asked if Albertsons had reviewed lhe mitigations suggested in the staff report. PIanning Commission Minutes -5- -{265-O September 23, 1998 Mr. Thayer answered they are not acceptable as written. He stated they have spent dose to S1O.00O on gates and the acoustZc study, He reported :hey had just received a brochure for Woodcrete fencing and he has asked for proposals [a line the propony. He said they are in process of reviewing the options and costs. Mr. Bullet indicated staff brought the issues to the attention of Albertsons and the shopping cenier owner. He requested the Planning Commission's position on the issues idenlified, He observed that staff provided a variety of alternatives to deal with the issues and indicated that Albertsons has the option to come back with alternate proposals. He remarked that it is not uncommon for neighboring residents to object to a commercial center and pointed out that newer centers do a better job of buffering the adjacent residential uses. He noted that this center had been approved under County standards before City incorporation. He believed there needs to be a compromise. He noted that the evidence to date appears to indicate that the center is not in violation of noise standards or air pollution standards. He felt it is a security and aesthetic problem. He acknowledged that it would be handled differently now if it were just being processed as a new project. He indicated staff believes the biggest issue is noise and staled that staff was looking for Commission concurrence that more can and should be done to address the issues. Hearing no fuRher lestlmony. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he personally feels Albertsons is a great asset to the community. especially at its new location. He observed that one of the charges of the Planning Commission is public health. safety. and welfare and he thought several things need to be addressed: truck noise. loss of privacy. diesel fumes. and security. He thought it should be possible to come to a solution. Commissioner Mannedno felt part of the operation is detrimental to the neighborhood. He indicated he had looked at the wall and d~d not th~nk there is a feaslbfe or economic way to build the wall 12 feet high on AlDeRsons' side. He thought the existing wall and the edge of the building form an amphitheater. increasing the problem and suggested the use of sound attenuation materials to lessen Ihe problem. He felt security should be provided, particularly Since the center so closely abuts the residences and thought that would take care of getting the gate locked. He felt air pollution is the most difficult issue and noted that increasing the height of the wall will not abate that. He thought the only solution would be to move the loading docks. He observed that Alternatives B and C call for lowering the loading docks. He noted that loading docks are enclosed in some centers. Commissioner Macias concurred with the other Commissioners. He felt it is fundamentally a quality of life issue. He recognized that Albertsons has a business to run but he felt the residents' complaints have to be addressed. With regards to noise and security. he thought Albertsons must more carefully regulate the activity that occurs in the loading dock area. He thought more site specific noise readings might be beneficial and felt that secunty would not bankrupt Albertsons. He also thought they should look at the wall more closely, He suggestedAIbertsons considerwhat had been said and return to the Commission with their proposal at a later date. Commissioner Stewart concurred with the other Commissioners. She thought there should be an attempt to resolve the situation to the satisfaction of Albertsons. the City. and the residents. Regarding the diesel and soot. she suggested strong consideration be given to moving the loading docks. but noted that the vacant field behind Albertsons is zoned for residential use. She felt the cost to Albertsons should be seriously considered, Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 23, 1998 Chain'nan McN/e[ stated the situation is a nuisance problem He observed that the neighbors said nice things about AlDer,sons and said A',ber:,sons appeared willing to make some type of conciliatory effort, to solve the problems. He suggested the ma',:er be turned back over to staff. Ms. Fong said staff would be happy to work with Albe~sons and lhe residents together to look for the best solution. Chairman McNiel asked what time frame staff would like. Mr. Bullet felt the residents have been patient and recommended a 60-day period. Motion: Moved by MannerinD. seconded by Stewart. to continue consideration of Director's Review 79-24 for 60 days. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER. MACIAS. MCNIEL. TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. ENVIRONMEN-"I'AL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-45 -MASI - The o development of ~'r~,e auto service buildings totaling 20.400 square feet on 2.23 acres of land within the Masi Plaza i0 the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. located at the s0'Othwest side of Masi Drive and Sebastian Way - APN: 229-011-56 through 60. --, Chairman McNiel observed that stafi/hf?d requested the ma:Ier be continued to October 14. 1998. He opened the public hearing. There were no commenls and he directed that Conditional Use Permit 97-45 be cominued to October 14."1998. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-03- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 522) to delete lhe requirement for new developments over a certain size to provide telecommuting centers or video conferencing facilities. Jon Gil esp e Traffic Engineer. presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a homeowner could make use of fiber optic technology if the telephone company installs fiber optics and the house is equipped with Category 5 telephone cable. Mr. Gillespie responded affirmatively. He said the quality would be very. very good. but the speed would be a little slower than if the house were wired for fiber optic. He felt .all hBmes will eventually have fiber opdc capabilities. Planning Commission Minutes -7- ,,,. September 23. 1998 - October 21. 1995 C ~ T v C U CA bl © Mr. Scott Thayer Albertsons. Inc. 1180 West Lambert Road P.O. Box 7500 Brea, CA 92822-7500 SUBJECT: ALBERTSON'S STORE NO. 606 AT 9775 BASE LINE ROAD Dear Mr. Thayer: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on October 12 regarding the neighborhood issues AI our meeting. we reviewed the continued nuisance problems that the residents have experienced. We agreed that the three basic issues are: noise, privacy. and security. I informed you that as a result of a separate meeting between staff and the residehis, they have ranked the following mitigations as the most important. They believed that these mitigations will address their noise. privacy. and security issues. 1. Replace the block wall with a taller one along the east property boundary. 2. Reorient the loading dock wilh sound buffered screen wall and an overhead cover. Replace all existing glass windows at the west elevation of their homes with double glazing windows for sound attenuation 4. Provide a landscape buffer along the east property boundan/. I have requested that you consider the viabdlty of reorientating the loading dock. You believed that a new free standing fence by Woodcrete would address the noise. privacy. and security issues raised by the residents. At the conclusion of the meeting. I requested thai you respond in writing to the list of mitigation as contained in the September 23. 1998 Planning Commission staff report. Your responses should include cost estimates if they are factors in the reasoning for not agreeing to do the mitigation. You agreed that Albertsons will respond to the mitigation point-by-point. As you may recall, the Commission continued the review for 60 days so that staff, residents. and Albertsons could work together in addressing the issues. Because the 60-day period will be up at the end of November. slaff will be scheduling it for the December g meeting. Therefore. we would hke to have your response no later than November 5. 1998 Sco~ Thayer A/benson's October 21. 1993 Page 2 Although I had hoped all parties could agree on the proper mitigation before returning to the Commission. I am confident that with your written response we will be able to reach a conclusion soon. If possible. I would encourage that we have one more meeting with you. the neighbors, and City staff, after you have responded to the suggested mitigation and before the December 9 Commission meeting. Again. thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you. have any questions, please call me at any time at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANN G DIVISION NF:mlg Dave Rumprey. Albertson's Mike Hirz. Albertson's W. Craig Dootson. CPM David and Pamela Thompson. residents Paul and Patty Davies. residents Brad Buffer. City Planner October 21, 1998 Albertsons' RECEIVED 0gT-~6-'t998 Cily ol Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Ms. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner Community DeveIopment Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Albertson's Store #606 SEC Baseline & Archibald Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Nancy: In Follow-up to our meeting, it is apparent the shopping center owners' and A/bertson's .proposed solution to resolving the privacy, noise and security issues brought up by the adjacent neighbors are very different From what you now have in mind. If you recall, in your letter of August 27, 1998 you agreed to the installation oFa flee-standing Fence along the existing block wall, but recommended that Albertson's consider using a more durable and decorative material to further reduce any noise from trucks and to increase privacy. You suggested Woodcrete products as an example of a decorative and durable material. who we contacted and received a proposal and sample materials for our review. In your Staff Report to the Planning Commission of September 23, 1998, which I received a few days prior to said meeting. you came up with five proposed control and mitigation measures, none of which included the solid wail you and I had previously discussed. After the Planning Commission Hearing I met with the property owners, who were present at the meeting, to discuss the benefits of a nine Foot high Woodcrete product fence along a portion ofthe easterly property line -- 1) It is cost-effective. 2) It addresses the privacy issue. 3) It would make it more difficult For kids to climb. 4) While we are already within the City's noise guidelines, the added height would reduce the noise levels even more. The neighbors appeared to be fairly receptive to this potential solution. AL~ERTSON'S. h~C. / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OI',tlSIO,%! / I I87OI~,~=~'~ROAD / PO BOX 75CK) ! BREA,. CALiFOR,'~tA 92822-750(9 Nanc'2..'Fong October 21. 1998 Page 2 Most of the City's suggested control and mitigation measures, ,.vhile ,.veil intended. are either un,.varranted, or do not solve the neighbor concerns. My continents to each of these suggestions coincide with the numbers listed in the September 23. 1998 Staff Report and are as follows: El) Replacement of the existing six foot block wall with a ten foot one is not economical. The estimates we have received are in excess of $I00.000. E2) The reorientation of the loading dock and a ten foot landscape buffer along the east and south property boundaries are also quite costly and will nan from S75,000 to $100,000 or higher. The relocation of the loading dock does not really solve any problems. but merely shifts the noise levels from the easterly residences to the westerly and southerly residential areas, Also, the ten foot landscape buffer will not deter anyone from currently jumping the easterly block wall and may'even allow easier access than before. Even if thorny bushes were placed as part of the planting material. the kids could always trample them and make a path For themselves. E3) Instead of installing damping material to the loading area. [ suggest you allow us to demo the wall in order to have easier trucking movemores into the dock area which would eliminate the trucks from maneuvering back and forth when trying to lineup properly with the dock. E4a) We will continue to compress the delivery hours between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.. Monday through Sunday, Your proposed weekend hours are too restrictive which do not allow us to properly stock the store when it is open for business. E4b) We will continue to maintain the security Fences and gates. and lock them between the hours or9 p.m. and 8 a.m, Monday through Sunday. E4c) We currently do not have a loitering problem in the shopping center, so there is no need for security personnel on-site. E4d) With the new wall extending nine feet high. the privacy issue would be resolved. E5) The shopping center opcratcs within the current noise standards of tile City of Rancho Cucamonga and with the installation of a new nine foot high concrete fence, the noise decibels to a second floor will be reduced by approximately 4.8 decibcls and 3.2 decibels to the backyard. Nan~'Fong October 21. 1998 Page 3 Again, [ recommend the City review the Woodcrete product with the adjacent residents as a possible solution to the issues at hand; it was well received by the residences at the end of the last hearing. Scott R. Thayer Real Estate Manager Craig Dootson, Property Manager Brad Bullet. City Planner. City of Rancho Cucamonga Bob Banks/Dave McKinney/Bob Butler/Donna Robbins/Gerry Hinkle/Mike Hirz o S RT'p',-Cornpla I 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING DIRECTOR'S REVIEW NO. 79-24, FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1077-011-45 AND 47 THROUGH 52. A. Recitals. 1. On September 9, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga received a request from two residents east of the commercial center to assist in relieving the nuisance problems they experienced from the major tenant, Albertsons. 2. On September 23 and continued to December 9, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Directors Review and concluded the hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 23 and December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The subject Directors Review applies to property located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road and is presently improved with a commercial center where Albertsons is a major tenant. b. The properties to the north and west are developed with commercial centers, the properties to the south and east are developed with single family residences. c. Two adjacent residents have submitted complaints of continuing nuisance problems that they have experienced since 1996. The nuisance problems include noise from delivery trucks, loading and unloading activities, use of a trash compactor and a lot sweeper, loss of privacy and use of their backyards, and unwanted activities along their property boundary. d. Albertsons has attempted to address, in the past, the nuisance problems with the following control measures: compressed delivery schedules and limiting the use of the trash compactor to the hours between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and installing security gates and keeping them locked to deter delivery trucks from violating the cur-few hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. e. The control measures have not been effective in addressing the negative impacts of noise, the loss of privacy and use of the residents' backyards, and the security problems. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DR 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS December 9, 1998 Page 2 f. At the public hearing of September 23, 1998, the Planning Commission directed the affected residents and Albertsons to work together in finding acceptable solutions that address the nuisance problems. g. The affected residents and Albertsons met to review and discuss the control and mitigation measures recommended by staff. At the meeting on November 17, 1998, between the affected residents and Albertsons, they jointly agreed on the following control and mitigation measures: Albertsons is to install a separate 9-foot high wall I or 2 feet away from the existing block wall, Albertsons and City agreed to the removal of the screen wall adjacent to the loading dock, Albertsons agreed to provide sound insulation to the enclosure walls for the trash compactor, and Albertsons agreed to replace the second story windows for the residence located at 7390 London Avenue with dual-glazed windows. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the use is not being operated in an appropriate manner which has resulted in nuisance problems of noise and loss of privacy; and b. That the addition of control and mitigation measures would result in the shopping center being conducted in an appropriate manner. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the Directors Review subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planninq Division 1> No delivery, loading and unloading, or the use of the trash compactor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. daily. 2) Maintain security fences and gates at the east side of Albertsons and at the southerly drive entrance and lock the gates between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., daily 3) Queuing of delivery trucks along the east property boundary wall is prohibited. 4) Install a freestanding 9-foot wall 1 or 2 feet away from the east property boundary wall and provide appropriate return walls at each end. The lineal distance and the location of the return walls along the east property boundary shall be determined by City Planner. Detailed plans and a time schedule to complete the work shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and installation. 5) The existing screen wall next to the loading dock shall be removed. 6) Provide sound insulation to the enclosure walls for the trash compactor. Detailed plans and a time schedule to complete the work shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DR 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS December 9, 1998 Page 3 7) Conditions No. 4 and 6 shall be completed within three months from City Planner approval of detailed plans. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'R'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCI:-[O CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY SUBJECT: December 9, 1998 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Betty Miller, Associate Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL AS SES SMENT AND TIME EXTENS ION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14038 - DANIEL - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative parcel map for the subdivision of 2.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Irlitustrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast comer of Arrow Route and Maple Place - APN 208-961 - 11 BACKGROUND: Tentative Parcel Map 14038 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1992. In 1993, Senate Bill 428 automatically extended, by 24 months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by September 13, 1993. As the map was s.t) 11 valid on that date, Tentative Parcel Map 14038 was extended until September 9, 1996. In 1996, Assembly Bill 71 I automatically extended, by 12-months, the expiration of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by May 14, 1996. As the map was still valid on that date, Tentative Parcel Map 14038 was extended until Septemberg, 1997. On August 14, 1997, the City Engineerapproved a 12-month time extension extending Tentative Parcel Map 14038 until September 9, 1998. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the current time extension request. ANALYSIS: Section 66463.5 (c) of the Subdivision Map Act states that the City may approve a time extension for a period or periods not exceeding a total of three years. Since the applicant received a City-granted time extension in 1997, this is the second of three possible time extension requests. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Based on this review the tentative parcel map meets the development standards of the General Industrial District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The applicant prepared Part I of the Environmental Checklist. Staff completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that certain environmental conditions have changed since the original project's approval. The project is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. As a result, a habitat assessment was required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). The results ofthe habitat assessment indicate that the site does not support substantial areas of high quality or optimal DSF habitat. ITEM C Y PLANNENG COM2VE[SSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 14038 -DANIEL December 9, 1998 Page 2 The report concludes that due to the highly disturbed nature of the site and relative isolation from undisturbed or native habitats, proposed development of the 2.4 acre parcel will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF or its habitat. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 14038 through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Dec[aration. Respectfully Submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:BM:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Time Extension letter dated 8/3/98 Exhibit "B" - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit "C" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval Aug. 3, 1998 Fred Daniel 56 Belcourt Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 640-8899 voice (949) 640-1016 fax RECEIvE. u AUG 11 1998 Clll (TE P, jUt~HO CUCA~0'NCA E~GINEERING DIVISION Mr. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Ra. ncho Cucamonga, CA 91730 re: Tentative Parcel Map 14038 Dear Mr. O'Neil; h is my understanding that my Tentative Parcel Map number 14038 is due to expire soon. Due to the general difficult economic conditions we have all experienced, I have been unable to complete the required process for the final map, within the allotted time. I therefore request a one year e.,dension in order to complete the process. Enclosed is my check in the amount of $549 for the require fee. If this request is incomplete, or there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the number above. Sincerely, Fred Daniel cc: Robert Clarke Company EX'HII~IT " A , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA =ENGINEERING~DrVISION / ITEM: Pt:tR~EL T]TLE: TEAl T,q rl ~1 E City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. 10. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 14038 Related Files: DR 91-12 (expired) Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14037 - DANIEL - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative parcel map for the subdivision of 2.4 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Maple Place - APN 208-961-11 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Fred Daniel P. O. Box 9227 Newport Beach, CA 92658 (714) 640-8899. General Plan Designation: General Industrial Zoning: General Industrial, Subarea 8 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing industrial buildings on all four sides Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Betty Miller, Associate Engineer (909) 477-2740 Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality DETERMINATION ( ) Transporiation/Circulation (m/) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( } Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v) ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation () () () () I find that the proposed projec{ COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: B~iller Associate Engineer November 4, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Displace existing housing, especially affordable hoGsing? c) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 4 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Landslides or mudflowS? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading. or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality: (e.g., temperature. dissolved oxygen. or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) g) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 5 h) i) impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) () () (v) ( ) ( ) (v) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? () () () () ) () No (v) (v) (v) (v) TRANSpORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? No ( ) ( ) (v) () () () () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 , Page 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to.' a) b) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etC.)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or m gration corridors? () () ( () () () (v) () () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Comments: a) The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service as a potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Habitat assessment and biological surveys were required to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. Habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Impact Sciences, consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the subject site does not support substantial areas of high quality or optimal DSF habitat. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of futu. re value to the region and the residents of the State? () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 7 HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) NO Impac~ () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) () () () () (v) (v) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) C) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) () () () () () () () () () () NO (v) (v) (v) (v) dll Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) c) d) 0 g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks.'? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () () () () () () () () (v) (v) () (v) () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? () () () () () () () () () NO (v) (v) (v) 14o CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( () () () () () () () () () () No (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 14038 Page 9 15o 16. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short ten'n: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) No () () () (v) () () () (v) No () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for TPM 14038 -EARLIER ANALYSES City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14038, A SUBDIVISION OF 2.4 ACRES OF LAND INTO 4 PARCELS IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND MAPLE PLACE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-961-11 A. Recitals. 1. Fred Daniel has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 14038, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 9, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-115, thereby approving subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map No. 14038. 3. On August 3, 1998, the applicant filed a request for a 12-month time extension. 4. On December 9, 1998, 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. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows. a. The previously approved Tentative Parcel Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Tentative Parcel Map approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Tentative Parcel Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application. the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: · PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14038 -.DANIEL December 9, 1998 Page 2 a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission, and further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning CommisSion hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set for in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: PROJECT APPLICANT EXPIRATION Tentative Parcel Map 14038 Fred Daniel September 9, 1999 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT December 9, 1998 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS - The development of an automotive training center totaling 33,000 square feet on 3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. located at the noaheast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive - APN: 229-263-40. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: Noah - Vacant; Industrial Park District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 12) South - Vacant; Industrial Park District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 12) East Warehouse; Industrial Park District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 12) West Office parks and California Highway Patrol station; Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Industrial Park Noah Industrial Park South - Industrial Park East Industrial Park West Industrial Park Site Characteristics: The site is a vacant parcel within a Master Planned Industrial Park. The 3-acre propeay is covered with grapevines and other vegetation, Curb, gutter, and sidewalks exist along the entire propeay frontages. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided School 33,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 3 students 84' 105 1 space per 2 instructors See Section C for parking analysis ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS December 9, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: General: The proposed project is a 33,000 square foot building which will be used as the new Mercedes Benz West Coast Training Center. The facility will include seven shops and seven classrooms for the training of master mechanics and management and sales staff. The site is within a Master Planned Industrial Park (Development Review 86-45). The Master Plan showed conceptual building locations, overall circulation, and points of ingress and egress. The subject parcel is one of four properties left undeveloped. The building and site plan are compatible with the Master Plan. The building is oriented so the main office area and most of the embellished elevations faae Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive. The overall architectural scheme is consistent with the industrial projects in the area. The building design and site plan create a campus-like setting that is compatible with surrounding land use and architecture. The building features extensive use of blue reflective glass windows with accents of sandblasted concrete. A strong entry statement has been created at the building's entrance with special pavement and landscaping. All exterior wall elevations have architectural treatment and articulation through texture and surface elevation changes. Land Use Compatibility: The Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP), defines schools as public and private educational institutions, which includes vocational or business trade schools. In Subarea 12 ofthe IASP, schools are a conditionally permitted use. The site is surrounded on the west side by office parks, and on the east side by warehouses. The location of an auto- related training center is not likely to interfere with adjoining properties and the activities anticipated with the subject facility should not create any conflicts with neighboring businesses. :' Parkinc~ Analysis: There is adequate parking on-site to accommodate the training facility. Required parking for educational uses is calculated based on the number of students and the number of faculty and staff. The Development Code requires that I parking space for each three students and I parking space for each 2 faculty be provided. Based on the number of classrooms and the information submitted by the applicant on the expected number of attendees to the courses, it is anticipated that at full occupancy, the training center can expect 224 students and 17 faculty andstaft. Typically, trainees stay in local hotels and would be shuttled to this facility. The facility would be required to provide a maximum of 84 parking spaces to accommodate this attendance. The applicant is proposing to provide 105 parking spaces. Desicln Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Macias and Fong) reviewed the proposed project on November 17. and December 1. 1998 and recommended approval with conditions (Exhibit "F"). Technical/Gradincl Review Committees: The Technical and Grading Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval with the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. The project is in compliance with all applicable City Standards and Design Policies. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA & CUP 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS December 9, 1998 Page 3 Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant and staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the project area soil type as Tujunga-Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with a federally listed endangered species: the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were required to determine potential impacts to DSF. These surveys were prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. Results of the focused survey (Impact Sciences, October23, 1998. Exhibit "H") indicate that no DSF were observed on the project site. In addition, based on the habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site has a low potential to support DSF. No other potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval. meets the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The development of the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily B=ulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-26 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:CW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" - Site Utilization Map - Site Plan - Elevations and Floor Plan - Landscape Plan - Applicant's Letter - Design Review Committee Comments dated November 17, and December 1, 1998 - Initial Study Part II Exhibit "H" - Biological Study Resolution of Approval 3.364 9.5~0 ~C, / I""1 ..../" ZN38-S3033~3k4 /9 h rn II UI r [_ :-[ ~. g L ....-j' -..2' ~. PLAN11NG LEGEND: RECEIVED OCT 2 ? 1998 City ot Rancho Cucamonga planning Division ~,~ ."vlercedes-Renz Mercedes-Benz of Nor'Oh America. [nc, October 27, 1998 City of Rmacho Cucamonga Planning Commission Gentlemen: The proposed Mercedes-Bcnz of North America rair~ng center will combine our West Coast locations presently in Oxnard and South San Francisco, California. This facility will provide training for our Los Angeles and San Francisco regions that cover the western half of the U.S., including Hawaii, Alaska and Guam, totaling approximately 105 dealers. Three types oftralning will be offered: · Technical training · Non-technical training · Body repair training The technical training courses are designed to provide advanced diagnostic technology and skills to our Level One dealerskip and MBNA service technicians. Courses cover systems operation, diagnostic methods and repair procedures on Mercedes-Benz passenger cars and light trucks. This training utilizes the classroom for presenting basic operational information and the training labs for application and developing hands-on product skills. This includes use of Mercedes-Benz special tools, engine analyzes, electrical diagnostic extuipraent and computers. The component labs ar~ used for teaching disassembly and re-assembly, procedures of major components such as engines and automatic transmissions. Our technician base is 1,350 technicians that will use this training center. Our goal is to conduct 140 comes per year. Approximately one half of the number will come in from Southern California while the balance will come in by air. This will generate over 2,600 hotel room mghts per year contribute to local eating places and shopping malls. The non-technical courses will be for sales, administrative and managerial personnel. Only personnel located in Southern California will attend this type of training. Types of courses offered will be new hire orientation and selling skills for sales consultants and Rancho L"ucamonga Planning Conumssion October 27, 1998 Page Two specific management courses for service/parts managers and warranty personnel. Thc basc of non-technical pcrsonncl is approximatcly 500, which will gcncratc around 25 one to two day comes per year. The body shop training develops basic skills on appmved methods of repairing damaged vehicles. It includes removal and replacement of body aim, panels, alignment and adjustment of doors, sunroofs and replacement of body sheet metal sections. No paint or refinishing training is conducted at our facility. This is all done by our paint supply vendors at their facilities. The body shop technician base for this facility is approximately 200. We will expect to conduct 10-12, four day body shop courses annually. Maximum staff is ten (10); one (1) on-site supervisor and the balance are training instructors. Training is conducted throughout the year, except for holiday and sttmmer vacation weeks. Should tl:ete be any questions, I can be contacted at (201) 573-2585. Sincerely, MW~~ing DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Cecilia Williams November 17. 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS - The development of a training center totaling 33,000 square feet on 3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive - APN: 229-26340. Desian Parameters: The site is within a Master Planned industrial park (Development Review 8645). The Master Plan shows conceptual building locations, overall circulation, and points of ingress and egress, (Master Plan is attached as Exhibit "A"). The industrial park was never built out, and the subject parcel is one of four properties left undeveloped. The site is surrounded on the west side by office parks, and on the east side by warehouses. The building and site plan are compatible with the Master Plan. Project Description: The proposed facility will serve as the West Coast training center for Mercedes Benz of North Ar:nerica. The building will include classrooms and shops for the training of sales and management staff, and master mechanics. The applicant has been working closely with staff on the project design. The building design and site plan create a campus-like setting and are compatible with surrounding land use and architecture. The building features extensive use of glass windows around the entire building. A strong entry statement has been created at the building's entrance with special pavement and landscaping. All exterior wall elevations have architectural treatment and articulation through texture and surface elevation changes. The elevations demonstrate exceptional building design and meet the standards for the Industrial Area Specific P'lan. The applicant has indicated that they may increase the height of the building by several feet which would affect the facade. If this occurs, staff will present the Committee with revised plans and an oral update at the meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Eliminate standing seam metal roof on tower element. Instead, increase roof height at front entry to create a vertical element. Flat roof consistent with building's overall design and "industrial" architecture. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide landscape planters along the north elevation between loading doors for additional tree planrings. Additional landscaping in this area will break up the mass of building wall along the north elevation. Screen north parking lot and north elevation loading doors from public view with a combination of mounding. low walls, and a grade differential along the west property line. Landscape plan shows a row of trees and shrubs along the west project perimeter, however, additional enhancement of this edge is needed. DRC COMMENTS CUP 98-26 - MVA November 17, 1998 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Exhibit "A" Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias. Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Cecilia Wifiiams The Committee reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to the rollowing modifications: 1. Provide drip edge between metal roof and building race to carry water away from building wall. 2. Provide decorative paving at driveway entrances. 3. Provide landscape planters along north elevation between loading doors for additional tree planrings. 4. Provide additional landscaping to screen north elevation roll-up doors from view facing south, t N( 2~ (TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DiVISKDN CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 8:20 P.M, Cecilia Willjams December 1, 1 gg8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-26 * MVA ARCHITECTS - The development of a training center totaling 33,000 square feet on 3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive - APN: 229-263-40. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Cecilia Williams The Committee reviewed changes to the site plan and elevations as follows: The removal of the parking spaces along the east side of the site to accommodate fire access and turning radii. The project still meets and exceeds the parking requirements. The screening of the roll*up door along the north elevations through enhanced landscaping along Pittsburgh Avenue landscape setback area, increased width of the continuous planter north of the building and provided with enhanced landscaping. and sizeable landscape planters provided between roll-up doors. 3. The south elevation windows narrowed in width to provide structural support for the building. The Committee recommended approval with the request that the applicant provide a detail of the gable roof drip edge for their review at the Commission meeting. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-26 2. Related Files: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-45 Description of Project: The development of an automotive repair training center totaling 33,000 square feet on 3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive - APN: 229-263-40. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: MVA Architects 2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92612 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park 6, Zoning: Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a vacant parcel within a Master Planned Industrial Park. The site was previously used for the cultivation of grape vines. The land to the north and south of the site is undeveloped. To the west are office parks and to the east are warehouses, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga · CUP 98-26 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact." "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (X) Geological Problems (X) Water ( ) Air Quality DETERMINATION ( ) Transportation/Circulation (X) Biological Resoumes ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation () () () () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Cecilia Willlares, Associate Planner November 5, 1998 Init~'al Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-26 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? () () () ) () (x) (x) (x) (x) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) Fault rupture? ( ) () () No (x) Initial Study for · CUP 98-26 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 b) g) h) i) Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land.'? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: The topography will be altered to accommodate the project. The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. Grading of the site will be done under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not considered significant. h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. . temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initi~;I Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga 'CUP 98°26 Page 5 d) g) h) i) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) () () () () No (×) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) Comments: a) The proposed project will result in an increase in paved surface areas, which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows. m AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in dimate? ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga ' CUP 98-26 Page 6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail or air traffic impacts? g) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) b) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered. threatened. or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) Wddlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) NO ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soils which is,a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). As a result, habitat assessment and biological surveys were required to determine potential impacts to DSF. These surveys were Initial Study for 'CUP 98~26 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. Results of the focused survey (impact Sciences, October 23. 1998) indicate that no DSF were observed on the project site. In addition, based on the habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site has a low potential to support DSF due to: (1) lack of representative plant species associated with Delhi Sands habitat, (2) soil disturbances from recent grading, and (3) dense coverage of non-native vegetation. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 3.5 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be located on the project site. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) b) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals. or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush. grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initi;I Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-26 Page 8 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) There will be shod term noise impacts associated with construction, The impact is not considered significant. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) c) d) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-26 Page 9 g) Local or regional water supplies? () () () No (x) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) Comments: c) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requiring an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire property, will be required for review and approval for the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriffs Depadment, prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excessive light and glare onto adjacent propedies. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) "'D 23 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga -CUP 98-26 Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief. definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremeqtal 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)i ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-28 Page 11 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (x) Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Development Review 86-45 (Certified March 25, 1987) Af~PLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 98-26 Public Review Period Closes: December 9, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: MVA Architects 2151 Michelson Dr. Ste. 140 Irvine, CA 92612 Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northeast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive - APN: 0229-263-40. Project Description: The development of an automotive training center totaling 33,000 square feet on 3 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public 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 Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. December 9. 1998 Date of Determination IMPACT SCIENCES Sa~ari Business Center 2020 Lynx Trail Ontario, CA 91761 RECEIVED OCT 7 B98 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division October 23, 1~98 Atin: Carl Ross SUBJECT: Results of Fo<ueed Surveys tor Delhi Sands Flower4ovi~8 Fly on &n Approximately 3.5-acre Site, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardlno Courtly, California Dear Mx. Ross: A~K&m ]hll~. This x~port presents findings of focused protocol surveys conducted to evaluate the presence/absence of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trrminatus nbdominalis-herein DSF) on the approximately 3,S-acre 5afari Business Center site located in the City of Rancho Cuca.monga, San Bernardtoo County, California. TNs z~Fort is intended to provide project specific biological information to the Service and the prc~ject applicant regarding the findings of focusel DSF surveys conducted cn the 3.5-acre site pursuant to federal permit conditions (FRT-808242). INTRODUCTION Impact Sciences. Inc. (Impact Sciences) understands that a development plan is currently being prepared c~ a,n approximately 3.S-acre project site located in the City of Rancho Cucamenga (FiFe l). The proposed project site ts generally located north of Masion Vista Drive, south of 5th Street, east of Pittsburgh Avenue, and west of Richmond Place (Figure 2). Specifically, the site is located an the Guasti, Cali(ornla USGS 7.,5-nunute quadra,ngle map, Township 1 South, Range 6 West, comprising a portion of the southwest quarter of the ~outhwest quarter of Section 18. General Delhi Sands flower-Loving fly Background The DSF was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) an September ;23, 1993 (USF1ArS 1993). This species Is ordy known to occur in assOCiation with Delhi ~and deposits, priraarily cn ten disjunct sites (USPN5 1997) within a radius of about ./ Site Vicinity on USGS 7,5-rain. "Guasti" Quadrangle) eight miles in the cities of Co/ton, Rialto, and Fontana located in southwestern San Bemardino and northwestern Riverside counties. However, recent survey data (1997-98) h~dicates that DSF have Ix-,en recorded in several new iocatiuns. inclusive of the Ontario area. The DSF Is restricted to the Colton Dunes which covers approximately 40 square miles. More than 95 percent of the formerly known habitat has been converted to human uses or severely affected by human activitics, rendering it apparently unsuitable for occupation by the species (Smith 1993, USFWS 1997 in Kingsley 1996). There is presently an estimated 1,200 acres o.f habitat that can support this species (USPWS 1997). Flies of the genus Rhaphiomidas prefer acid habitats and are typically large (up to 1.25-inches in body length). Overvlew of DSF Habitat Characteristics Potential habitat for the DSF is typically defined as areas comprised of sandy soil (Delhi series) in open areas commonly dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). California eraton (Crolon call/arnica), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandi/Iora). Annual bur-sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), Rancher's fireweed (Amsinckia men:iesii), vinegar we~d (Lesil,Ria glandeli/era), sapphire ariastrum (Eriastrum sapphirinum), and Thurber's eri~'o. um (Eriog~onum thurberi) are also commonly present at occupied DSF sites. }lowever, DSF have bcen recorded in habitats that do not support these plant species. General DSF Survey Guidelines On December ."40, 1996 the Service prepared Interim General Survey Guidelines (guidelines) for the DSF. In order to conduct a focused survey to determine thc presence or absence of this slx'cics such that the result is acceptable to the Service, these guidelivies must be followed. The guidelines require that focused DSF surveys be conducted in all areas containing Delhi sands twice weekly (two days t:~r week) during the single annual flight period from August I to September 2i), for a two year period. Surve~ nhould not b~ conducted during adverse weather conditions. METHODOLOGY surveys were initiated an th~ subject property following verbal approval from the Service an August 10, 1998. Focused DSF surveys were conducted on those portions of the property generally specified by the 5errice as supporting potcntially suitable DSF habitat. Surveys of the site wer~ conduct~:d at least twice a week from August 12 to September 20. The focused DSF surveys were conductt~.t generally following the recommended survey guidelines. lmpacl Sciences. Inc. October 23. 1998 Survey areas were covered at a relatively slow pace with speciai care taken to avoid harassing DSF (if present). Widely separated survey areas that conh'tined at leas~ some Delhi s.~nds were closely exan~ined for adult animals and exuviae (pupal "skins"). The surveys were generally conducted between the hours of either 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or between 9:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m. PDT tiepending cr~ daily weather conditions. Surveys of the site were conducted cn August 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30; September 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20. Data recorded included survey location, wildlife/insect species observed, time of day, surveyor's name, and general weather conditions. Weather conditions included both parlly cloudy and clear skies and winds of usually less than five m.p.h. Survey temperatures ranged from approximatuly 75 degrees F to over 100 degrocs F. Focused DSF surveys were conducted on the project site by Scott D. Cameron. Mr. Cameron h as observed DSP in the field, and is familiar with the biotic characteristics o[ habitats occupied by DSI:. Surveys were conducted under the authorfly of federal Section 10(a) permit numtx, r PRT-808242, issued to Scott D. Cameron. General plant and wildfire species present at the site were recorded during focused DSF survey efforts to provide a qualitative assessment of the overall habitat value. Off-site Field Observations Limited orbsite field visits were also conducted to provide currt'nt Information regarding optimal habitat characteristics, and to discuss this season's (1998) findings relative to the DSF cn sevcral occupied sites located in the vicinity. Informal data gathered during the oil-site field visit:/was used to assess differences in biological characteristics which may relate to habitat suitability br this endangered fly sl~cies. The occupied site visits and communication with other DSF biologists also provided regular updates as to current DSF survey results and seasonal disposition of other DSF populations in ~he region. EXISTING CONDITIONS Vegetation and Soils Dominant vegetation pre~nt cn silt inchides a dense coverage of Spanish clover (Lotus purshiamts) and black mustard (Brasslea nigra), The northern two-thirds o[ the site is dorninatc~d by a nearly 99 percent coverage of dense mustards and weedy herb.c. Other species detected c:n site include telegraph weed, slender buckwheat (Erio,~onum gracile), western Oclober 23. 1998 ragweed, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and various Brome grasses {Bromus spp.). Grapevines (Virus vinif~'ra), which appear to be actively cultivated, are present in the southern portion of the property. The vineyard portion of the site supports approximately a 70 percent coverage of vegetation, inclusive of the grape! vines. The most southern portion of the site (approximately 50 feel in width located adjacent to Mission Vista Drive) has be~n recently exposed to disking, apparently in c~nJundion with weed abatement activities. This 50-foot strip supports approximately 10-25 percent vegetative cover due to the rectn~t dL~king. The substrate present cn the site appears to be comprised of sandy loam to loamy soil types that arc generally friable. Surrounding and Hisrode Land Use The sul:~ct property is located i.n a mixed light-industrial/commercial area of the Czly of Rancho Cucamonga. The property is bounded an the east and west by large commercial bu!ldings, to the south and southwest by a vacant lot dominated by non-ha five grasses (no grapevines observed}, and to the norfit by a vacant lot (similar to site). Most of the site appears to have been an actively managed vineyard for many years, and portion~ of the site have been recent disked. The enclosed slides illustrate existing conditions [tom various Iocatmns throughout the project site where focused DSF surveys were cenducted punuant to federal permit c~nditions. Wildlife A general li~t of invertebrate species observed an site during the performance of focused DSF surveys is included as Appendix A. Bird species observed dunng the reconnaissance-level field survey include mourning dove (Ze,taida macroura), American Crow (Con,us brachyrhynchos), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamattends). Mammal species directly observed, or of which sign was detected, include Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys hottat), desert cottontail ($ylvilagus auduboni), and California ground squirrel (5permophilus beechryi). Reptile species observed include side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occldrntalis). DSF SURVEY RESULTS No DSF were observed during foctL, z'd surveys of the 3.5-acre project site conducted in August- September 1998. In addition, no other sign of recent DSF occupation was detected (e.g., exuviae). 6 impact Sclcncc$, Inc. October 23, |998 Based c~t h~tforrnation fi'orn the off-site field visits, personal conversations with other entomologists, and results of other DSF surveys conducted in the general area, the 1998 DSP flight season was apparently "productive" relative to the above ~uund activity period for 13517. Pn~Iiminary survey results from the vicinity suggest that the 1998 DSP popu]alion was relatively prolific during a slightly later flight season. As such, environmental conditions appeared to he conducive tar DSF above-ground activity (seasonal flight). CONCLUSIONS Results of the focused DSF survey ellart indicate that the site has Ix~n exposed to a variety of historic and current disturbances, including viticulture and recent disking activities. Accordingly, these disturbance-related condition~ contribute to decrease the likelihood for current occupation of the site by DSF, most notably where dense vegetation or re<urring exposun~ to grape cultivation and weed abatement activities predominate. Nearly 75 pe~ent of the site is comprised of a nearly 99 percent coverage of dense non-native weedy hems. Non-native vegelation types, particularly dense vegetation, are negatively associated with potential DSF habitat, and optimal vegetative cover for DSF is probably less than 50 percent, and may be in Me range of 10-20 percent (USFW5 1997). No sha'ubs, dune areas, or extens/ve open areas are present on, or adjacent to the project site; conditions which would be matt positively correlated with potential DSF habitat. In addition, important DSF habitat indicator species such as Apiocera and Nemom3/das were not detected. Given the apparent lack of Apiocera and Nemamydas, overall absence of representative plant species associated with Delhi Sands habitat, negative/c~-used survey results in August- September 1998, exposure to recurring soil disturbances, and the averail dense coverage of non- native vegetation, the 3.5-acre property has a low potential to support DSF. If you have any questions regarding the findings presented in this report, please don't hesitate to call. Very truly yours, IMPACT SCJENCES, INC. ~eniur Biologist 7 REFERENCES California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDI~). 1998. Computer Reports/or the Ontario, San Dimas, and Gunst/USGS 7.5-minute quadrangIe maps, Kingsley, Kermeff~ .L 1996. Behavior of the E~lhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Diptera: Mydidac), a Lilfle Known Endangered Species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89(6): 883-891. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered Status for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. U.S. Department of Interior. Federal Register, 58 (183): 49881-49887. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Del/~i Sands Flower-loving Fly Draft Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. December 30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Delhi sands Flower-lovh'~g Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlift' Service, Portland, OR. 51 pp. Impact Sciences. Inc. Appendix A General Insect Species List Safari Business Center Rancho Cucamonga. San Bernazdino County. California August-Sepeember 1998 , Dxptera ' ' · ". ~trnopo~on ~re~lusc./u~-robbcr fi~ gristnli~ Sp,-hovcr ~V Ar¢h~ta~ aplc;'~r-lachimd fi~ M.sCa dontcset~-ho,~e fi~ Hymenop tera Neuropte~a ~oleoptera H~moptera Odonata Lepldoptera Ofihoptera [ BrnchVnenmrs $p-ant[ion ] Cotmus texans (mutabdlsJ-.~rten fru,t beetle Trime~tr~pts p~qlhd.pfi.xis- Ihd b~,nd-wb ~, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-26 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING CENTER TOTALING 33,000 SQUARE FEET ON 3 ACRES OF LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 12) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PITTSBURGH AVENUE AND MISSION VISTA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-263-40. A. Recitals. 1. MVA Architects has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-26, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a vacant property located at the northeast corner of Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive with a street frontage of 276,25 feet and lot depth of 382.24 feet and which is presently partially developed as a master planned industrial park with curb, gutter, and sidewalks; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is within the industrial Park District. Subarea 12, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is currently vacant; the property to the south is within the Industrial Park District, Subarea 12. of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is vacant; the property to the east is within the Industrial Park District, Subarea 12. of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is developed with warehouses; and the property to the west is within the Industrial Park District. Subarea 12. of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is developed with office parks; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS December 9, 1998 Page 2 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. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project. no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. the Planning Commission finds as follows: in considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2.3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) Provide drip edge between metal roof and building face to carry water away from building wall. 2) Provide decorative paving, outside the public right-of-way, at driveway entrances. 3) Add landscape planters along north elevation between loading doors for additional tree plantings. 4) Provide additional landscaping to screen north elevation roll-up doors from view facing south. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS December 9, 1998 Page 3 Enqineerincl Division 1) 2) A lot line adjustment shall be processed relocating the property line between Parcels 4 and 5 of Parcel Map 11671, P.M.B. 143/141-146 (APNs: 229-263-39 and 40) prior to the issuance of building permits. To reflect new or relocated improvements. revise existing street improvement plans. City Engineer's Drawing No. 1337, as required by the City Engineer. Buildinq and Safety Division 1) Provide draft stops in attic areas not to exceed 3.000 square feet in accordance with UBC Section 708. 2) Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. 3) Construct trash enclosure(s) per City standard (available at Planning Division public counter). 4) Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC. and NEC. 5) Submit three complete sets of plans including the following: 6) 7) 8) 9) a) Site/Plot Plan. b) Foundation Plan. c) Floor Plan. d) Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan. e) Electrical Plans (2 sets detached) including size of main switch. number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams. f) Plumbing and Sewer Plans including isometrics, underground diagram, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning. Submit two sets of structural calculations. energy conservation calculations, and soils report. Architect's/Engineers stamp and "wet" signature is required prior to plan check submittal. School District fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance. Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt to the Building and Safety Division. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation to City prior to permit issuance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-26- MVA ARCHITECTS December9,1998 Page 4 10) Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit 1) Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2) Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. 3) 4) 5) a) A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by Fire Department personnel prior to water plan approval. b) For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by Fire Department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riserwith a 4-inch and 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Note: All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrant flushing shall be witnessed by Fire Department personnel. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6) An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: 7) a) Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. b) Other: 1994 UBC. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS December 9, 1998 Page 5 8) Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: a) Other: see Site Plan. 9) Fire Department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. lo) All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet 6 inches from ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. $677.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." a) A Fire Distdct fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. ""Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 13) Plans shaft be submitted and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC and RCFD Standards 22, 15. Police Department 1) All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained l-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise on photo sensor cell. 2) All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3) Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. 4) Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color. Numbering should be illuminated at night by fixtures that include numbering and lighting, or have lighting situated near the numbering that does not create glare. 5) Commercial developments shall paint roof top numbers (address building numbers where it applies) in contrasting colors. The numbers shall be a minimum of 3 feet in length and 2 feet in width. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-26 - MVA ARCHITECTS December 9, 1998 Page 6 6) When burglar and panic alarms are installed, instruct management and employees on the operation of the alarm system to reduce false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 7) Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATf'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit 98-26 Mercedes Benz Training Center MVA Architects Northeast corner Pittsburgh Avenue and Mission Vista Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements 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. Completion Date The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in. or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located. designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho C ucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the Districrs property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission. if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Project NO CUP 98-26 /I Completion Date C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans. architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein. Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. 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. .. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. Do Shopping Centers 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: Project No CUP 98-26 Completion Date / / / / / / Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p,m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b, Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 am. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. E. Building Design All roof appurtenances. including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the buitding design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 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. 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). All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. G. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. Project NO CUP 98-26 The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Completion Date All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shaft require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes. ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 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. J, New Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. Project NO CUP 98-26 Completion Date Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curt) & A,C, Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Pi~sburghAve. x x x (e) Mission Vista Dr. x x x (e) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Installation of traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) signs. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: 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 pubtic and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Concentrated drainage flows Shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. 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. Prolect NO. CUP 98-26 Comp{etion Date Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. Utilities 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. Water and sewer plans Shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map:approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. P. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. X b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the buildefideveloper and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible buildin9 materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Project NO CUP 98-26 Completion Date Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants. if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. / / / / / / / / / / / Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an appreved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X California Code Regulations Title 24. 9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 11. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 12. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. $677.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee wilt be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. "Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 14. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC. UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. Security Lighting All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. Project NO CUP 98-26 Completion Date 2. All buildings shah have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. / / / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 9, 1998 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller. City Planner Cecilia Willjams. Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES o A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 0227~691-01. Related File: Variance 94-05. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES - A request for extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required minimum building separation from 15 feet to 8 feet and to increase the distance for the closest visitor parking space from a dwelling unit from a maximum of 150 feet to 240 feet for a proposed 153-unit detached condominium project on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per acre. respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue- APN: 0227-691-01. Related File: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477. BACKGROUND: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1994. Since that time, the State granted automatic time extension for several years during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Vesting Tentative Tract to November 9, 1997. Subsequently, staff approved an extension for the Vesting Tentative Tract and Variance for one year. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed an extension request on October 14, 1998. ANALYSIS: According to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City may extend the time at which a Tentative Map approval expires by up to three years. The Planning Commission approval also included design review for construction of condominium units on the lots and a variance to reduce building separation and increase the minimum distance required for the closest visitor parking space. Approval of the time extension would also apply to approvals for the design review and variance. The Development Code limits time extensions for design review and variance approvals in one-year increments. ITEMS E & F PI..A*NNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15477 & VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 2 Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based upon this review, Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 meets the development standards for the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pad I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Vesting Tentative Tract received approval on November 9, 1994. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 and Variance 94-05 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:CW/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Time Extension Letters dated June 18, 1996, and September 15, 1997 Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations and Floor Plans Exhibit "F" - Variance Letter Exhibit "G" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval - Vesting Tentative Tract Time Extension Resolution of Approval- Design Review Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Variance Time Extension Post Office B,.x i513 COVINGTO qi; Samuel Crowe George W. porter Roberl E Dougherty Donald G. H~sl~an Roberl F. Schaucr Edv.~td A. Hopson' Stephen R. Wade Jettc R. Anderson Audrey A. Pcrri October 14, 1998 Mr. Dmn Coleman, Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Time extension for Tentative Tract No. 15477 Dear Mr. Coleman: As Trustee of the Matreyek Trust, the owner of the real properly covered by the referenced tract map, I hereby request a one year extension of the above referenced Tentative Tract No. 15477 for the parcel located at the northeast comer of Baseline Avenue and Milliken Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. The Trust is now under contract to sell this property, and the purchasers are currently processing some revisions to the map, but will not have the approvals by the time this current map expires. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Very truly your EAH:glc T H A N C June 18, 1996 : 'C I T y O NO C U C A }i O N C Mr. Tom Matreyek Matreyek Homes 655 N. Mountain Avenue Upla. nd, CA 91786 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 Dear Applicant: In response to the severe impact of the recession on developers, the Legislature recently amended the Subdivision Map Act by Assembly Bill 711 (Aguiar). This bill extends by 12 months the expiration date of any tentative subdivision and parcel map that had not expired on or before Maly 14, 1996. This extension is in addition to any other extension as provided for in the Map Act. Therefore, the new expiration date for your project is as follows: File New Expiration Date: Ti' 15477 November 9, 1997 AE~ 771 also extends any Conditional Use Permit or Development/Design Review application granted in conjunction with your tentative subdivision map. The extensions granted by AB 771 are automatic; no application for extension or fee is necessary. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this of'rice at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNIN DIVISION City Planner BB:DC:mlg cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ..... f 3m ,-,'.;Ca Ci,"'/,",laneget rt s,,r "B" ;l-=':'l C:v:c Center Orl','e - ?,,3 ~Ox ~.D7 · ,'~OnCno __ A NC ~eptember 15, 1997 Mr. Edward A. Hopson Covington & Crowe, LLP P.O. Box 1515 Ontario, CA 91762 = ,- v - O F HO C U C :\ b'[ ON G SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 Dear Mr. Hopson: The Planning staff has analyzed the Tentative Tract Map time extension request and determined as follows: Findinqs 1. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies. 2. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans. ordinances, plans. codes. and policies. The-extension of the Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause public and safety problems. The extension is within time limits prescribed by State law and local ordinance. Based upon the findings and staff review set forth in the paragraphs above. the Planning staff hereby grants a time extension for: Tract APPlicant New Expiration Date TT 15477 Matreyek November 9, 1998 If you should have any questions. please do nol hesitate to call the project planner. Steve Hayes, at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner J=z.{ Ls"n. A:CP. Co./,'.';rs;e: '25:C S '.': Ce'~:e' {:,3~} ~77-273C · -'~;'( (;Oe) "77'22--': VESTING MAP FOR COtlOOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTA Tj~"Y~T 15477 TENTAtiVE TRACT 15477 C~'r Of lZ4IICNO ~ TECNNICIIL 81rE' 3 PL,4N FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE PLAN IA huilder-de,eluper I. EFT ELEVATION SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE PLAN I B r~l; revek Hmnes ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE PLAN 2A Malre~,ek llomes LE~'T ELEVAtiON SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE PLAN 2B l~_l.L._r__eye~_k_l lumes builder-developer /~VVt REAR ELEVATION -..1 FRENCIt COUNTRY STYLE PLAN ]A /%l:ltrevek llomes buildrr-de~eloper SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE PLAN 3B 0" I u _~laire)ek..JJ~me~ builder.developer PLAN I k'o [] /e/f/It PLAN 2 36'-6" ~j:!.t_r__eyek llomes PLAN 3 t 140 SF ~ BR*FAMILY Ie'fM Matre_yek Homes buildero developer 16 1994 August 16, 1994 Mr. Steve Hayes Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 VARIANCE REQUEST ARBORCREST TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 Dear Steve: In conjunction with the processing of our tentative tract map, we hereby request a variance from the building to building separations '(~sideyards) from 15 feet to a minimum of 8 feet. The 15 foot separation is applicable'to large multi-unit buildings to separate the building masses. Our project proposes single family detached residences, predominately one story units with small sideyards replicating a zero sideyard product. Many of our sideyard areas exceed the eight foot minimum requested. For more specific details, please refer to our Typical Clusters Plan (Sheet 4 of our submittal package). Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, a~2eYeJkk Thomas W. M Vice President Building eric. TWM:lb 655 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE, POST OFFICE D, CALIFORNIA 91785 (909) 981-5741 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 2. Related Files: Variance 94-05 Description of Project: TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES - A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium (8-14 du/ac) and Medium-High (14-24 du/ac) Residential Districts, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Matreyek Homes 655 North Mountain Ave. Upland, CA 91785 ,r General Plan Designation: Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Residential. Zoning: Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Residential District of the Victoria Community Plan. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is vacant and contains no significant vegetation or structures. It is surrounded by single family residential development to the north and east, vacant land to the west, and commercial development to the south. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Initi;,I Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLy AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (m/) Geological Problems (v") Water ( ) Air Quality DETERMINATION (V') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (v') Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: (,/) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (v') Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () () () () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, includin9 revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Cecilia Willtams, Associate Planner November 10, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) () (v') (v) (v) (v) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (,ell NO () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? () () () (v) Initi'%l Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 4 b) g) h) i) Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) () () (v) () () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Comlllellts; The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading and structures shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The recommendations of the final Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be incorporated into the project design with pertinent information noted on the final Grading Plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to the issuance of grading permits. d) WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of sudace water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) () () () (v) () (v) Initi:~l Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 5 f) g) h) i) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new hardscape and rooftops proposed on the currently vacant site. All runoffwill be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows. AIR QUALITY, Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (v) (v) (v) (v) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in,' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? () () (v) () Initi'~l Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 6 b) o) d) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) No () () (v) () ()' (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Colllmerlts a) The project will not generate substantial additional vehicular movement. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 (v) (v) (v) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: oil. pesticides. chemicals. or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () () (v) () () (v) () Initi'~l Study for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Comments: a) The project would increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the development would add people and traffic to the area. The impact is not considered significant. b) The project is located along Base Line Road, a major arterial street, and is subject to exposure to traffic noise in excess of the General Plan standard of 65 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. An acoustical analysis (Bricken, August 23, 1991) prepared for the site recommends the following to mitigate noise to "safe" levels: Construct a minimum 6-foot high wall along both Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue at the top of the proposed landscaped berms and/or slope areas. The walls and landscaping have already been incorporated into the subdivision's design; therefore, the impact is considered reduced to a level of less than significant impact. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) b) C) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( Schools? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( Comments: c) The Etiwanda School DiS!dct submitted correspondence dated September 16, 1994, that indicates the existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above capacity and the District will not be able to accommodate all of the students expected to be generated by this project. As a condition of approval, the developer shall execute an agreement with the District to provide full mitigation. This may be accomplished by means of a requirement to form. or to participate in an existing Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for school facilities. The Chaffey Joint Union High School District submitted correspondence dated September 9, 1994, stating that the developer may annex into an existing Mello- Roos District. The project's impacts on schools is considered to be reduced to a level not significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 9 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) f) g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () (v) () Comments: c) New light and glare will be created on the currently vacant site, The impact is no greater than other existing residential development in the City. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Disturb paleontotogical resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initi,&l Study for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cu tural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 () () () (v) () () () (v) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () (v) () () () (v) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term. to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initi~l Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Page 11 c) d) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively 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.) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? () () () (v) () () () (v) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and sfich 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 EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified Januar,/4, 1989) (~) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981 (v') Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 (Certified November 9, 1994) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: F'31 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act SeCtion 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 Public Review Period Closes: December 9, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Matreyek Homes 655 North Mountain Ave. Upland, CA 91785 Project Location (also see attached map): located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 0227-691~01. Project Description:A request for an extension of a previously approved residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (8-14 and14-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively). Related File: Variance 94-05. 'FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) (2) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed 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 There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. December 9, 1998 Date of Determination RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVtNG A REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 153 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND MEDIUM-HIGH (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 227-691-01. A. Recitals. 1. Matreyek Homes has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15477, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 9, 1994, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-81, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vesting Tentative Tract 15477. 3. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and ordinance. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local E:fF 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. V I ~ 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for:. Project Applicant Expiration VII 15477 Matreyek Homes November 9, 1999 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'i'FEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VTT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15477 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 153 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PERACRE)AND MEDIUM-HIGH (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 227-691-01. A. Recitals. 1. Matreyek Homes has filed an application for the extension of the approval of the Design Review for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 15477. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject Design Review Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 9. 1994, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-82, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 15477. 3. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans. codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause public health and safety problems; and ordinance. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR V'Fi' 15477 - MATREYEK December 9, 1998 Page 2 Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Desicln Review Applicant Expiration V I I 15477 Matreyek Homes November 9, 1999 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'FEST: Brad Buller. Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE NO. 94-05 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM 15 FEET TO 8 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE FOR THE CLOSEST VISITOR PARKING SPACE FROM A DWELLING UNIT FROM 150 FEET TO240 FEET FOR A PROPOSED 153 UNIT, DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND MEDIUM-HIGH (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01. A. Recitals. 1. Matreyek Homes has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Vadance 94-05, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 9, 1994, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-83, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Variance 94-05. 3. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Variance is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Variance approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Variance approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and ordinance. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES December 9, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Vadance Applicant Expiration VTT 15477 Matreyek Homes November 9, 1999 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: , Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I. Brad Buller. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 9, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO CLICAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, AtCP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 128, 197 square foot public storage project including caretaker's unit on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue -APN: 209-041-09. Related Files: Variance 98-02 and Preliminary Review 98-05. VARIANCE 98-02 o CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to reduce the required interior side property line setback and rear property line setback to 0 feet where the Development Code requires minimum setbacks of 5 feet and 20 feet, respectively, and to reduce the number of trees planted along exterior building walls where the Development Code requires one tree per 30 linear feet of building wail exposed to public view for a public storage project on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09. Related files: Conditional Use Permit 98-17 and Preliminary Review 98-05. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Backqround: The subject Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications were filed at the same time by the applicant with the intent to process the two applications concurrently. The design of the project relies on the subject Variance request. Therefore, staff originally felt that the Variance request should be brought before the Planning Commission prior to processing the Conditional Use Permit in case the Variance was denied. The Variance application was originally scheduled for Planning Commission on August 31,1998, and was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the project to address staffs concerns. The applicant has substantially revised the project design and successfully completed Design Review. Surroundinc! Land Use and Zoninq: North Retail (across Arrow Route) and apartments; General Commercial and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Districts South - Single family homes; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) District East Apartments (across Hermosa Avenue); Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) District Single family homes; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) District West ITEMS G & H Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-17 & VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH December 9, 1998 Page 2 D, General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Commercial North Commercial and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Medium Residential (8-1'4 dwelling units per acre) West Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The 4.22 acre site slopes at approximately 2 percent from north to south. Bordering the site to the northeast is the 1.8 acre site recently approved for the Delrahim Unocal service station/car wash project (Conditional Use Permit 97-41, see attached exhibits). The site is directly adjacent to an existing single family neighborhood and has contiguous property lines with 19 of the homes along the south and west property lines. An existing 4- to 6-foot high block wall runs along these property lines separating the site from the residential propedies. Frontage improvements exist on both Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue, but not to current standards. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Reauired Provided. Storage 125,69Z n/a n/a 2 Office 692 11250 3 3 Manager's Quarters 1,808 2/unit 2 _2 Total 128, 197 5 7 ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: The facility will be open for service to the public from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. There will be a total of four employees with a maximum of two on site at any given time. A caretaker's residence is included. Public storage projects tend to involve far less operational activity than other uses allowed in the General Commercial district such as shopping centers. Staff is of the opinion that a public storage project is an appropriate, if not advantageous, use for the subject property. Access will be provided off of Arrow Route with emergency only access to Hermosa Avenue at the northeast corner of the site. B. Variances: The applicant proposes three variances: To reduce the building setbacks from 20 feet to 0 feet along the south and west property lines per the Development Code for commercial development adjacent to residential areas. To reduce the required 5-foot Setback to 0 feet along the north and east property lines (adjacent to the Unocal service station/car wash site, CUP 97-41). To provide less than the required one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 3 The applicant contends that because of the unique type of development/use proposed (i.e., public storage), compliance with the required building setback would result in an excessively long, 20-foot wide corridor along the south and west property lines that would be difficult for police to patrol, therefore, creating a crime hazard. The applicant also contends that provision of the 5-foot setbacks along the Unocal site would result in a maintenance burden since the Unocal project is designed with a 5-foot setback along these property lines and maintenance of the landscaping within the setbacks would have to be divided between the two property owners. Desian Review Committee: The Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) reviewed the project on November 17, 1998, and directed the applicant to revise the project design and bring the revised project back to the Committee for further review. The Committee again reviewed the project on December 1, 1998, and recommend approval subject to conditions. Refer to the attached Design Review Action Comments (Exhibit "K") for further details. The attached exhibits reflect the latest drawings reviewed by the Committee. D. Technical and Gradincl Review Committees: The Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions identified in the attached Resolution. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study Part I was completed by the applicant and staff has completed Part II. Staff found that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. Ifthe Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Variance: In considering a request for a Variance, there are a series of findings under State law that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. All of the findings must be substantiated in order to issue approval. Generally, these findings center around the uniqueness or special circumstances of a particular property or the use of the designation. Staff believes there are special or unique circumstances associated with the proposed development of the site which would warrant approval of the Variance request. This is supported by the following: That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. The crime corridor argument expressed by the applicant has merit. Because of the length of the south and west property lines (665 feet and 417 feet, respectively) the areas would be very difficult for police to patrol. These long, narrow "corridors" would also be a maintenance burden for the property owner, subject to graffiti and the dumping of debris. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9. 1998 Page 4 The public storage use is unique in that it necessitates long, straight. continuous building lines which contributes to the crime corridor noted by the applicant when the 20-foot setback is complied with. The unique size and shape of the site pose a site planning challenge in that it is "L" shaped and the southern portion fronting Hermosa Avenue is too narrow to accommodate the required setbacks. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the app~cant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The City has granted other Variances to reduce setbacks for public storage projects. The justification has been the uniqueness of the public storage use in terms of land utilization requirements and low operational intensity. Denying the subject request would deprive the applicant of development privileges enjoyed by these other public storage projects. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. The City has granted other Variances to reduce setbacks for public storage projects. The justification has been the uniqueness of the public storage use in terms of land utilization requirements and low operational intensity. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious' to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Public storage is a low intensi!y use which does not generate significant levels of noise, glare. vibration, or other nuisances. The buildings respecting the 0-foot setback along the south and west property lines are one story and are designed to have a very low profile such that the building wall is no higher than 2 feet, 6 inches above the existing block perimeter walls. In this way, views of the mountains to the north from the existing homes are preserved. A code-complying. 25-foot high building located to respect the 20-foot building setback linejwould have a much greater impact on views than the proposed project. Furthermore. the Police Department has commented that compliance with the required 20-foot wide setback would indeed cause the crime corridor affect claimed by the applicant. The Police Department is of the opinion that the project. as designed, will actually reduce crime potential below current levels with the site being vacant. The project is also designed with 0-foot setbacks along the north and east property lines where 5 feet is required adjacent to the Delrahim Unocal project to the northeast. The Deltahim Unocal project includes tree planting along these property lines. The only impact would be in terms of planter width. The project includes specialized design features along these edges to mitigate the setback reduction. Conditional Use Permit: In order to approve the Conditional Use Permit. the Commission would need to make the following findings: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 5 That 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. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provision of the Development Code. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 19, 1998, to which all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site were invited. One property owner attended the meeting. He was concerned about the appearance of the west wall of the project but appeared to be in favor of the project as a whole. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Use Permit 98-17 and Variance 98-02 through adoption of the a{'tached Resolution of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Exhibit "J" Exhibit "K" Site Utilization Map Variance Exhibit Applicant's Variance Justification Letter Site Plan Grading Plan Landscape Plan Floor Plan Elevations Site Sections Initial Study Part II Design Review Action Agendas dated December 1 and November 17, 1998 Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit Resolution of Approval for Variance , ';~ .S.I.TE~UTILIZATiON MAP MUon's u~t J ~ ARROW ROUTE _,~L_.: ...... · ALL SELF STORAGE .0 rr 'LU RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA VALLI GF~OUP Charles oseph Associates August 3, 1998 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 PUBLIC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES RECEtVED City ot R3nCho Cucamonga p!anning Divisi. oa Aim All Storage :: SWC Arrow Highway/Hermosa Avenue Variance #98-02 Dear Gentlemen: As you may be aware, our Firm is performing Development Liaison services for the referenced project. On July 21, 1998, a Variance application was filed for the project following considerable review and evaluation of project requirements and constraints, and atter a number of discussions and meetings with City and Law Enforcement personnel. The Rancho Cucamonga Development Code provides that the Planning Commission is authorized to grant Variances to achieve the provision of flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances outlined in Section 17.04.040 exist. This authority extends to conditions as the Commission may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses: to preserve the Public Health. Safety, and Welfare; and to enable the Commission to make the findings required by Section 17.04.040-E. As our project goals and objectives arc to provide a high quality enhancement for the neighborhood and community, we believe the Variance requested is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. When considering a Variance, them are findings under State law that must be substantiated by facts. These findings involve the unique or special circumstances of a particular property or the use of the designation. We believe that there are special or unique circumstances with the development of this site that are different from other sites under similar zoning designations. The following facts are provided to support the required findings: Strict or literal interpretation of and enforcement of the specified regulation, in this case, the provision of the interior side property line setback and rear property line setback of 5 feet and 20 feet, respectively, would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. Ot'~c,' 9(]c)· 481 ' 1822 SOU' Zzm' 1822 Fax 909' 481 · 1824 City Ccnrcr' 10681 Ft~othill BIrd., Suirc 3')~' Ranch~} (:uc.nnonga. C~' q ~ ~f) The proposed project is a self-storage facility designed for use of the rear walls of storage buildings sen-lag as perimeter walls for the project. Provision of the 20 tbot property line setback would result in creation of a potential attractive nuisance "crime corridor" directly adjacent the residential properties located south and west of the project site. A meeting held at City Planning offices with Law Enforcement representatives responsible for project review was concluded with their concurrence of our assessment and their concern with such a requirement at this particular site. The provision of the 5 foot interior side property line setback will create the strong potential for landscape maintenance conflict with the project recently approvcd at the NEC of our project site. The approved Unocal project consists of a car wash, convenience market, quick lube and gas pumps. ' Approval conditions require the installation of landscaping around the entire perimeter of that project site. To require the proposed project to install and maintain an additional 5 foot landscape corridor adjacent to that being provided appears to be redundant rather than necessary to the overall site landscaping needs. The project proponent is prepared to provide landscaping of a type and quality across the Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue project frontage that will be to the satisfaction of the City. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions that are applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Due to identified Law Enforcement and Public Safety conccms as outlined above, provision ofthe 20 foot rear property line setback would serve to exacerbate the potential for criminal activity adjacent the project site and neighboring rcsidcntial properties. These challenges are unique to the particular site and proximate area. Strict or literal intcrprctation and enforcement of the specified requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Vandalism and/or criminal activity that could be reasonably expected to occur with thc creation of the referenced setback corridor would likely result in adverse financial impact for the applicant as well as adjoining residents. Vandalism and/or criminal activity is commonly found in areas where the detection or observation of such activity is unlikely. This is a strong reason why many cities have eliminated alleys between and behind land uses. The City is currently abandoning alleys in the old North town area, which is located within one-half mile of this site for the very reasons outlined above. We believe the applicant should be relieved ofrequlrcmcnts that have been identified as being potentially dctrimcntal to the ownership and operation of this and the adjaccnt Unocal business. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. The issues identified during the due diligence site assessment that were the basis of the filing of the Variance application were determined to be unique to this site. This assessment determined that the specified development requirements could serve to adversely impact compatibility with surrounding uses, particularly those conflicts that could arise from attractive nuisance impacts on the surrounding area. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the Public Hcalth, Safety, or Welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area. As indicated in the preceding facts for findings, the Variance application filing was based upon concern over adverse Public Health, Safety, or Welfare impacts that could be materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. We believe this concern has been validated by feedback received from Law Enforcement personnel reviewing the project requirements that would be applicable to the this site. Their supplemental comments expressing concern over Officer Safety exposures that could exist with the construction of the referenced corridor add ~rther credence to our stated concerns. In addition to the foregoing, the applicani believes there arc benefits to the surrounding property owners with approval of the requested Variance. The proposed self-storage use is far more c~mpatible than a General Commercial use as the property is currently zoned. Hours of operation. traffic and noise impacts are more greatly reduced for self-storage than for General Commercial use. The proposed project design and sitt: configuration w~ll sen/t: to provide improved sound attenuation for the residents from Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue traffic noise. The zero interior property line setback sought for the property line on the South and West side of the Unocal project will serve to provide supe?ior sound attenuation for the Unocal business operation. The proposed project design and site configuration will also ser~,,c to rcducc the observed vandalism on the rear yard walls of the adjacent residential properties, which is evidenced by the extensive graffiti paint-out that occurs on thcse wails. Also, by having a structure along properly line, it will make it extremely difficult for Undesirables to jump the rear yard walls in order to gain access to the adjacent existing homes. As was discussed with Law Enforcement representatives, rccon~guring the site to have the exterior :perimeters serve as drivc aisles could compromise the desired level of security that would be cnjoycd under the proposed site plan, and could still allow for the wall graffiti and undcsirablc access to residential rcar yards to continue. In addition, use of the exterior site perimeter for drive aisles would compromise the internal sound attenuation benefit that would be derived from perimeter buildings that would enclose an interior business and circulation operation. 4 We are most cognizant of the need to work closely with the City and the existing neighbors to our proposed project. In this regard, we will be hosting a neighborhood meeting tbr the purpose of sharing our project design operation and addressing as man)' concerns as may be possible to address as pan of this process. Our intent is to be a welcome addition to thd neighborhood and the community. We are asking for your support ofour Variance to assist us with building what wc believe will be a quality addition to the City. Thank you for your courtesy and assistancc with considcrafion ofthc rcqucstcd Variance. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please fc'cl Free to contact mc at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates cc: Michael Giurbino, Aim All Storage 4 ,_, ARROW ROUTE ~ ~ ~ ~ [' .'/",.-,T~'~'%'*~ ................ Ii C1 ;: , i ........................ "' .: Z~Ei[~"nE'2'Z 7. l AIM ALL SELF STORAGE RANCHOCUCAMONGA, CA I VALLI ARCHJIECIURAL GROUP AIM ALL SELF 51'ORAGE RANClIO CUCAN~ONGA, CA 2B ARROW ROUTE / '.. / /,,..~.~ FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STORY \ / \ AIM ALL SELF STORAGE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA PLANT PALETTE TREI~S SHRUBS 'JIFj5 8 VALLI AICffiJ}CIURAL GROUP BLDG. H ,h-E~c-L-LL~LtZL..;.'~;ij_LI3 ILOG. A ; JLD~_D I-:4_~d~-~d~H-I-I-H-H-H-H-I H-H-H-H-I-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-I-~-~ AIM ALL SELF STORAGE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 3 VALLI ARCrtlIECIURAL GROUP HERMOSA AVENUE ELEVATION //[ . ", '~'~, ..... " '/' ARROW ROUTE ELEVATION AIM ALL SELF STORAGE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 4 VALLI ARCffi/[CIUI~AL GROUP OFFICE/MANAGER'S UNIT AIM ALL SELF STORAGE NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA ...... 5 VALLI GROUP WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION AIM ALL SELF STORAGE RANCHOCUCAMONGA, CA 6 VALLI A~CHII~CIURAL GROUP AIM ALL SELF STORAGE ~ F / m.toe~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA A EAST ELEVATION 7 VALLI GROUP ~,,,E S BLDG G BLDG H 8LDG H BLDG I BLDG A ARROW ROUTE SITE SECTION B BLDG D HERMOSA AVE SITE SECTION A AIM ALL SELF STORAGE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9 VALLI GROUp % SECTION A DETAIL SECTION C DETAIL AIM ALL SELF STORAGE , SECTION B DETAIL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA __ 10 VALLI AI~CHIfECIURAL GROUP City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 98-17 and Variance 98-02 2. Related Files: Preliminary Review 98-05 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 128,197 square foot public storage project including caretaker's unit on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09. Related Files: Variance 98-02 and Preliminary Review 98-05. VARIANCE 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to reduce the required interior side property line setback and rear property line setback to 0 feet where the Development Code requires minimum setbacks of 5 feet and 20 feet, respectively, and to reduce the number of trees planted along exterior building walls where the Development Code requires one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view for a public storage project on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09. Related files: Conditional Use Permit 98-17 and Preliminary Review 98-05 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Charles Joseph Associates 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 481-1822 General Plan Designation: General Commercial Zoning: General Commercial District Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Commercial strip mall and apartments to the north across Arrow Highway, General Commercial District and Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Apartments to the east across Hermosa Avenue, Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and single family homes to the south and west, Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Initial Study for CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact." "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (~') Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (V') Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (~') Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to. by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 3 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner November 18, 1998 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact." "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND a) b) c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) (v) () () (v) (v) () () (v) Comments: a) The project is designed with O-foot setbacks along the south and west project boundary adjacent to a single family neighborhood where the Development Code requires a minimum setback of 20 feet. The project also has 0-foot setbacks along the north and east property lines adjacent to the planned Unocal service station site where the Development Code requires a minimum of 5 feet. The applicant has filed a Variance application to address these items. c) The project proposes O-foot setbacks along the south and west boundaries of the site adjacent to single family homes where 20 feet is required. The Development Code provides for the 20-foot setback to buffer commercial development from residential uses. The project is designed with very low profile building walls along the south and west boundaries. The project is subject to Design Review to ensure that any aesthetic impacts are minimized. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 4 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) (v) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) C) d) e) g) h) i) Fault rupture? ( ) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) Seiche hazards? ( ) Landslides or mudflows? ( } Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) Subsidence of the land? ( ) Expansive soils? ( ) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () (v) () () (v) () (v) (v) () (,/) CorrlfTleRts: h) The site falls within the Tujunga-Delhi soils association as identified by Figure V-2 of the General Plan. This soil association may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some developmenL Structures placed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can adequately support the weight of the proposed structures. A soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 5 WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) d) g) h) ~) ) () () ) (V) ) (V) (V) (V) (,/) (V) (V) (V) (V) Comments: b) The project will increase runoff as a result of the increased hard surfaces being proposed. All drainage will be conveyed to appropriate drainage facilities designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () (v) () (v) () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 6 d) Create objectionable odors? () () () (v) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? () () (v) () () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) Comments: c) The project will increase the number of trips simply because the site is now vacant. The project does not involve a change of allowed or conditionally allowed uses per the General Plan or the :Development Code, The project has been designed to minimize potential traffic congestion. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects. animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow. etc.)? () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 7 c) d) e) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () () () () () () (v) (v) (v) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (v) (v) (v) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 10. NOISE, Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Comments: a) The public storage dse tends to be very low key in nature with minimal activity. noise, vibration. etc. In fact, construction of the proposed buildings may even reduce noise from current levels by acting as a noise buffer relative to traffic noise from Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo~owing areas.' a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ! ( ) ( ) ( ) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v*) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities.' a) b) C) d) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? () () () () () NO (v) (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 9 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) C) d) 0 g) Power or natural gas? ( ) Communication systems? ( ) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) Storm water drainage? ( ) Solid waste disposal? ( ) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? ( ) Comments: No () (v) (v) () (v) () b) The project could have a negative aesthetic effect, especially due to the reduction of setbacks as requested by the variance application. The project will respect a 0- foot setback along the south and west property lines adjacent to existing single family homes where 20 feet is required, and 0 feet along the north and east property lines adjacent to planned commercial development where 5 feet is required. These setback reductions will eliminate landscaping and separation buffers that would otherwise be provided. However, the project is designed with very low profile wails along the south and west property lines such that the walls do not exceed 30 inches abovetheexistingtractboundarywalls. Furthermore, the reduction in setbacks will eliminate a potential for crime, graffiti, and maintenance problems which could result from provision of the 20 foot setbacks (crime corridors). The project has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee. The Committee has provided direction to the applicant to redesign certain aspects of the project to mitigate any negative aesthetic effect. This includes provision of low glare paint on Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 10 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () () () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) 15.¸ RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) () () () () (v) (v) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 Page 11 b) c) d) Shod term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) () () () (v) (v) (v) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ~ certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the Initial Study for 'CUP 98-17 and VA 98-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 98-17 Public Review Period Closes: December 9, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates 10681 Foothill Blvd. Ste. 395 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 481-1822 Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-041-09. Project Description: A request to construct a 128,197 square foot public storage project including caretaker's unit on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District. Related Files: Variance 98-02 and Preliminary Review 98-05. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public 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 Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. December 9. 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count December 1, 1998 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 128,197 square foot public storage project including caretaker's unit on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue APN: 209-041~09. Related Files: Variance 98-02 and Preliminary Review 98-05. This case was reviewed by the Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) on November 17, 1998 at which time the Committee directed the applicant to revise the project and bring it back for further review. Revised plans will be presented at the meeting. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the following: Provide large size (minimum 24-inch box) trees within deepest wall insets for Buildings E and F and relocate wall-mounted trellises to either side of the deep insets (within the half insets). Provide vines at base of wall-mounted trellises and train vines to climb trellises. , (~lip the east end of Building E to provide room to accommodate a minimum 5-foot wide planter along the east wall (wrap the planter from the Unocal project south along Building E). Tile minimum 12 feet by 12 feet size decorative tiles. Box out gutters along the south side of Building C1, C2 and the west side of Building B such that the slope of the gutters is hidden within the box out fixture. The boxes shall be painted to match the building. Paint all flashing to match the color of the adjacent building walls or roofing. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count November 17, 1998 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a 128.197 square foot public storage project including caretaker's unit on 4.22 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09. Related Files: Variance 98-02 and Preliminary Review 98-05. Desiqn Parameters: The 4.2 acre site slopes at approximately two percent from north to south. Bordering the site to the northeast is the 1.8 acre site recently approved for the Delrahim Unocal service station/car wash project (Conditional Use Permit 97--41, see attached exhibits). The site is directly adjacent to an existing single family neighborhood along the south and west property lines. The site has contiguous property lines with 19 of the homes along the south and west property lines. An existing 4- to 6-foot high block wall runs along these property lines separating the site from the residential properties. Frontage improvements exist on both Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue, but not to current standards. yariance: The project is designed with zero setbacks along the south and west property lines where a minimum setback of 20 feet is required. The applicant has filed a variance request regarding the setback issue. The applicant contends that because of the size and shape of the property and the unique type of development/use proposed (public storage). compliance with the required 20-foot building setback would result in excessively long, 20-foot wide "crime corridors" along the south and west property lines that would be extremely difficult for police to patrol and would, therefore. create a crime hazard. The buildings respecting the zero setback along the south and west property lines are one-story and are designed to have a very low profile such that the building wall is no higher than 2 feet 6 inches above the existing block perimeter walls. In this way, views of the mountains to the north from the existing homes are preserved. A code-complying a 25-foot high buildin9 located to respect the 20-foot building setback line would have a much greater impact on views than the proposed project. The project is also designed with zero setbacks along the north and east property lines where 5 feet is required adjacent to the Delrahim Unocal project to the northeast. The applicant has filed a variance request regarding the setback issue. The applicant contends that provision of the 5-foot setbacks along the Delrahim Unocal site would result in a maintenance burden since the Delrahim Unocal project is designed with a 5-foot setback along these property lines and that maintenance of the landscaping within the setbacks would have to be divided between the two property owners. The Delrahim Unocal project includes tree planting along these property lines. The only impact would be in terms of planter width. The Variance application was originally scheduled for Planning Commission on August 31, 1998 and was continued to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address staff concerns. The height of the buildings has been lowered. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The north elevation of Building "E" and east elevation of Building "F" are long (180 to 240 feet long), straight stretches of building wall with minimal variation and visual interest. These elevations are adjoining the Deltahim Unocal service station/car wash project, which would provide minimal landscaping to soften their appearance. Until such time as the Delrahim Unocal service station/car wash project is developed. these elevations would be prominently DRC COMMENTS : CUP 98-17- CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November17.1998 Page 2 visible from the intersection of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue. Staff recommends that the architecture be upgraded to the level of Building "A's" north elevation. such as adding tower elements and other wall articulation such as column pop-outs/indents and trim to break up the continuous walls and provide greater visual interest. The 0-foot setback along the south and west property lines should be carefully reviewed by the Committee. The Committee should determine if the design is "neighborhood friendly" and sensitive to the residents of these one- and two-story homes. 3. Clip further the northern-most portion of Building "D" to provide room for adequate landscaping. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide a softened street scape by increasing the height and coverage of herins and intensified shrub planting along both street frontages. All street frontage landscaping shall follow the established theme of the Delrahim Unocal project. The berm and landscaping at the northeast corner of the site along Arrow Highway shall be designed to tie into that Of the Delrahim Unocal project to the east. 3.. Provide decorative driveway paving for the main entry off of Arrow Highway. Locate Southern California Edison's transformer box as far back from street frontage(s) as possible and screen behind low wall berm(s), and landscaping. The Committee may wish to consider requiring the applicant to somehow improve the existing block walls along the south and west property lines for the benefit of the adjacent homeowners. This could be as simple as requir!ng the applicant to stucco or paint the homeowner's side of the walls. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened form view of surrounding public rights-of-way and property. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Delrahim Unocal Landscaping Exhibit "B" - Delrahim Unocal Building Elevations Exhibit "C" - Worst Case Boundary Sections DRC COMMENTS CUP 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 17, 1998 Page 3 Desicln Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and directed the applicant to address the following design issues. Revised plans shall be submitted for further Committee review. 1. Provide greater articulation and visual interest on all external elevations (north, south, east. west, including those adjacent to Delrahim Unocal project). This may include use of tower elements and other wall articulation similar to the level of Building "A" as recommended by staff but the Committee is open to other design alternatives. 2. Restudy the north and east edges of the project adjacent to the Delrahim Unocal project site to address lack of 5-foot setbackJlandscaping. This may be accomplished by simply providing the required 5-foot setback including appropriate landscaping but the Committee is open to other design alternatives. 3. The color of all metal roofing shall match that of the roll-up doors, namely "cedar red." 4.. Provide greater detail and emphasis for tile accents. This may include insetting or popping out of the accents or using trim surrounds. 5. Roof drainage shall be handled inside the buildings rather than on the exterior. 6 The applicant agreed to the secondary and policy issues identified by staff. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-17 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 128,197 SQUARE FOOT PUBLIC STORAGE PROJECT INCLUDING CARETAKER'S UNIT ON 4.22 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND HERMOSA AVENUE, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-041-09. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph and Associates has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-17, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning (E::ommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue with a street frontage of 300 feet on Arrow Highway and 182 feet on Hermosa Avenue and lot depth of 665 feet and which is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with apartments and with a retail center, the properties to the south and west consist of single family homes, and the property to the east is developed with apartments; and c. Public storage tends to be a very low intensity land use with less noise, vibration, and other nuisances than other allowed uses; and d. The design of the project allows optimized utilization of the site while providing high quality architecture and landscaping which is complimentary to other uses consistent with the provisions of the Development Code; and e. The caretaker's unit will enable the operation to have someone on site 24 hours a day; and f. The proposed parking is adequate to meet code requirements. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-17 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 128,197 SQUARE FOOT PUBLIC STORAGE PROJECT INCLUDING CARETAKER'S UNIT ON 4.22 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND HERMOSA AVENUE, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-041-09. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph and Associates has filed an application forthe issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-17, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Reso ution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public test mony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue with a street frontage of 300 feet on Arrow Highway and 182 feet on Hermosa Avenue and lot depth of 665 feet and which is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with apartments and with a retail center, the properties to the south and west consist of single family homes, and the property to the east is developed with apartments: and c. Public storage tends to be a very low intensity land use with less noise, vibration, and other nuisances than other allowed uses; and d. The design of the project allows optimized utilization of the site while providing high quality architecture and landscaping wh ch is complimentary to other uses consistent with the provisions of the Development Code; and a day; and The caretaker's unit will enable the operation to have someone on site 24 hours f. The proposed parking is adequate to meet code requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' CUP 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use i~ in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable prowsions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the ~nvironment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1od) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions. attached hereto and incorporated heroin by this reference. Plannina Division 1) Provide large size (minimum 24-inch box) trees within wall insets for Buildings E and F and relocatewail-mounted trellises to either side of the deep insets (within the half insets). 2) Provide vines at base of wall-mounted trellises and train vines to climb trellises. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 3 3) Clip the east end of Building E to provide room to accommodate a minimum 5-foot wide planter along the east wall. 4) Wall tiles shall be a minimum of 12 inches by 12 inches. 5) Box out gutters along the west side of Building B and the south side of Buildings C1 and C2 such that the slope of the gutters is hidden within the box out fixture. The boxes shall be painted to match the building. 6) Paint all flashing to match the color of the adjacent building walls or roofing. Enaineerinq Division: 1) Hermosa Avenue traffic striping shall be repainted for a secondary arterial street in accordance with City Standards. 2) The Arrow Highway frontage shall be posted with R26 "NO PARKING"' and Hermosa Avenue shall be posted R26(S) "NO STOPPING" signs. 3) A reciprocal easement for secondary access from the parcel on the corner (CUP 97-41, Unocaf project) shall be acquired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The secondary access shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer. 5) The private drainage easement necessary to drain sump overflows shall be acquired prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (terecommunications) on the project side (full fee) of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be the City-adopted unit amount times the length of the east project boundary. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-17 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 4 ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit Aim AIr Storage Charles Joseph Associates Southwest corner Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements 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 C ty may at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such p'~rticipation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. The developer shall commence. participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located. designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Proteclion District. and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Completion Date / / / / A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. / / B. Time Limits Approval sha expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. / / Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping. sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein. and the Development Code regulations 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading. landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building. etc. ) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subd irision. or approved use has commenced. whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code. all other applicable City Ordinances. and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram. shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illuminat!on. location. height. and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations. and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. 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. herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 11. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner. including proper illumination. /~, / / / / / /J /I D. Shopping Centers 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 2 E. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors as approved by Design Review. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1, All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles. entrances and exits shall be striped per City standards. ' 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City P anner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits, For residential deve opment, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space ' infr~nt~fthe~ateandaseparatevisit~r~anewithca~~b~Xt~av~idcarsstackingint~thepub~ic right-of-way. G. Landscaping / / 3. 4. 5. A detailed landscape and irrigat on plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. A minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. / /. / / / / / / / / Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building except as approved by Variance 98-02. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, felt zng, mow ng, and trimming. Any damaged dead, diseased ordecaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 3 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding and intensified landscaping, is required along Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas. the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 10. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. / / / / / H. Other Agencies overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limiied to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees. Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 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. /j /~ Project NO. CUP Qa- 17 Completion Date J. New Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and ~re-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. K. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils repo~ shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. ~/ /. .,vs o., ,.o., .,,.., .o.o. CO.P,,A.CE L. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to: / / Curb & A,C. Side- Drive Slreet Street Cornm Median Bike Other Sireel Name Gutter Pvrnt walk Appr. Lighls Trees Trail Island Trail Hermosa Avenue x X X X X Arrow Highway x x x Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvifinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. ' 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights. and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements. prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first. b. Prior' to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. / / / / 5 N, Project No CUPqS-F Completion Date Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes Shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary: streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3oinch (at'intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 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. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. o h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 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. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conforrnance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. LOcal residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. M. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. Utilities The developer shall be responsible forithe relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardinn. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by t,he water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to thp issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 6 O, General Requirements and Approvals Project No CUPOS-t? Completion Date A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ' P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided priorto water plan approval Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Other: 1994 UBC. + Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: , X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. .. X Other: turning radius at Building "E." Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus, __/ __1 I __1 I Completion Date 10. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 11. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: X Lighted directory within 20 feet of main ent;ance(s). 12. 13. 14. 15, X Other: Per Ordinance 22. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and:ordering information. $677.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. / / "Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC. · UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. / /i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 98-02 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK AND REAR PROPERTY LINE SETBACK TO 0 FEET WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES MINIMUM SETBACKS OF 5 FEET AND 20 FEET, RESPECTIVELY, AND TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TREES PLANTED ALONG EXTERIOR BUILDING WALLS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES ONE TREE PER 30 LINEAR FEET OF BUILDING WALL EXPOSED TO PUBLIC VIEW FOR A PUBLIC STORAGE PROJECT ON 4.22 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-041-09 A. Recitals, 1. Charles Joseph and Associates has filed an application for the issuance of Vadance No. 98-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of December. 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on December 9. 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue with a street frontage of 300 feet on Arrow Highway and 182 feet on Hermosa Avenue and lot depth of 665 feet and which is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with apartments and a retail center, the properties to the south and west consist of single family homes, and the property to the east is developed with apartments; and c. Compliance with the required 20-foot building setback would result in 400- to 600-foot long corridors that would be difficult for police to patrol and may present a hazard to adjacent single family homes; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 2 d. Construction of a public storage project, as proposed, with a O-foot setback along the south and west property lines would not have a significantly greater impact upon adjacent homes than other types of development in compliance with the required setbacks; and e. The project includes;an intensified landscaping and architectural design which mitigates any aesthetic impact associated with the requested setback reduction; and f. Other public storage projects located adjacent to residential areas have been granted similar variances for setback, reduction. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty Or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 98-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOC. December 9, 1998 Page 3 I, Brad Buffer, 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 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 9, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~IONGA -- STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Salvador M. Salazar. AICP, Associate Planner ADOPTION OF LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES - A request by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to adopt updated local environmental guidelines for the review of development projects within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City Environmental Guidelines (Exhibit "A") is a document that establishes procedures for the review and evaluation of all development projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Guidelines outline the procedure for the preparation of environmental documents in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended to date. The environmental documents include Mitigated Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). BACKGROUND: On December 16, 1981, the City Council reviewed and approved the first Local Environmental Guidelines, incorporating by reference, the State Environmental Review Guidelines contained in Section 15000 et. Seq. of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. Further the City Council adopted a supplement Local California Quality Act Guidelines in order to supplement the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines for proper implementation of California Environmental Quality Act. ANALYSIS: General: The State of California has enacted the California Environmental Quality Act to provide decision makers with useful information on how government actions affect the environment. The State Guidelines only provide basic criteria and direction, which require local agencies to prepare and adopt additional Guidelines for environmental processing within its boundaries. It is for this reason that staff has prepared the procedures for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Local CEQA Guidelines). The revised Guidelines incorporate the results of numerous legislative decisions since 1981 and the revised Guidelines outline in detail the various procedures and requirements necessary through California Environmental Quality Act. This includes evaluation of projects, exemption determination, preparation of an Initial Study. and Environmental Impact Reports, as well as a monitoring and reporting program. New procedures added to the Guidelines, in addition to state requirements, include staff training for all City staff involved in the California Environmental Quality Act review process. ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ADOPTION OF LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES December 9 1998 Page 2 The revised Guidelines differ in great part from the previous Guidelines because they provide additional information regarding the interpretation and procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore, the revised Guidelines provide detailed procedures for: 1. Responsibility for the review and preparation of environmental documents. 2. Initial evaluation of projects. 3, The preliminary review process. 4. Consultant selection for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. 5. Mitigation monitoring program. 6. Procedures for the City as a responsible agency. 7. The appeal process. In summary, the updated Environmental Guidelines provide a comprehensive document that will be easier to understand and,use. B. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the' Protection of the Environment) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. CORRESPONDENCE: The adoption of the Local California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached Resolution to City Council. Brad Buller City Planner BB:SS:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Draft City of Rancho Cucamonga CEQA Guidelines Resolution of Approval' ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES COMMUNITY DEVEL OPM EN T DEPARTMENT A. USE .............................................................................................................................................1 B. DEF1NFIIONS ..............................................................................................................................1 C EXEMPTIONS FROM CEQA .......................................................................................................6 D. APPLICATION OF CEQA To DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS .........................................................7 E. SUBM1SSIONOFDATA BYAPPLICANT ......................................................................................7 F. FEES ...........................................................................................................................................7 II, RESPONSIBILITY FOR REVIEW AND PREPARA T/ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ....................................................fO A. GENERAL .................................................................................................................................10 B. RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................................................I0 C CEQA TRAINING ....................................................................................................................10 D. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARATION OF CEQA DOCUMENTS ...............................................11 E. DESIGNATION OF LEAD DEPARTMENT .................................................................................11 III. INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROJECTS ...................................... A. APPLICABILITY ........................................................................................................................12 B. AppLICATIONPRE-SUBMITFAL CONFERENCE .......................................................................12 C APPLICATIONREQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................................12 D. APPLICATIONPROCESSING .....................................................................................................12 E. DETERMINING IF APPLICATIONS ARE COMPLETE .................................................................12 IV. TNE PRELIMINARY REVIEW PROCESS .................................... A. PRE-APPLICATIONCDNSULTATION. ....................................................~ ..................................14 B. RECEIPTOFAPPLICATION .......................................................................................................14 C DETERMINATIONOF EXEMPTION ..........................................................................................14 D. INITIAL STUDY. ........................................................................................................................15 I/. THE (MITIOA TED) NEOA TIVE DECLARATION PROCESS ......... f 8 A. DECISIONTOPREPAREANEGATIVEDECLARATIONORMITIGATEDNEGAT1VE DECLAt~ TION .................................................................................................................................18 B, OC)NTENTS ................................................................................................................................18 C PUBLIC NOTICE ........................................................................................................................19 D, PUBHCt~EV~EW. ...................................................................................................................... E. t~EVIEWBYOTHER PUBLICA GENCIES ..................................................................................20 F. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE RE VIEW OF PRO/ECTS ....................................................................20 G. C~NTENTS OF NOTICE OF INTENT .........................................................................................21 H. FINAL APPROVAL/FINDING.~ ................................................................................................ L APPEAL OFFINAL APPROVAL ................................................................................................22 ]. NOTICE OF DETERMINA 770N ..................................................................................................23 I<Z TIME L1MIZ. ..............................................................................................................................23 . L. MITIGATION MONITORING ......................................................................................................2 M. ADDENDA OR SUBSEQUENTDOCUMENTS .............................................................................24 VI. THE EIR PROCESS .................................................................... 25 A. DECISION TO PREPARE AN EII~ ..............................................................................................25 B, CONSUL TANT SELECTION. ......................................................................................................25 C PREPARA770NOFTHEDRAFTEIR .........................................................................................27 D. PUBL1CREV1EWOFDRAFTEIR .............................................................................................34 E. EVALUATIONOFCOMMENTSBYTHELEADAGENCF. ......................................................... 37 E THE FINAL EIR .......................................................................................................................37 G. DECISION WHETHER TO APPROVE OR C4RRYOUFTHE PRO]ECT ....................................... 38 H. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................38 I. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONS1DERA TIONS ................................................................... 39 ]. APPEAL OF FINAL APPROVAL ................................................................................................39 I~ NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ..................................................................................................40 L. MITIGA TION MONITORING ......................................................................................................41 VII. SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED AFTER CERTIFICATION OR APPROVAL OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................42 A. SURSEQUENTEfi~SAND(M/77GATED) NEGA77VE DECLARA770NS ....................................42 C SUPPLEMENT TO AN EIR ........................................................................................................43 D. USE OF MASTER EIRS FOR REVIEW OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS .......................................... 44 VIII, M/rIGA T/ON MONITORING .................................................... 45 A. PROGRAM TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................45 B. MEASURES REQUESTED BYSTATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ............................................ 45 C PROJECTS OF STA TEW1DE, REGIONAL OR AREA WIDE CONCERN. ........................................ 45 D. FEES .........................................................................................................................................45 IX, PROCEDURES FOR rile CITY AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY A. GENERAL .................................................................................................................................46 B. RESPONSE TO CONSUL TA TION ................................................................................................46 C MEETINGS ................................................................................................................................46 D. COMMENTS ONDRAFT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARA770NS ........................................... 46 E. NO77CE OFDETERMINATION ..................................................................................................46 X, APPEAL PROCESS .....................................................................47 A, GENERAL .................................................................................................................................47 B. APPLICABLE APPEAL BODIES .................................................................................................47 C APPEALS OF EXEMPTIONS ......................................................................................................47 D. APPEALSOFADETERMINATIONTHATAPREVIOUSENV1RONMENTALDOCUMENT1S ADEQUATE .......................................................................................................................................47 E. APPEALS OF (MITIGATED) NEGA 77VE DECLARAITONS ....................................................... 48 F. PROCESSING APPEALS .............................................................................................................48 Xl. SEVERABILITY ..........................................................................49 XII, APPENDICES ..........................................................................50 APPENDIX A - CEQA FLO~VCHART. .............................................................................................50 APPENDIX B - TIME LIMITS FORAPPROVAL OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS ................. 50 APPENDIX C- SIGNIFICANTEFFECTS ............................................................................................50 APPENDIX D - PROJECTS OF STA TEWIDE, REGIONAL, ORAREA WIDE SIGNIFICANCE ................ 50 APPENDIX E - LISTOFCATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ..................................................................... 50 APPENDIX F - STA TUTORYEXEMPTIONS .......................................................................................50 APPENDIX G- ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (INITIAL STUDY, PART l) ...................... 50 APPENDIX G, A TFACHMENTA - VIA TER USAGE AND SEWER FLOWS ........................................ 50 APPENDIX G, ATTACHMENT B - LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................................ 50 APPENDIX G, ATTACHMENT- HAZARDOUS ~VASTE AND SUBSTANCE SITES ............................. 50 APPENDIX H- COMPLETENESS LETTER AND COMMENTS ........................................................... 50 APPENDIX I - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (INITIAL STUD Y PART I1) ............................ 50 APPENDIX ] - MITIGA 770N MONITORING CHECKLIST (1NITIA L STUD Y PAR T III) ......................... 50 APPENDIX j, ATTACHMENT- M1TIGA770NMON1TORING AND REPORTING FORM ...................... 50 APPENDIXK- NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ..........................................................................................50 APPENDIX L - NEGATIVE DECLARATION .....................................................................................50 APPENDIX M - NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NE GA T1VE DE CLARA TION ................................. 50 APPENDIX N - NOTICE OF PREPARATION ......................................................................................50 APPENDIX O - NOTICE OF COMPLETION ........................................................................................50 APP E NDIX P- NOT1CE OF A VA ILA BILITY EN V1RONMENTA L IMPACT REPORT .......................... 51 APPENDIX Q - NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ................................................................................. 51 APPENDIX R - ARCftAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................51 These Guidelines set forth the procedures, which shall be used by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended. They are based on the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000et seq. (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines promulgated by the Resources Agency as amended, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which should be referred to whenever additional detail or clarification is necessary. Appendices A and B to these Guidelines contain flowcharts that illustrate the procedures set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. If there is any conflict between those Appendices and the text of these Guidelines or the State Guidelines, the text controls. The following definitions are intended to clarify and supplement, but not replace or negate the definitions contained in Article 20 of the State Guidelines. In the event of inconsistency, the State Guidelines shall control. Approval - A decision made by the City Planner, Planning Commission, or City Council as the appropriate decision-making body which determines a particular course of action for a project. For public projects, approval usually occurs on the date when public expenditures are authorized for acquisition of property. If no public funds are involved for the project, then approval occurs on the date when the City authorizes the project. Approval shall occur once the appeal period has been exhausted. Advisory Body - The public body or administrative official or designated staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga permitted by State Law or City Ordinance or Resolution to consider and make recommendations on a specific type of project. City - The City of Rancho Cucamonga acting by and through its officers, department, commissioners, agencies, and authorized staff. Council - The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. County Clerk - The County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. All filing and other duties of the County Clerk as set forth in these procedures are to be performed by the Clerk of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Cumulative Impacts - Refers to individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be impacts resulting from 1 a single project or a. number of projects; past, current, and future. A discussion of cumulative impacts often includes a list of projects producing related impacts, a summary of expected effects of these projects, and an analysis of the cumulative impacts of relevant projects. Decision-Making Body - Any public body or administrative official or designated staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga permitted by State Law or City Ordinance or Resolution to consider and approve or conditionally approve or disapprove a specific project. Department - Generally refers to the Community Development Department, but also means any agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any division of any agency, any department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga not included within one of its agencies, or any special district governed by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council. Discretionary Project - A project which requires the exercise of judgement, deliberation. or decision on the part of a public agency or body in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from "ministerial" decisions which require the public agency or body merely to ascertain compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances. or regulations. A project having both ministerial and discretionary elements is deemed discretionary, 10. Environmental Impact Report - (EIR) A detailed statement setting forth the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to a project as specified in Section 21100 of CEQA, and may refer to either a draft or a final EIR, prepared pursuant to Section VI of these Guidelines. 11. Initial Study - A preliminary analysis prepared by a Lead Agency pursuant to Section IV. D of these Guidelines to determine whether an EIR or a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be prepared. 12. 13. 14. 15. Jurisdiction by Law - Lawful authority exercised by any public agency over the resources, which may be affected by a project, and includes a city, county or other jurisdiction, which is the site of the project. Lead Agency - The lead agency has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project, and which shall prepare the environmental documents for a project. Lead Department - The Lead Department or agency. of which the City Council is the governing body. which has the principal responsibility for carrying out, approving, or causing the approval by a decision-making body of a project. The process for determining the lead department is set out in Section II. D of these guidelines. Mitigation Measures - Measures capable of reducing or avoiding potentially significant environmental impacts 'identified for non-exempt projects. Mitigation may include the following: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking an action or pads of an action. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute reSOUrCeS Or environments, Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) - A database covering a geographical or issue area that may involve cumulative impacts from a number of separate projects within the geographical area or involving the issue under study, (Section 15169). Master EIR - An alternative to preparing a project EIR, Staged EIR, or Program EIR for certain projects which will form the basis for later decision making. It is intended to streamline the later environmental review of projects included within the project, plan, or program analyzed in the Master EIR. Mitigation - (See Mitigation Measures). Mitigated Negative Declaration - A Negative Declaration prepared for a project pursuant to Section V of these Guidelines when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that the project as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Negative Declaration - A written statement by a Lead Agency pursuant to Section V of these Guidelines which briefly presents reasons why a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR. Previous Environmental Impact Report - An EIR prepared in connection with an earlier project as provided in Section 15153 of the Guidelines. Program EIR - An EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: a. Geographically; b. As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions: 23. 24. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Project -The whole of,an action which has a potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, that is any of the following: An activity directly undertaken by a public agency including, but not limited to, public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local general plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100 through 65700; An activity undertaken by a person or entity which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; An activity involving the issuance to a person or entity of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for uses by one or more public agencies. An activity can include, but not be limited to, a project undertaken by a private individual or entity for any of the following purposes: the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid or thermal waste; grading, removing. dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, and any other division of land except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreation use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction. demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes. "Project" does not include continuing administration or maintenance activities, government funding mechanisms, or other government fiscal activities not involving a specific project, general policy- and procedure-making and feasibility or planning studies. "Responsible Agency" - A public agency, other than a Lead Agency, which has responsibility to carry out or approve all or a portion of a project. 4 ~'1D 25. 26. 27. 28. Significant Environmental Effect - A substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance, and which may result from direct or indirect consequences of the project. A project shall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if: The project has the potential to substantially 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. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Examples of consequences, which may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment, are listed in Appendix C. State Clearinghouse - A division of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The State Clearinghouse receives notices and other CEQA related documents and distributes these documents to the appropriate State agencies. Tiering -The coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific-to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site-specific EIR. From an EIR on specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or .a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. Transportation Agency - A public agency which has jurisdiction over major arterials and public transit facilities within 5 miles of a project site that might be affected by the project or a public agency which has jurisdiction over freeways, highways, and rail transit service facilities within 10 miles of a project site that might be affected by the project. 29. Trustee Agency - A state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. C The following projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA and do not require the preparation of an Initial Study, (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, or EIR: All Ministerial Projects - These are projects for which the City's discretionary approval is not required. Such projects include, but are not limited to, final subdivision maps and individual service connections and disconnections. Categorical Exemptions - These are classes of projects which have been found by the Secretary for Resources not to have a significant effect on the environment. A list of these exemptions is set forth in Appendix E of these Guidelines. (Note: a project located on a site which is included on any list of hazardous waste sites and facilities compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code is not exempt, even if a categorical exemption would otherwise apply.) Certain Emergency Actions and Projects - These include emergency projects carried out or approved by a public agency to repair or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in which a state of emergency has been declared by the Governor, and emergency repairs to public facilities to maintain service, and specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency, 4. Projects which the Lead Agency Rejects or Disapproves Rates and Tolls - The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies which the publ!c agency finds are for the purpose of: Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; b. Purchase or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; c. Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; Obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or Obtaining funds necessary to maintain such intra-city transfers as are authorized by law. School Closing - The closing of a public school containing kindergarten or any of grades one through twelve or the transfer of students between public schools if the only physical changes involved are also exempt from the requirements of CEQA. 10. Restripin9 - The restriping of streets or highways to relieve traffic congestion. Pipelines - Projects less than 1 mile in length in any public right-of-way to install, maintain, repair, replace, restore, remove, relocate, recondition, or demolish a pipeline. For the purposes of this section. "pipeline" includes only subsurface facilities and does not include any surface facilities related to the subsurface facility. Statutory Exemptions - These are exemptions from CEQA granted by the Legislature. A list of these exemptions is set forth in Appendix F of these Guidelines. Common Sense Exemption - An activity which is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. D. Of CEQA To Except as provided in Sections I.C., IV.C., and V.A. of these Guidelines. the Lead Agency shall prepare directly or by contract an Environmental Impact Report for all public and private projects which involve discretionary governmental action, and which may have a significant effect on the environment. See Section VI. E. Subnission Of Data By Applicant A Lead Agency may require the applicant to submit any data or information which may be necessary for the Lead Agency to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, whether the project site and any alternatives are on any list of hazardous waste sites and facilities compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and to assist in the preparation of an Initial Study, (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, or EIR by the Lead Agency. The form entitled "Environmental Information and Checklist Form," as shown in Appendix G of these Guidelines. may be used for this purpose. F. Fees A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultant's fees, incurred by the City in preparing and processing an Initial Study, (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, or EIR, shall be charged to the applicant. No fee shall be collected pursuant to these Guidelines when it is determined at the initial examination that the proposed project does not require review pursuant to CEQA. because the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section I.C of these Guidelines. The City shall charge a fee not exceeding the actual cost of reproduction to members of the public who request copies of an Initial Study, (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, or EIR. A non-refundable fee, the amount of which shall be determined from time to time by Resolution of the City Council, will be required to initiate an appeal of a Lead Agency's final adoption of the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration under Section V.H. of these Guidelines. Fees incurred under Section 753.5, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, shall be collected as follows: Projects. which are statutorily or categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, shall incur no fee. If the Lead Agency determines that a project subject to CEQA would have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife pursuant to Section IV.D of these Guidelines, it shall complete a Certificate of Fee Exemption containing the de minimis finding. The original Certificate of Fee Exemption shall be retained as part of the environmental record, and two copies of the Certificate shall be filed with the County Clerk, along with the document handling fee required by Section 711.4(e) of the Fish and Game Code, at the same time the Notice of Determination is filed. Projects which are not governed by Subsections a & b above shall incur a fee in the amount established by Section 753(a) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. All projects for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Section 21890(c) of the Public Resources Code and these Guidelines shall incur a fee in the amount established by the State. All projects for which an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code and these Guidelines shall incur a fee in the amount established by the State. When the Lead Agency directly undertakes a project, the Lead Agency shall be considered the applicant and shall be responsible for payment of the fee incurred hereunder. When the Lead Agency is supporting, in whole or part, an activity undertaken by a private person or is granting a license. permit or entitlement to an applicant, the project applicant shall be responsible .for payment of the fee incurred hereunder. Fees incurred hereunder shall be paid by the party responsible for such payment to the County Clerk. The fee shall be paid at or before the time of filing the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. All checks for payment of the fees shall be payable to the County of San Bernardino. Only one fee shall be paid per project. In the event a project requires multiple Notices of Determination by Lead and/or Responsible Agencies, the fee shall be paid at or before the time the Lead Agency files the first Notice of Determination. Upon payment, the County Clerk will issue an Environmental Filing Fee Cash Receipt. The applicant shall retain the receipt for presentation to any additional agencies whose approval may be required. A copy of the receipt shall be attached to any additional Notices of Determination that may be required for the same project. This copy shall suffice as documentation that the fee has been paid. 9 The responsibilities of the Environmental Director includes review of the Initial Study Part I, preparation of Initial Study Parts II and III, and providing assistance in the formulation and coordination of monitoring and reporting programs. The Environmental Coordinator will be responsible for the monitoring calendar, long term Mitigation Monitoring, and the review for adequacy of consultanrs reports. Environmental Director/Environmental Coordinator - The City Planner shall be the designated Environmental Director (ED) for the City. Any questions, which arise concerning interpretation of these guidelines, or the CEQA process, shall be reviewed by the ED. The City Planner may appoint a person to act as the Environmental Directors designee, who will have the title of Environmental Coordinator (EC). The EC will be given specific responsibilities and duties towards ensuring that the CEQA process is carried out in an appropriate manner including training staff, overseeing the review and preparation of environmental documents by staff members, and implementation of the report and monitoring program. Staff Responsibilities.- Individual City staff members shall also be given responsibilities for acting as the City Planner's representative in the review and processing of environmental documents. Such responsibilities may include: review of Initial Study Part I and preparation of the Initial Study Parts II and III; review of various technical documents and reports; and acting as the City Planner's representative when the City is a responsible agency, including attending meetings and preparing responses to environmental documents; overseeing the preparation of environmental documents; as well as the implementation of the individual project report and monitoring programs. Lead Department Responsibilities - It shall be the responsibility of the lead department to carry' out the review and preparation of environmental documents. C CEQA Tra n rtg As a requirement of these Guidelines, City staff members shall complete specific training and certification in the CEQA review process. Certification from the City Planner shall be required before any staff member works on or makes a decision about CEQA related issues. The training and subsequent cedification shall ensure the staff member's knowledge and familiarity of the provisions of the City's Guidelines. Public Projects - When the City plans to carry out a non-exempt public project, the lead department shall prepare Part I of the Initial Study. The lead department shall then either complete Parts II and Ill of the Initial Study or have them prepared by an outside consultant. Once completed, Pads I, II, and Ill of the Initial Study shall be submitted for review to the City Planner or his designee; whereupon, the City Planner shall evaluate the adequacy of the documents and shall make a recommendation as to whether (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or EIR should be prepared. As part of the review, the City Planner may make a recommendation that additional studies should be required or that additional mitigation measures be added. The lead department shall then prepare a draft (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or EIR in accordance with the provisions set forth in these guidelines. Private Projects - Where a non-exempt project is subject to a discretionary approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the applicant shall prepare Part I of the Initial Study. The Planning Division, or lead department, shall review Part I and prepare Pads II and III of the Initial Study and shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or draft and final EIR. In the case where the lead department is other than the Planning Division, they shall have responsibilities as outlined in this section. E. Desig, don of Depa'r o?z Where two or more departments of the City of Rancho Cucamonga are involved with a project, the lead department shall be determined by the following criteria: If the project is to be carried out by a department of the City, the lead department shall be the one that is proposed to carry out the project. Where the project is proposed by an applicant other than the City, the lead department shall have the authority to process or grant permits, or the department with the greatest responsibility, approving or causing the approval by a decision-making body of the project as a whole. Apflt?.ab2L, y These application procedures shall apply to all projects, except ministerial projects as defined by Section 15369 of the Guidelines, as set forth in these rules and regulations. B. A pplicatzbn Pm- Subm2tal Conference For large, complex, or environmentally sensitive projects, a pre-submittal meeting should be held prior to formal submittal of a project application. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the scope of potential environmental issues relative to the project as well as additional documentation or studies such as hydrology or traffic that may be needed.' Scheduling of this meeting is the sole responsibility of the applicant and should occur as early in the project planning stages as possible. Attendance should include City project staff and project representatives as well as members of other appropriate City departments or governing agencies. C AFplication RequinynoTss Minimum Requirements - Part I of the Initial Study completed, signed by the applicant, and filed with a project application and accepted by the City in accordance with these rules, shall constitute an application under CEQA for all discretionary projects. Applications where an exemption from CEQA can be readily determined shall not be required to file Part I of the Initial Study. Additional Information - Additional information, supporting data, or technical reports identified either through the preliminary review process or at a pre- submittal conference should 9enerally be provided at the time of project submittal. Additional information, if required, should be submitted following completion of the Initial Study Part II and subsequent project analysis. City staff will log in all applications, dale stamp the application, and assign a project number. All environmental documents shall be included in the project file. All applications shall be reviewed by the City to determine if they contain required information prior to acceptance. An application review appointment with a staff 12 member designated by the City Planner or lead department may be utilized by the applicant to go through a checklist of required items once the application has been reviewed at the Planning and Engineering Staff meeting. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all required information is provided. W~thin a 30 calendar-day period after an application has been submitted, one of the following shall occur: If the submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner or lead department, the applicant shall be informed in writing, with a copy placed in the file. If it is determined that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall be notified in writing specifying the deficient areas, as well as what is needed to complete the application. Copies of this notification shall be included in the project file. Upon resubmittal of the project application, a new 30 calendar- day period for determining completeness of the application shall begin. Projects shall be deemed received for filing on the date which an application is accepted as complete by the City Planner or lead depadment, except as provided under Section 15111 of the State CEQA Guidelines, regarding projects with short time periods for approval. For example, when an EIR is being prepared, action within 50 days after acceptance of a tentative subdivision map shall be suspended until such time as necessary environmental review has been completed. Accepting an application as complete does not limit the authority of the City from requiring the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the project. While conducting the review for completeness. City staff will be evaluating environmental issues that require additional environmental study, up to and including the preparation of an EIR. 13 Z A. Pre-Application Cortmltation Upon request by a potential applicant for a project involving the issuance of a lease. permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, the Lead Agency shall consult with the potential applicant to consider the range of actions, potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and any potential significant effects on the environment of the potential project, B. Rere~pt of .~pplication Where the following occurs, the Lead Agency may deem an application for a project not received for filing until such time as the required environmental documentation is sufficiently complete to enable the Lead Agency to complete environmental review under CEQA within the time limits set by another statutory scheme: The enabling legislation for a program, other than the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code Section 65920 et seq., requires the Lead Agency to take action on an application within a specified period of six months or less; and The enabling legislation provides that the project will be approved by operation of law if the Lead Agency fails to take any action within such specified time period; and The project involves the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use. Appendix B illustrates the time limits discussed in the Guidelines. Appendix H is a form to use in reporting to the applicant the status of the application. C DetennbTat~ofExergtion When an application is deemed complete, staff shall first determine whether the application involves a "project", as defined in Section I.B of these Guidelines. If so. staff shall then determine if the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Section I,C of these guidelines contains a list of exemptions. If staff determines a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, a Notice of Exemption may be filed with the County Clerk. The County Clerk shall post the Notice for 30 days and return the Notice to the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency shall retain the Notice for not less than nine months, A copy of the Notice of Exemption form is provided as Appendix K to these Guidelines. General - If the project is subject to the requirements of CEQA, staff shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. However, if staff can determine that the project will clearly have a significant effect, then the Lead Agency may prepare an EIR without first preparing an Initial Study. Still, even when it is clear from the outset that a project may have a significant effect, staff may decide to prepare an Initial Study to enable the applicant to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts or to assist the preparation of an EIR. 2. Purposes - The purposes of an Initial Study are to: Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Negative Declaration. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Negative Declaration is prepared. c. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: · Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; · Identifying the effects determined not to be significant; Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant; and Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects. d, Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment. f. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. 3. Early Consultation With Other Agencies and the Applicant - As soon as it is determined that an Initial Study is to be prepared, the Lead Agency shall consult with all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources that may be affected by the project to obtain recommendations as to whether an EIR or a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration should be prepared. 15 "E ;i The Lead Agency may also consult with the applicant during or immediately after preparation of the Initial Study to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to reduce or avoid any significant effects identified in the study. If a project is of statewide, regional, orareawide significance under the criteria of Appendix D to these Guidelines, the Lead Agency shall also consult with transportation agencies as defined in Section I.B of these Guidelines. Any agency consulted under this Subsection c which provides information to the Lead Agency shall be notified of, and provided copies of, environmental documents pertaining to the project. A project may be revised in response to an Initial Study so that potential adverse effects are eliminated or reduced to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur. In that case, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. The mitigation should be in the form of changes in the project's plans or a firm commitment in writing from the applicant to implement the mitigation measures. If, however, the project would still result in one or more significant effects on the environment after mitigation measures are added to the project, an EIR shall be prepared. Contents - The Initial Study shall contain the following information in brief form: a. A description of the project including its location; b. An identification of the environmental setting. C, An identification of the environmental effects by use of a checklist, provided entries are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation may be either through a narrative or a reference to another information source such as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. A reference to another document should include, where appropriate, a citation to the page or pages where the information is found; d. A discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any; An examination of whether the project is compatible with the existing zoning and General Plan; and The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study. The Environmental Information and Checklist Form to be submitted by the applicant and the Initial Study Questionnaire Form appear in Appendices G and I to these Guidelines. Results - If the Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall do one of the following: · Prepare an EIR, or Use a previously prepared EIR which the Lead Agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand, or Determine, pursuant to a Program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, including a master EIR or a master environmental assessment. The Lead Agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. The Lead Agency shall prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration if the Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment but revisions in the project plans or proposals made by the applicant would avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration if the Lead Agency determines that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. A determination of the required environmental document to be prepared shall be made within 30 days after an application is accepted as complete. This period may be extended up to 15 days upon consent of the applicant. If a draft environmental document is prepared under a contract to a public agency, the contract shall be executed within 45 days from the date on which an application requesting approval of the project is received and accepted as complete by the local agency, unless the local agency finds that a longer period of time is required due to compelling circumstances and the project applicant consents thereto. Appendix B illustrates the time limits discussed in these Guidelines. Deci ra To Prepare a Negative Dedar or Mitiga2 rl Negat Declarat n A proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project when the Initial Study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but: Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no Significant effect would occur; and, There is no substantial evidence before the Lead Agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Appendix C lists circumstances in which a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. Section I.B of these Guidelines defines circumstances in which a project will normally be found to have significant environmental effects and in which an EIR might be prepared. A Negative Declaration shall'be written and include: 1. A brief description of the project as proposed, including the case number or a commonly used name for the project, if any; The location of the project and the name of the project proponent; A finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding; Mitigation measures included in the project, if a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, to avoid potentially significant effects; The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the basis upon which the decision to adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is based; and If the project site is on any list of sites affected by hazardous waste and substances compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, the Lead Agency shall specify the list and include the information required by the statement set forth in Section 65962.5 (f) of the Government Code. The form for a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration appears in Appendix L of these Guidelines. C Public Notice A Notice of Intent to adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be provided to the public and the public agencies identified below in Subsection E so that the public and each public agency have at least 20 days to review the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration prior to its adoption by the Lead Agency or, if the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is provided to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the notice shall be provided so that the public and public agencies have at least 30 days to review the negative declaration prior to its adoption. Notice shall also be given to the last known address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: Publication at least one time by the Lead Agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project; or 2. Posting of notice by the Lead Agency on and offsite in the area where the project is to be located; or Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project as such owners are shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Public notice of the proposed (Mitigated) Negative Declaration may be given at the same time and in the same manner as public notice of the project required by any other law. Notice shall be mailed to the County Clerk so that the County Clerk receives the notice at least 20 days before the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is to be adopted. The County Clerk will post the notice for at least 20 days before returning the notice to the Lead Agency. This notice should be retained in the environmental record for the project. Notice shall be mailed to the State Clearinghouse so that the Clearinghouse receives the notice at least 30 days before the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is to be adopted. The form of a Notice of Intent to Adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is found as Appendix M of these Guidelines. D. Puttic Review The proposed (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be made available to the public for at least 20 days from the date that a notice is published, posted, or mailed prior to final approval in order to provide an opportunity for members of the public to respond to the finding. Where State Clearinghouse review is involved, this public review period shall be at least 30 days, pursuant to Subsection F below, unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse. The City Planner is designated to request a shortened review period, when appropriate. E. Retie By Other Public Agories The Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and agencies having jurisdiction by law over the project prior to approving the Negative Declaration by sending a copy of the Notice of Intent and proposed (Mitigated) Negative Declaration and Initial Study to all such agencies. Further, the Lead Agency shall provide notice of any public hearing on the proposed project to each Public Agency which comments on the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration within the comment periods specified by CEQA. (If the public agency had previously received notice of the hearing, the notice need not be sent again after receiving comments on the negative declaration.) If a project involves the construction or alteration of a facility within 1/4 mile of a school which project might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions, or which would handle acutely hazardous material or a mixture containing acutely hazardous material in a quantity equal to or greater than the quantity specified in Subdivision (a) of Section 25536 of the Health and Safety Code. which may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employee at the school, then the Lead Agency shall: a, Provide the relevant school district with written notice of the project not less than 30 days prior to approval of the Negative Declaration; and Consult with that district regarding the potential impact of the project on the school. C, For purposes of paragraph 2 above, the terms "acutely hazardous material" and "hazardous air emissions" shall have the meanings attributed to them by Section 21151.8 (c) of the Public Resources Code. E State CJem~ Reu/c-wofProjects 1. If a project is determined to be of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, pursuant to the criteria in Appendix D of these Guidelines, the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse, transportation agencies as defined in Section I.B of these Guidelines, and the local metropolitan area council of governments; e.g. the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). If one or more state agencies is a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency or possesses jurisdiction by law over the project, the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies. A Notice of Intent to adopt a (Mitigated) Declaration may follow the form provided in Appendix M and shall specify the following: 1. A brief description of the proposed project and its location. The starting and ending dates for the review period during which the Lead Agency will receive comments on the proposed (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. If the review period has been shortened, the notice shall include a statement to that effect. The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the Lead Agency on the proposed project, when known to the Lead Agency at the time of notice. The address or addresses where copies of the proposed (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, including revisions and all documents referenced in the proposed (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, are available for review. This location or locations shall be readily accessible to the public during the Lead Agency's normal working hours. The presence of the site on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code including, but not limited to, lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, and hazardous waste disposal sites, and the information in the Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement required under Subsection (f) of that section. Other information specifically required by statute or regulation for a particular project or type of project, H. Final Approut/Finding Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body shall independently review and analyze the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration and any comments received by the Lead Agency concerning the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration and adopt or disapprove the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. The Lead Agency shall not adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration unless it finds that the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Lead Agency. Where the project would result in no significant impacts or where mitigation measures eliminating significant effects are incorporated into the project, the Lead Agency shall adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration and make a finding that the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment and that the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the Lead Agency. When adopting a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration the Lead Agency shall also adopt a monitoring program as described in Section VIII for any mitigation measures and shall specify the location and custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based. As a result of the public review process for a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the Lead Agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the Lead Agency, prior to approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute other mitigation measures that the Lead Agency finds, in writing, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made pad of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. A Lead Agency shall not adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within ~vo nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area. Approval of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration may be appealed in writing within 10 days after approval of the project for which the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration was prepared. The appeal of the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration will be considered by the same body that considers an appeal of a decision on the project for which the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is prepared. If the decision on the project is not appealable, then the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall also not be appealable. An appeal fee wilt be required pursuant to City of Rancho Cucamonga fee resolution. Notice of After deciding to carry out or approve a project for which a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration has been approved, the Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination. The form of the Notice of Determination is found in Appendix Q. 1. The Notice of Determination shall include: An identification of the project including its common name where possible and its location; b. A brief description of the project; c. The date on which the project was approved; The determination that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; A statement that a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; The mitigation measures which were made a condition of the approval of the project; and The address where a copy of the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration may be examined. The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk within 5 working days after approval of the project. The County Clerk will post the Notice for 30 days before returning the Notice to the Lead Agency with a notation showing the dates of posting. The Notice must then be retained in the records of the Lead Agency for at least 9 months. A copy of the Notice of Determination and the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall also be provided to agencies which provided information to the Lead Agency after consultation pursuant to Section IV.D of these Guidelines. If the project requires discretionary approval from a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning and Research. A Notice of Determination shall be provided to all organizations and individuals that have previously requested by mailing a copy of the Notice to them within 5 working days after approval of the project. K. T ,r e For a project involving a lease, license, permit, certificate, or other entitlement for use, a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be completed within 180 days from the day the application for the project is determined to be complete. A reasonable extension may be granted upon consent of the applicant provided that compelling circumstances justify additional time. Appendix B illustrates the time limits discussed in these Guidelines. L. Mitigation Monite~g If the Lead Agency has conditioned approval of a project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared upon the implementation of measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects or if such mitigation measures were incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program pursuant to Section VI of these Guidelines. Addenda to or subsequent environmental documents prepared after approval of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be processed according to Section V of these Guidelines. 24 A. Decision to Pmpam an EIR If the Lead Agency finds after an Initial Study, and despite any mitigation measures prepared under Section II or III of these Guidelines, that, in light of the whole record, there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report , An EIR shall be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The existence of a public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts, which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Certain projects may automatically trigger the preparation of an EIR. A Lead Agency should consult State CEQA Guidelines Section 15081.5 before analyzing any of the following projects: a. The burning of municipal waste, hazardous waste, or refuse driven fuel; b, Issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit; c. Open pit mining operations; and; d. An initial base reuse plan. General - EIRs shall be prepared by a qualified consultant selected by, and under contract to, the City. Following a determination that an EIR is required, City staff shall initiate a selection process for a consultant to prepare the document. Selection would typically occur by preparing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ); however, a Request for Proposal (RFP) may also be utilized. Qualifications submitted should at a minimum include the following: 25 Names and resumes of principals and employees of the firm or subcontractors who will be involved in preparation of the EIR. A listing of all applicable environmental documents prepared for public and private clients for which the firm was the lead consultant. Additional projects, including projects for which the firm was a sub- consultant. may also be listed. The name of the project manager should also be included. In the case of projects for which the firm was a sub-consultant, {he firm's scope of work should be indicated. In all cases, if the document was prepared under a name different than that presently used by the firm. that name should be indicated. C= A listing of at least two references each from public and private sector clients. Each reference should include a listing of the corresponding public or private client involved in the project. Listings of public projects should include the name of the project sponsor. d. A copy of what the firm deems to be its best environmental document. A reference for each document, if applicable, should be submitted. e. Statement of familiarity with the project area. Other information as deemed necessary based upon the project description and scope of work such as a fee schedule and statement of ability to meet any time constraints of the project. Immediately at the close of the RFQ/RFP period, City staff shall review the packets that have been received. Fee proposals shall be included in a separate sealed envelope clearly marked as fee or cost proposal. Consultant selection criteria shall be based upon consultant qualification on experience, responsiveness to the :RFQ or RFP, and project timing. The City Planner and/or lead department shall select the most qualified consultant proposals for an evaluation interview. The City Planner and/or lead department shall make the final determination of the consultant to be retained, and shall notify the applicant within 10 calendar days following the selection. Final contract approval shall be by City Council authority. Costs of Preparation - All costs associated with preparation, noticing, printing, and distribution of EIRs and addendum and supplemental studies shall be borne by the applicant. Prior to the signing of the consultant contract to prepare the EIR, the applicant shall deposit funds sufficient to pay for the required EIR in a City Trust Account. These funds shall be released by the City to the EIR consultant according to the terms of the Contract for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The applicant shall be required to pay an administrative fee as established in the Rancho Cucamonga Fee Resolution to cover the City's costs for consultant selection, contract preparation, analysis of the EIR, public hearings, Staff Reports, and legal publications. 26 T~ Applicant Contact - During the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, the City's environmental consultant should be allowed access to the applicant, proyided that the City staff be informed ahead of time of any meetings between the applicant and the consultant, and that no meeting be held without prior knowledge and consent. No information or conclusions should be released by the consultant to the applicant except through the City. c Notice of Preparation - Upon deciding that an EIR is required, the Lead Agency shall issue a Notice of Preparation by certified mail to each responsible agency, those public agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources that may be affected by the project, similar federal agencies and each city or county that borders on the Lead Agency. The notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in approval or funding of the project, to any agency which provided information to the Lead Agency after consultation pursuant to Section IV.B.3 of these Guidelines and to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice. The notice shall be in the form provided in Appendix N of these Guidelines. The agencies notified shall have 30 days in which to respond to the Notice and a draft EIR may not be circulated for public review until that time has elapsed. If an agency does not respond within the 30-day period, the Lead Agency may assume that agency has no response. Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance - If a project is determined to be of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide significance pursuant to the criteria in Appendix D of these Guidelines, the Notice of Preparation shalt also be submitted to transportation agencies as defined in Section I.B of these Guidelines. Early Consultation - Prior to completing a draft EIR, the Lead Agency may consult with any persons or organizations it believes may be concerned with the environmental effects of the project. The Lead Agency shall, upon the request of the applicant, provide for early consultation to identify the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR The Lead Agency may consult with persons identified by the applicant which the applicant believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the project and may consult with members of the public who have made written request to be consulted on the project. A request by the applicant for early consultation shall be made not later than 30 days after the Lead Agency determines that an EIR will be required for the project, pursuant to Section IV.B.5 of these Guidelines. The Lead Agency may charge and collect from the applicant a fee not to exceed the actual costs of the consultation. Consultation with Water Suppliers for Certain Mixed-Use Projects and Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance - For those projects described below, at the time that the Notice of Preparation is distributed, the Lead Agency shall contact each operator of a water system that will serve the project and that is, or may become, a public water system. ("Public Water System'! is defined in Water Code Section 10912). The Lead Agency shall request that the operator of the water system assess whether the projected water demand associated with the project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan. The public water system operator shall provide the assessment not later than 30 days after the date that the request was received and the Lead Agency shall include in the draft EIR the assessment and any other information provided by the operator pursuant to Water Code Section 10911. The assessment and the information shall not exceed 10 standard typewritten pages in length. This requirement shall only apply to the adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan or an amendment or revision of the land use element of the General Plan that may result in a net increase in population density or building intensity. Furthermore, the requirements of this Section will not apply unless the Specific Plan or General Plan Amendment is made in connection with a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance that falls within Subsection b of Appendix D or a mixed use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. Means of Preparation -'The Lead Agency may choose one of the following arrangements, or a combination of them, for preparing a draft EIR. If the Option c below is used, the contract for preparation of a draft EIR shall be awarded within 45 days of the receipt of a complete application for the project, including submittal of required fees by the applicant, unless the local agency finds that a longer period of time is required due to compelling circumstances and the project applicant consents thereto. a. Preparing the draft EIR directly, with its own staff. Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR. c. Using an EIR previously certified by a public agency. Before using :a draft EIR prepared by another person, the Lead Agency shall independently review and analyze the draft EIR, and shall not approve the release, circulation, or use of the draft EIR unless it determines that the draft EIR reflects the independent judgement of the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR. If the Lead Agency chooses to prepare the draft EIR pursuant to Subsection a or b above. then the applicant shall make payment to the Lead Agency in order to defray the costs to prepare and/or evaluate the draft EIR; the applicant shall not make direct payment to the contractor who is to prepare the draft EIR. 6. Format - a. An EIR shall contain a table of contents or an index to assist readers in finding the analysis of different subjects and issues. An EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and their consequences, which should not exceed 15 pages and which shall identify: Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect. · Areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues ' raised by agencies and the public; and Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts. Highly specialized and technical data; however, should be included in appendices rather than in the main body of the report. The EIR should be prepared using natural and social science methodologies and include consideration of qualitative as well as quantitative factors. The EIR shall reference all documents used in its preparation and may incorporate any document by reference. The EIR shall state where an incorporated document is available for public inspection An EIR prepared for a general or specific plan or zoning ordinance may be used as the foundation document for subsequent EIRs prepared for specific projects within the geographic are covered by the plan or ordinance. Contents - A draft EIR should be less than 150 pages in most cases and shall contain the following information: Description of project - A description of the project including the following information, but only in sufficient detail to allow evaluation and review of the environmental impact: The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project on a detailed map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map. · A statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. A general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals, if any, and supporting public service facilities. A statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of the approvals for which the EIR will be used, and all decisions on the project subject to CEQA. If the project site is on any list of sites affected by hazardous waste and' substances compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the Lead Agency shall specify the list and include the information required by the statement set forth in Section 65962.5(0 of the Government Code. Description of Environmental Setting - A description of the environment in the vicinity o~ the project as it exists before commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general and regional plans. Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Previously approved land use documents such as general plans, and specific plans may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis. The following elements are necessary for adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: Either: Future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the Lead Agency, or A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planhing document. which is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead. Agency; and A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with spe.cific reference to traditional information stating where that information is available; and 30 T' A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shatl examine reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project. Environmental Impact - All phases of a project shall be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation. The following subjects shall be discussed, preferably in separate sections or paragraphs. The significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including direct and indirect and short- and long-term effects. A copy of the Initial Study shall be attached to the EIR to provide the basis for limiting the impacts discussed. Any significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a less-than- significant level, and the reasons why the project is proposed notwithstanding these impacts. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects including avoidable, adverse impacts, and any inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. This discussion shall identify measures, which will eliminate such impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact. each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be given. Energy conservation measures shall be discussed when relevant. If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant impacts in addition to those which would be caused by the project as proposed, these shall be discussed, but in less detail than the effects of the project as proposed. Housing, economic, and social factors shall be considered in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid significant impacts. With respect to a project which includes housing development, the Lead Agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation Archaeological and historical impacts shall be considered and archeological impacts should be avoided or mitigated as set forth in Appendix R to these Guidelines. Any significant irreversible environmental changes, which would be involved if the proposed action were implemented, including uses of nonrenewable resources and irreversible commitments of resources, should be evaluated to assure proposed consumption is justified. The information need be included only in EIRs prepared for the following: the adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency; the adoption by a local agency formation commission of a resolution making determinations; or, a project requiring an Environmental Impact Statemen1 under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The growth-inducing impact of the proposed action, including the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Any water supply assessment and other information provided pursuant to Section VI.C.3. Airport-related safety hazards and noise problems, if any. for projects within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land .use plan or within two nautical miles of a public or public use airport for which an airport land use plan has not been prepared. The Lead Agency shall use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by CalTrans' Division of Aeronautics to assist in the preparation of the EIR. If certain statement significant significant statement study. potential effects are not discussed in the EIR, a briefly indicating the reasons that various possible effects of a project were determined not to be' and therefore not discussed in the EIR. Such a may be contained in an attached copy of an initial Alternatives to the Proposed Action - Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the: project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Purpose - Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. Selection of a Range Of Reasonable Alternatives - The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Evaluation of Alternatives o The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. "No Project" Alternative - The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Rule of Reason - The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forlh only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making Feasibility - Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressin9 the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability. availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent has or can reasonably acquire control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. Alternative Locations - The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be 33 avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. If the Lead Agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project, which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location. Limited New Analysis Required - Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for projects with the same basic purposes. the Lead Agency should review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative. An EIR need not consider an alternative if the effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and the implementation of, which is remote and speculative. Organizations and Persons Consulted - The identity of all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations and private individuals consulted in preparing the EIR, and the identity of the persons, firm, or agency, which prepared the EIR. D. Public Rev~wofDrafi EIR 1. Consultation - After completing a draft EIR, the Lead Agency shall consult with and request comments from all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other agencies having Jurisdiction by Law over natural resources which may be affected by the project. The Lead Agency shall also consult with any .city or county which borders on the City, unless the Lead Agency and the City or county othenvise designate annually by agreement. The Lead Agency may also consult with persons or agencies, which have special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. The consultation shall be combined with the review period and notices described below in Subsection 2 shall satisfy the requirement to consult and request comments from these agencies. If a project involves the construction or alteration of a facility within 1/4 mile of a public school and which project might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions, or which would handle acutely hazardous material or a mixture containing 34 acutely hazardous material in a quantity equal to or greater than the quantity specified in subdivision (a) of Section 25536 of the Health and Safety Code, which may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, the Lead Agency shall: Provide the relevant school district with written notice of the project not less than 30 days prior to certification of the EIR; and Consult with that district regarding the potential impact of the project on the school. For purposes of paragraph b above, the terms "acutely hazardous material" and "hazardous air emissions" shall have the meanings attributed to them by Section 21151.8(c) of the Public Resources Code. If a project involves burning of municipal wastes, hazardous waste, or refuse-derived fuel, as described in Public Resources Code Section 21092, then notice shall also be provided by direct mailing to the owners and occupants within 1/4 mile of the project site. Notice - The Lead Agency shall provide public Notice of Availability (the form of which is shown in Appendix P) of the draft EIR, and at the same time, send a Notice of Completion (the form of which is shown in Appendix Q) to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) pursuant to Section VI.C of these Guidelines. Notice shall be given to all agencies which must be consulted as described above in Section VI.D.I.a, to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and to all agencies which provided information to the Lead Agency after consultation pursuant to Section IV.D.3 of these Guidelines. Notice shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: Publication at least once by the Lead Agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project; or Posting of notice by the Lead Agency on- and off-site in the area where the project is to be located; or Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project as such owners be shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Notice shall be filed with the County Clerk; who will post the Notice for 30 days before returning the Notice to the Lead Agency. This Notice should be retained in the environmental record for the project. Contents of Notice - The Notice of Availability shall specify the period during which comments will be received on the EIR, and shall include the date, time, and place of any public hearings on the proposed project, a brief description of the project and its location, the significant impacts, if any, anticipated as a result of the project, whether the project is listed as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and if so, the Hazardous Waste Substances Statement, and an address where copies of the draft EIR and all documents referenced in the EIR are available for review. Appendix P contains a Notice of Availability form. Public Review Period - In order to allow sufficient opportunity for public comment, the draft EIR shall be made available to the public for at least 30 days, but not more than 60 days, after Notice of Availability is given to the public, public agencies, and the County Clerk. EIRs submitted to the State Clearinghouse shall be available for public review for at least 45 days. unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period. The City Planner is authorized to request a shortened review period, when appropriate. A draft EIR shall be made available for review in a public area in at least three locations in the City. Projects of Statewide. Regional orAreawide Significance - The Lead agency shall use the State Clearinghouse whenever it distributes an EIR to state agencies for review. EiRs for projects deemed to be of statewide, regional, or areawide significance under the criteria set forth in Appendix D shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse, to transportation agencies as defined in Section I.B of these Guidelines, and to the local metropolitan area council of governments (e.g., SCAG) 6. Revised Draft EIRs - A Lead Agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification, This can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "signifiCant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement, "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result :unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact tO a level of insignificance. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR. If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the Lead Agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section IV.D.2, and consultation pursuant to Section VI.D.1. A decision not to recirculate an EIR when new information is added must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Staff shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons, organizations, and public agencies that reviewed the draft EIR and shall respond in writing to significant environmental issues raised. At least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR, the Lead Agency must provide written proposed responses to public agencies on timely comments made by those agencies. The response may be in the form of a revision of the draft EIR or an attachment to it. F. The Fb i EIR 1. Preparation - The Lead Agency shall prepare a Final EIR consisting of: a. The draft EIR or a revision of the draft; Comments on the draft EIR received during the public review period either verbatim or in summary. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; and The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in review and consultation processes, which may be in the form of a revision of the draft EIR or an attachment to it. Any comments raising major issues at variance to the Lead Agency's position shall be addressed in detail, including reasons why they were not accepted. Certification - The Final EIR shall be presented for review and consideration to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency. Prior to approving a project for which an EIR was prepared, the decision-making body shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State Guidelines, that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the Lead Agency. The decision-making body may not approve the project until it is able to make this certification. Time Limits - For a project involving a lease, license, permit, certificate, or other entitlement for use, the Lead Agency shall complete and certify an EIR within 1 year from the day the application is determined to be complete. If circumstances justify more time, a reasonable extension may be granted upon consent of the applicant, provided that compelling circumstances justify additional time. Appendix B illustrates the time limits discussed in these Guidelines. The Lead Agency shall review and consider the Final EIR before deciding whether to approve or carry out the project and shall not decide to approve or carry out the project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, Or 2. The Lead Agency has: Eliminated or substantially reduced all significant effects on the environment, where feasible, as shown in findings pursuant to Section VI.H. of these Guidelines; and Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations set forth pursuant to Section VI. I. of these Guidelines. F/ndb gs The Lead Agency shall not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless both of the following occur: The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction.of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. This finding shall not be made if the Lead Agency has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified, feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. Specific economic. legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under the paragraph directly above, the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. At the time of making findings pursuant to Subsection a above, the Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material, which constitute the record of proceedings on which the decision is based. The Lead Agency shall not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified without making a finding as to why each of the project alternatives identified in the EIR pursuant to Section IV.C.7 of these Guidelines was rejected in favor of the project approved. Prior to approving a project for which an EIR was prepared and water suppliers were consulted pursuant to Section VI.C of the Guidelines, the Lead Agency shall determine. based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the Lead Agency determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the Lead Agency shall treat impacts to water supplies as a significant impact and shall make the findings set forth above in Subsection 1 .a concerning the impact. /. Stat rr t of Otr ing C raziz Where the decision to approve a project allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but which are not mitigated (as may be the case when findings are made pursuant to Section VI.H, the decision-making body shall make a written statement of the overriding considerations supporting its decision, based on the Final EIR and other information in the record. Any such statement should be included in the record of the project and noted in the Notice of Determination and should include the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project that have been determined to outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Certification of an EIR may be appealed in writing within 10 days after approval of the project for which the EIR was prepared. The appeal will be considered by the 39 same body that considers an appeal of the decision on the project for which the EIR is prepared. If the decision on the project is not made by the City Council and is not appealable, then the appeal of the EIR Certification will be considered by the City Council. An appeal fee will be required pursuant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fee Resolution. Notice of lX,'terrr After deciding to carry out or approve a project for which an EIR has been certified, the Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination. The form of the Notice of Determination is found in Appendix Q. 1. Contents - The Notice of Determination shall include: An identification of the project including its common name where possible and its location; b. A brief description of the project; c. The date on which:the project was approved; The determination whether the project as approved will have a significant effect on the environment; A statement that an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; Whether mitigation, measures were made a condition of the approval of the project; Whether findings regarding significant environmental effects were made pursuant to Section VI.H of these Guidelines; h. Whether a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for the project; and The address where a copy of the EIR and the record of the project approval may be examined. The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk within 5 working days after approval of the project. The County Clerk will post the Notice for 30 days before returning the Notice to the Lead Agency with a notation showing the dates of posting. The Notice should then be retained in the records of the Lead Agency for at least 9 months. A copy of the Notice of Determination and the EIR shall also be provided to agencies which provided information to the Lead Agency after consultation pursuant to Section IV.D.3 of these Guidelines. If the project requires discretionary approval from a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. A Notice of Determination shall be provided to all organizations and individuals who 'have previously requested such notice in writing by mailing a copy of the Notice to them within 5 working days after approval of the project. L. Mitigat n Monitoring If the Lead Agency has imposed mitigation measures on the project, the Lead Agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program pursuant to Section VI of these Guidelines. The program shall be adopted at the time that the project is approved. All mitigation measures imposed on a project shall be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. VII:-: $UBSEQ'UENT:!' EI VIRONi fENTAL L : DOCUMENTS REQUIRED. *AFTER ERTIFI ,A T#ON, DR, APPROVAL A. Sub x ,e EIRs ani (Mizigatect) Negati Declarations When an EIR has been cedified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. and c. New information of substantial importance. which was not known could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially ~rdo~;2t one or more significant effects of the project, but the proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. When a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be required for that project. unless one or more of the elements listed under Subsection I of this Section have been satisfied. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available, but none of the elements listed under Subsection 1 have been satisfied, the Lead Agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendure, or no furlher documentation. If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in Subsection 1 above, the subsequent EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be prepared by the public agency, which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent (Mitigated) Negative Declaration adopted. A subsequent EIR or subsequent (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section VI.D or Section V.C. A subsequent EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed B. A ddendsan to an E IR or(Mitigated) Negatite Dtttarazion The Lead Agency or Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section VII.A calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR, have occurred. An addendure to an adopted (Mitigated) Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted (Mitigated) Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the project. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section VII.A. should be included in an addendure to an EIR, the Lead Agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence. C Supplontnttoan EIR The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if any of the conditions described in Section VII.A. would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and only 43 ~/~'~ minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section VI.D. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. When the Lead Agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision- making body shall consider the previous E R as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section VI.H shall be made for each significant effectI shown in the previous EIR as revised. D. Use of Master EIRs for Rev wof Subsequer Projects If a Master EIR has been prepared for a project listed in Public Resources Code Section 21157, subsequent projects that were described as being within the scope of the master EIR, and which are submitted to the City less than 5 years from the certification of the Master EIR, may be given expedited environmental review. In these situations, the Lead Agency shall prepare an Initial Study of the subsequent project to determine if it was described in the Master EIR and whether it will cause any significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the Master EIR. 2. If the Lead Agency makes a written finding that the subsequent project is within the scope of the Master EIR, will have no additional significant effects on the environment and no new mitigation measures or alternatives are required, then no further environmental review is required. However, the Lead Agency shall provide notice in the manner required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 prior to approving the project and shall file a Notice of Determination after approval of the project. 3. If the Initial Study of the subsequent project identifies new or additional significant effects on the environment that were not analyzed in the Master EIR, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration or focused EIR shall be prepared. The Environmental Coordinator shall conduct mitigation monitoring and reporting pursuant to CEQA and these Guidelines. A. P,W, vn to Ensure Canpliance If a reporting or monitoring program is required under Section V.L or Section VI.L of these Guidelines, the program shall be designed to ensure compliance with mitigation requirements during the implementation of the project. A reporting or monitoring program may include reporting obligations imposed on the applicant, inspection and regulatory enforcement activities of the Lead Agency or some other agency, and monitoring by the Lead Agency or some other agency specifically to enforce the mitigation measures imposed on the project. An example of a Mitigation Monitoring Program is provided in Appendix J. R Measures Requested by State and Federal Agencies If mitigation measures are requested by a Trustee Agency, the Lead Agency may request the Trustee Agency to prepare a reporting or monitoring program. C Projet"tsofStatew~te, RegicrdorAreawideConcrrn If a reporting or monitoring program is required for a project that is of statewide, regional, or areawide concern under the criteria set forth in Appendix D of these Guidelines, any transportation information resulting from that reporting or monitoring program shall be submitted to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency along with a copy of the reporting or monitoring program. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing reporting or monitoring programs as described in Paragraph A above, shall be charged to the applicant. 45 ~ .6"/ IX. ,PROCEDURES FOR TILE. CITY AS A RESPONSIBLE This section identifies the special duties of the City of Rancho Cucamonga when acting as a Responsible Agency under the provisions of Section 15096 of the State Guidelines. B. m The City Planner or his representative(s) shall respond to consultation requests by a Lead Agency in a manner consistent with Section 15096 (b) of the State Guidelines. As pad of this review the City Planner may request that other appropriate city departments review the proposed document and provide comments. C The City Planner or his representative(s) shall attend meetings requested by the Lead Agency as provided by Section 15096 of the State Guidelines. The City Planner or his appointed designee should review and comment on draft EIRs and (Mitigated) Negative Declarations as provided by Section 15096 of the State Guidelines. Where appropriate, the document may be placed on the agenda of the Planning Commission and/or City Council for public review and comment, or may be distributed to the members of these bodies and comments requested. E. In accordance with Section 15096(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Responsible Agency should file a Notice of: Determination in the same manner as a lead agency under Sections 15075 or 15094, except that the City does not need to state that the EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration complies with CEQA. However. the City should state that it considered the EIR or Negative Declaration as prepared by a lead agency. ' APPEAL PROCESS An appeal may be filed with the applicable appeal body and shall be in writing on 8 1/2 x 1 l-inch paper. Additional documentation may, however, accompany the appeal. All appeals to the Planning Commission shall be filed with the Planning Commission Secretary together with the appropriate fee. and appeals to the City Council shall be filed with the City Clerk with the appropriate fee. The fee for such appeals shall be as designated by City Resolution. In all cases. the burden of proof shall lie with the appellant. B. A ppl ic. A tzpeal Bodies To Appeal a Decision of: Planning Commission City Planner Lead Department Staff Review Committee Advisory Body The Applicable Appeal Body is: City Council Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission City Council C AppealsofExvrtptions Any person may appeal the granting of an exemption within 10 calendar days following the date the decision-making body determines the project is exempt. The Appeal of the Exemption shall state clearly why the exemption does not apply to the specific project. D. Appeals of a Detern'zination that aEnvimrrrggalis Adequate Any person may appeal the determination that a Previous Environmental Document is adequate according to Section 15153 of the State CEQA Guidelines, within 10 calendar days following the date the decision-making body determines that a Previous Environmental Document is adequate. All appeals of such a determination shall be supported by evidence that the Previous Environmental Document and project do not satisfy the criteria of Section 15153. 1. Any person may appeal the adoption of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration within 10 calendar days. All appeals of (Mitigated) Negative Declarations shall be supported by evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Controversy not related to an environmental issue is not grounds for thel preparation of an EIR. The appropriate decision-making body shall determine if the appeal contains substantial evidence using the following criteria: AI~ evidence shall be relevant to the environmental issue and shall be documented. The evidence must be new material not already considered in the (Mitigated) Negative Declaration preparation process; and Such evidence must constitute a revised basis on which the decision- making body could find that reasonable doubt exists as to the possible significant environmental impact of the proposed project under the terms of CEQA and the Guidelines. Evidence shall show conflicts with the environmental analysis of the city and/or identify 'environmental impacts of a significant nature not considered in the Initial Study, E Pn s/ng ppea/s Upon the City Planner and/or lead department deeming an appeal to contain the required evidence, the item shall be placed on the agenda to be considered by the appropriate decision-making body with 30 calendar days of the date the appeal is filed with the City. 2. Public notice of the appeal hearing shall be given at least ten 10 days prior to the hearing by one of the following methods: Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project; Posting on-site in the area where the project is to be located and posting on the City Hall Public Notice bulletin board; By direct mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall also be mailed to the project applicant, all responsible agencies, and all public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project as deemed appropriate 15y the lead agency. I XI.~ SEllERABIlITY- If any portion of these Guidelines is held unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. ~pper~x ~ - CEQ~ FlowChart A~ D- ~ of S~, R~, ~ ~ ~ Si~ A~ F- S~ Ex~ ~x G- E~ ~ F~ S~, P~ 0 A~ G, At~tA - Wa~ U~ge~ ~ F~ ~x G, A~t B - L~ ~ ~ A ~ G, ~ t~t- Ha~ W~ ~ S~ S~ A~ H- ~s L~ M ~ ~- E~ ~t F~(~ S~ Pan H) A~ J- MiHg~ Mo~ ~t (In~ S~ P~ lll) A~ ], Ate- Miag~ M~a~R~g F~ A~XK- No~ of Ex~ A~ L- N~a~ ~a~ A~x M- No~ of ln~ ~ A~t N~a~ ~ ~ ~x N- No~ of ~a~ , ~ ~ O- No~ of ~ APPENDIX A CEQA PROCESS FLO%V CHART Public aaencv ddemlincs xshcthcr the ac ivit? [s a '¢projcct" .................. Not a project ............................................ Pro ' oct Publ c a¢'encv ddcrmines if the project is exempt Not exempt Pub i¢; agency ev;~luates pro'cot to doterefine if there is a possibility that the proj.¢c.t may have a significant ell~tzt on Possible significant elYoct I DclemlinationofJeadagenc v, heremore [ Filt:NoticeofExemptionwith than I public agency is tnvo~vcd County Clerk. No Further action required under CEQA  Lead Agenc)' ~lT~t~Zainro~al ~ t.cad agone ' d cision t ///~l.ead ugqncy files .Notice o( . sultation Pub c Roy ¢w Per od Lead agency prepares final EIR includin~ responses to common s on Public Rcvicw Period Decision on Project and Consideration and approval of Negative Declaration by I decision-making body Comments on adcquacy of draft EIR or Negative Dcclaration Decision-makin~ hod>' cllnsitlers final EIR or Negative Declaration prepared by lead I Dccisitm on Project and Find gs on feasibility or reducing or avoiding' I TIME LIMITS FOR APPROVAL Of PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Start 30days Here Application Received Determine whether application is complete (GC 65943) Send Written determination to applicant Determine whether project (30..DAYS} is exempt or whether a (Plq15 day extension ) NegatNe Declaration or an is e : * EIR is required (PR 21080.2) If project C t approve/disapprove lenlative subdivision map + (GC 72.1 and GC 66452.2) C m ity ust ap~'ove/disapprovc all other projects (GC 65950 and co5957) Award EIR Ccrttract (45..DAYS) (PR 21151.5) This chad is intended to itlustrate the time limits established by State taw and does not establish any additional ,~mits on the City's authority. Nothing in these Guidelines shaft he construed to provide for automatic approval of a prcject for any reason. (SO.DAYS) (Plus extension of up to 100 days *) (604:)AYS) (Plus extension up to 90 days Adoption of (Mitigated) Negalivc Dectaration (PR 2115t.5) (lS0..DAYS) (Rus e'easonable extension *) I City must approve/disapprove tentative sundivision map + all other projects (GC 65950 and 65957) (50-DAYS) (Plus extension ot up to 100 days (6~DAYS~, (Plus extension up to 90 days ) EIR Preparation and Cedir~cation (PR 2t15t.5) (Plus reasonable extension of up to 90 days; extensio(1 shedens time to approve projed *) (ONE-YEAR) C mu ity st approve/dtaapprove---(50-DAYS) tentative sundivision map · (Plus exlension until expiration of Permit Streamlining Act deadline *) (GC 66452.1,66452.2) City must aplxoLe/disapprovo (180-DAYS) all other projects (Plus extension up to 90 days *) (GC 65950, 65950.1,65957) * Consent of apf~ioant required f~' any extension + If an advisory agency makes a recommendation to the legislative ~ concerning the tentative sundivision map. the advisory agency must act within 50 days and the legislative body must act within 60 days a~e' the approval or cedir~cation of the environmental document · If an advisory agency makes a recommendation to the legislative body concerning the tentative subdivision map, the advisory agency must act within 50 days and the legislative body must act w~thin 30 days a~e~ its first meeting fotkN,~ing the recommendation. APPENDIX C SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if it will: (a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; (c) (d) Have a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect; Substantially affect an endangered, rare, or threatened species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; (e) Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control; (0 Substantially degrade water quality; (g) Contaminate a public Water supply; (h) Substantially degrade 6r deplete ground water resources; (i) Interfere substantially with ground water recharge; 0) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study; I (k) Induce substantial growth or concentration of population; (1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of th~ street system; (m) Displace a large number of people: (n) (o) Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, ior ene rgy; ~ Use fuel, water, or energy in a wasteful manner; 9802,03 99~03-00001 ~a~ 1731496 (2) C-1 (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) (x) (y) (z) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation; Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards; Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development; Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected; Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area; Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; Convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land; Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. APPENDIX D PROJECTS OF STATEWIDE, REGIONAL, OR AREAWIDE SIGNIFICANCE Projects meeting the criteria listed in this appendix shall be deemed to be of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. EIR's or (Mitigated) Negative Declarations prepared by the Lead Agency on a project described below shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse and should bd submitted also to the local metropolitan association of governments. The Lead Agency shall determine that h proposed project is,of statewide, regional, or areaw~de significance if the project meets any of the following criteria: hc aB a. The project is a proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for w i h EIR was prepared· e n b. A project has the potential for causing significant effects on the environment xtend~ g beyond the city or county in which the project would be located. Examples of the effecti include generating significant amounts of traffic or substantially interfering with the t 1 attainment or maintenance of state or national air quality standards. Projects subject o th s paragraph include: 1. A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units· 2. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1.000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. 3. A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. 4. A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. 5. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. A project which would result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) for any parcel of 100 m' more acres. A project for which an EIR was prepared which would be located in, and have a substantial impact upon, one of the following areas of critical environmental sensitivity as listed m Section 15206 of the State CEQA Guidclines: ~ D-1 I. The Lake Tahoe Basin. The Santa Monica Mountains Zone, as defined by Section 74663 of the Government Code. The California Coastal Zone as defined in, and mapped pursuant to, Section 30103 of the Public Resources Code. An area within 1/4 mile of a wild and scenic river as defined by Section 5093.5 of the Public Resources Code. 5. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as defined in Water Code Section 12220. 6. The Suisun Marsh as defined in Public Resources Code Section 29101. The jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as defined in Government Code Section 66610. A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including, but not limited to riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for endangered, rare and threatened species as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines. f: A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste treatment management plan. A project which would provide housing, jobs, or occupancy for 500 or more people within 10 miles of a nuclear power plan. APPENDIX E Note: (a) (b) (C) (d) LIST OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS A categorical exemption may not be used for the following projects: A project where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a signific-ant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; When the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same pl~ce, over time is significant; I A project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limitcall to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within an official s!ate scenic highway, designated pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260i of Chapter 2 of Division I of the Streets and Highways Code, unless the project consists of improvements as mitigation for a project for which a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration 'has been approved or an environmental impact report has been certified; and A project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (e) A project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Class 1: Existimz Facilities. Class I consists of the operation. repair. maintenance, or mihor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or tobo- graphical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existihg including but not limited to: (a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances; ] I. rv (b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly-owned utilities used to p o ,de electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or public utility services; , (c) Existing highways and streets,. sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety) except where 'the activity will involve removal of a scenic resource including a stand of trees, a rock outcropping, or an historic building. (d) Restoration, or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment ~o meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as earthquake, landslide, or flood; (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: A. The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and B. The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (0 Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices; (g') New copy on existing on and off-premise signs; (h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs (excluding the use of economic poisons, as defined in Division 7. Chapter 2. California Agricultural Code); (i) Maintenance of fish screens, fish ladders, wildlife habitat areas, artificial wildlife waterway devices, stream flows, springs and water holes, and stream channels (clearing of debris) to protect fish and wildlife resources. (j) Fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game. (k) Division of existing multiple-family or single family residences into common-interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. (1) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subsection except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance: ( 1 ) One single-family residence. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be demolished under this exemption. (2) A duplex or similar multifamily residential structure. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to duplexes, and similar structures where not more than six[ dwelling units will be demolished. (m) (3) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar small commercial structure if designed, for an occupant load of 30 persons or less. In urbanized areas, the exemption alsd applies to the demolition of up to three such commercial buildings on sites zoned fod such use. (4) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming, pools, and fences. Minor repair and alterations to existing dams and appurtenant structures under the supervision of the Department of Water Resources. (n) (o~ Conversion of a single-family residence to office use. Installation, in an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, of a steam[ sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste generated by that facility provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 25015, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. Ai used herein, the term "urbanized areas" means a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a! population density of at least 1000 persons per square mile. Class 2: Renlacement Or Reconstruction. Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the! structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure] replaced, including but not limited to: I (a) Replacement or reconstruction of existing schools and hospitals to provide earthquake! resistant structures which do not increase capacity more than 50%. (b) Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity. (c) Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving[ negligible or no expansion of capacity. (d) Conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to underground,I including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where thel surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding. Class 3: New Construction Or Conversion Of Small Structures. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures: installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel or to be associated with a project within a two-year period. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to: (a) Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. (b) Apartments, duplexes and similar structures with no more than four dwelling units if not in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. In urbanized areas, the exemption applies to single apartments, duplexes and similar small structures designed for not more than six dwelling units if not constructed in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. (C) Stores, motels, offices, restaurants, and similar small structures not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less, if not constructed in conjunction with the building of two or more such structures. In urbanized areai, the exemption also applies to commercial buildings on sites zoned for such use, if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less, if not constructed in conjunction with the building of four or more such structures and if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances. (d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas and other utility extensions of reasonable length to serve such construction. (e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. (f) An accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste at an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 25015, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. "Urbanized area" is defined in Class 1 above. Class 4: Minor Alterations To Land. Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to: 980203 99903-00001 m 17314~6 (~) E4 (a) (b) (c) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway. in any wetland, in a scenic area officially designated by feddral state or local governmental action, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard. New gardening or landscaping. Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site. (d) Minor alterations in land, water and vegetation on existing officially designated wildlife management areas or fish production facilities which result in improvement of habitati for fish and wildlife resources or greater fish production. (e) Minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on ithe environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc. (0 Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. (g) Maintenance dredging where the spoil is deposited in a spoil area authorized byI all applicable state and federal regulatory agencies. (h) The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. · I Class .5.: Minor Alterations In Land Use Limitations. Class 5 consists of minor alterations ~n land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than a 20% slope, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to: (a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. (b) Issuance of minor encroachment permits. (c) Reversion to acreage in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Class 6: Information Collection. Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major dis- turbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information-gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adoptgd, or funded. Class 7: Actions By Re~ulatorv A~encies For Protection Of Natural Resources. Class 7 consists of action taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Examples include but are not limited to wildlifepreservationactivitiesoftheStateDepartmentofFishandGame. Construction activities are not included in this exemption. Class 8: Actions Bv Re~ulatorv A~:encies For Protection Of the Environment. Class 8 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state law or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. Class 9: Insnections. Class 9 consists of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for performance of an operation, or quality, health or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Class 10: Loans. Class 10 consists of loans made by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Veterans Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1943, mortgages for the purchase of existing structures where the loan will not be used for new construction and the purchase of such mortgages by financial institutions. Class 10 includes but is not limited to the following examples: (a) Loans made by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Veterans Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1943. Purchases of mortgages from banks and mortgage companies by the Public Employees Retirement System and by the State Teachers Retirement System. Class 11: Accessory Structures. Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (a) On-premise signs; (b) Small parking lots; (C) Placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable rest rooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums, or other facilities designed for public use. Class 12: Sumlus Government Property Sales. Class 12 consists of sales of surplus government property except for parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern as set forth in section (d) of Appendix D of these Guidelines. However, if the surplus property to be sold is located in such areas, its sale is exempt if: (a) The property does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental purposes, and (b) Any of the following conditions exist: (1) The property is of such size, shape, or inaccessibility that it is incapable of independent development or use; or (2) The property to be sold would qualify for an exemption under any other clas~ of categorical exemption in these Guidelines; or (3) The use of the property and adjacent property has not changed since the timeI of purchase by the public agency. Class 13: Accluisition Of Lands For Wildlife Conservation Purposes. Class 13 consists of the acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife conservation purposes, including preservation of fish a~nd wildlife habitat, establishing ecological reserves under Fish and Game Code Section 1580, and preserving access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the land in its natural condition. Class 14.: Minor Additions To Schools· Class 14 consists of minor additions to existing scho!ls within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity Iby afore than 25% or ten classrooms, whichever is less. The addition of portable classroomsI is included in this exemption· · I Class 15: Minor Land Divisions. Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbamzed areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the divisilon is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, hll services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was riot involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20%· "Urbanized area" is defined in Class I above· I Class 16: Transfer Of Ownership Of Land In Order To Create Parks. Class 16 consists of the acquisition or sale of land in order to establish a park where the land is in a natural condition ~or contains historic sites or archaeological sites and either: (a) (b) The management plan for the park has not been prepared, or The management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition or preserve the historic or archaeological site. CEQA will apply when a management plan is proposed that will change the area from its natural condition or significantly change the historic Or archaeological site. 980203 't9~03-O0001 ~,a.s 17314~6 (2} E-7 ..~ 70 Class 17: Open Space Contracts Or Easements. Class 17 consists of the establishment of agricultural preserves, the making and renewing of open space contracts under the Williamson Act, or the acceptance of easements or fee interests in order [o maintain the open space character of the area. The cancellation of such preserves, contracts, interests, or easements is not included in this exemption and will normally be an action subject to the CEQA process. glass 18: Designation Of Wilderness Areas. Class 18 consists of the designation of wilderness areas under the California Wilderness System. _Class 19: Annexations Of Existing Facilities and Lots For Exemrn Facilities. Class 19 consists of only the following annexations: (a) Annexations to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive, provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities. (b) Annexations of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted under Class 3 above. Class 2~0: Chan~es In Organization Of Local Agencies. Class 20 consists of changes in the organization or reorganization of local governmental agencies where the changes do not change the geographical area in which previously existing powers are exercised. Examples include but are not limited to: (a) Establishment of a subsidiary district. (b) Consolidation of two or more districts having identical powers. (c) Merger with a city of a district lying entirely within the boundaries of the city. .Class 21: Enforcement Actions. Class 21 consists of actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted, or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. Such actions include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) The direct referral of a violation of lease, permit, license, certificate, or entitlement for use or of a general rule, standard, or objective to the Attorney General, District Attorney, or City Attorney as appropriate, for judicial enforcement. Co) The adoption of an administrative decision or order enforcing or revoking the lease, permit, license, certificate, or entitlement for use or enforcing the general rule, standard, or objective. (C) Law enforcement activities by peace officers acting under any law that provides criminal sanction· Construction activities undertaken by the public agency taking the enforcement or revocation action are not included in this exemption. Class 22: Educational Or Trainin~ Programs lnvolvin~ No Physical Chan~es. Class 22 consist~ · I In 0 e BQ of the adoption, alteration, or termination of educational or training programs which v Iv physical alteration in the area affected or which involve physical changes only in the interior of existing school or training structures. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) Development of or changes in curriculum or training methods· (b) Changes in the grade structure in a school which do not result in changes in studenk transportation. I Class 23: Normal Operations Of Facilities For Public Gatherin~,s. Class 23 consists of the norma,l operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were designed, where' For purposes o the:re is a past history of the facility being used for the same kind of purpose. f section, "past history" shall mean that the same or similar kind of activity has been occurring fo~ at least three years and that there is a reasonable expectation that the future occurrence of the included m activity would not represent a change in the operation of the facility. Facilities w~th this exemption include, but are not limited to. racetracks. stadiums. convention centersI auditoriums, amphitheaters, planetariums. swimming pools and amusement parks. Class 24: Re~,ulation Of Workin~ Conditions. Class 24 consists of actions taken by regularDry agencies, including the Industrial Welfare Commission as authorized by statute, to regulate of the following: (a) Employee wages, (b) Hours of work, or (c) Working conditions where there will be no demonstrable physical changes outside the plaSe of work. Class 25: Transfers Of Ownership Of Interests In Land To Preserve Open Space. Class 2.5 consists of the transfers of ownership of interests in land in order to preserve open space. Examples include but are not limited to: (a) Acquisition of areas to preserve the existing natural conditions. (b) Acquisition of areas to allow continued agricultural use of the areas. (c) Acquisition to allow restoration of natural conditions. (d) Acquisition to prevent encroachment of development into flood plains. Class 26: Acc~uisition Of Housinc, For Housine Assistance Prourams. Class 26 consists of actions by a redevelopmerit agency, housing authority, or other public agency to implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring an interest in housing units. The housing units may be either in existence or possessing all required permits for construction when the agency makes its final decision to acquire the units. Class 27.: Leasin~ New Facilities. Class 27 consists of the leasing of a newly constructed or previously unoccupied privately owned facility by a local or state agency where the local govern- ing authority determined that the building was exempt from CEQA. To be exempt under this section, the proposed use of the facility: (a) Shall be in conformance with existing state plans and policies and with general, community, and specific plans for which an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, (b) Shall be substantially the same as that originally proposed at the time the building permit was issued, (c) Shall not result in a traffic increase of greater than 10% of front access road capacity, and (d) Shall include the provision of adequate employee and visitor parking facilities. Examples of projects within Class 27 include but are not limited to: (I) Leasing of administrative offices in newly constructed office space. (2) Leasing of client service offices in newly constructed retail space. (3) Leasing of administrative and/or client service offices in newly constructed industrial parks. Class 28: Small Hydroelectric Proiects At Existin~ Facilities. Class 28 consists of the installation of hydroelectric generating facilities in connection with existing dams, canals, and pipelines where: 9802039~B03-CC~01 ~a,s t7314s'6(2) E-10 (a) The capacity of the generating facilities is 5 megawaits or less. (b) Operation of the generating facilities will not change the flow regime in the affected stream, canal, or pipeline including but not limited to: (1) Rate and volume of flow, (2) Temperature, (3) Amounts of dissolved oxygen to a degree that could adversely affect aquatic life, and (C) (4) Timing of release. New power lines to connect the generating facilities to existing power lines will not exc!ed one mile in length if located on a new right of way and will not be located adjacent to a wild or scenic river. (d) Repair or reconstruction of the diversion structure will not raise the normal maximum surface elevation of the impodndment. (e) There will be no significant upstream or downstream passage of fish affected by the project. (0 The discharge from the power. house will not be located more than 300 feet from the toe of the diversion structure. (g) The project will not cause violations of applicable state or federal water quality standards. (h) The project will not entail any construction on or alteration of a site included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and (i) Construction will not occur in the vicinity of any endangered, rare or threatened specieS. Class 29: Co~,eneration Projects At Existinc: Facilities. Class 29 consists of the installation 6f cogeneration equipment with a capacity of 50 megawaits or less at existing facilities meeting the conditions described in this section. (a) At existing industrial facilities, the installation of cogeneration facilities will be exempt where it will: ~ (t) Result in no net increases in air emissions from the industrial facility, or will produce emissions lower than the amount that would require review under the new source review rules applicable in the county, and (b) (2) Comply with all applicable state, federal, and local air quality laws. At commercial and institutional facilities, the installation of cogeneration facilities will be exempt if the installation will: (1) Meet all the criteria described in subsection (a), (2) Result in no noticeable increase in noise to nearby residential structures, and (3) Be contiguous to other commercial or institutional structures. APPENDIX F LIST OF STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS The following is a partial list of statutory exemptions which are available pursuant to the Pubhc Resources Code § 21080 et seq, State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15260 et seq., and other provisions of state law, as listed below, which should be referred to whenever additional deta!il or clarification is necessary. This list is not exclusive. This list is provided for convenience therefore if there is any conflict between this list and state law the state law controls. A s~mfiar list may be found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15282. 1. Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. 2. Emergency repairs to public service Ii~cilities necessary to maintain service. Projects undertaken carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain repair, restore, demohsh, or replace property or facfimes damaged or destroyed as a result of,a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed b~y the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. Projects which a public agency. rejects or disapproves. A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail qr highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations ah parking facilities. A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high- occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services. ' Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Sectioh 21080.5 of the Public Resources Code. Any site-specific effect of the project which was not analyzed as a significant effect in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency. board, or commission, has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities. A project of less than one mile in length within a public street or highway or any other public right-of-way for the installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline. For purposes ofthis paragraph, "pipeline" includes subsurface facilities but does not include any surface facility related to the operation of the underground facility. Adoption by a city or county of an ordinance to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 or 65852.2 of the Government Code, regarding second units in residential zones. The conversion of an existing rental mobile home park to a resident-initiated subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobile homes if the conversion will not result in an expansion of or change in existing use of the property. Local agencies are exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR or negative declaration on the adoption of timberland preserve zones under Government Cocle Sections 51100 et seq. A time extension granted by the Office of Planning and Research for the prcparation or adoption of one or more elements to a general plan. The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges for the purpose of: (1) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (2) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; (3) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (4) obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (5) obtaining funds necessary to maintain such intra-city transfers as are authorized by city charter. Rate increases to fund capital projects for the expansion of a system remain subject to CEQA. The public agency seeking use of this exemption shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption. The excavation and disposal of Native American human remains pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The adoption of a local ordinance exempting a jurisdiction from solar shade control requirements pursuant to Section 25985 of the Public Resources Code. F-2 2ZZ77 19. Approva by a local agency of a arge faro y day care home pursuant to Sect on 1597.46 20. i lves the repipino redesion or use of reclaimed water by a non w resldennal structure necessary to comply ~th a requirement ~ssued by a public agency pursuant to Section 13554(a) of the Water Code. This exemption shall not apply to an3' project to develop reclaimed water, to construct conveyance facilities for reclaimed water, or any other project not specified m Section 13554(a) of the Water Code .... · · I 21. A project involving the construction of housing or neighborhood commercial facilities in an urbanized area that is covered by a specific plan prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et seq./br which an EIR was prepared and certified, provided certai'n findings are made pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.7· 22. Any railroad grade separation project which eliminates an existing grade crossing or which reconstructs an existing grade separation. I 23. A proposal to establish, revise or adopt regional housing needs for the share of housing needs of persons or all income levels for a city or county by the Department of Housin~ and Community Development, and any recommendation by a city or county for a revision to such proposal pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. / 2-,'I..Any actions necessary to bring a city general plan or one or more elements thereof int]o compliance with any court order or judgment pursuant to Government Code Section 6575~. 25. A temporary change in the point of diversion, place or use or purpose of the se of atelr U w · I due to a transfer or change of water rights under certain limited circumstances p c~fied S e in California Water Code Section 1725 et sea. I 26. The adoption or amendment of a nondisposal facility element pursuant to Section 41730 et seq. of the Public Resources Code (Public Resources Code Section 71735). 27. The adoption or amendment of an Urban Water Management Plan pursuant to Section 10610 et sect. of the California Water Code (Water Code Section 10851) or to the adoption or amendment of a groundwater plan pursuant to Section 10750 et seq. of the California Water Code (Water Code Section 10851). I 28. A project involving the construction, conversion or use of residential housing fo'r agricultural employees under certain circumstances pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.10 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15279. F-3 ._Z2 7g 29. 30. 31. A project involving the construction, conversion or use of 45 or more units of low income residential housing provided all conditions of Public Resources Code Section 21080.14 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15280 are satisfied. A project for restriping streets or highways to relieve traffic congestion. The adoption of a local coastal program or a long range land use development plan pursuant to Division 20 of the Public Resources Code. F-4 City of Rancho Cuc41monga Planning Division (909) 477-2750 APPENDIX G ENVIRONMEN'AL INFORMATION F.O{RM (Part I - Initial Studyi The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the propoised 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 an this apphcatlon be provided in full. GENERAL INFORMATION: INCOMPLETE APPLICA TIONS t4/ILL NO T BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibi~ty of the app~cant to ~nsureI !hat the ~ppfication is complete at the time of submittal; City staff w~l not be a vailable to perform won~ required to provide missin~ ~:pl~c~Z~Z Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project, Title: Name & Address of preject owner(s): Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: Contact Person & Address: Telephone Number: Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Number: INITSTD1 .WPD - 4~96 Page ' of 10 PROJECT INFORMATION & DESCRIPTION: Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP'S unless otherwise requested by staf~ 2) 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. Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views [ntg the site from the north, south, east and west.' views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site,' and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): 4) Assessors Parcel Numbera (attach additional sheet if necessary): '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. fL): '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Descrfbe any proposed genera/plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary.' 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project.' Page 2 of 10 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography. soft stability. plant! and animals, matura traes, trails and roads, drainage couraes, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures; on sit~ (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In a~ddition site all sourues of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys. traffic studies).' ~0) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of infon'nation (books, published rapprts and oral history): ~ Describe any noise sources and their levels that rF~w affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise. etc.) and how they will affec~ proposed uses: INITSTD1 .VVPD - 4/96 Pag~ 3 of 10 Descfibe the pmposed pmject in detail. This should Provide an adequate descdption of the site in tenns of ultimate use which will msult from the pmsed 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 necessa,']/: 13) Desc~be the sun~~unding pmperties~ inc~uding inf~nnati~n ~n p~ants and anima~s ~nd any cu~tura~~ hist~~ca~~ ~r scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential. commemial. etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses. shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height. frontage. setback, rear yard, etc.): 14) Will the proposed project change the pattem, scale or character of the surrounding general area Of the project? I 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including soume and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on*site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 4 of 10 "16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees.' 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please ~contac the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. I a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) 4 b. Commereia~nd. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/mid/ac) ~ Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks am proposed attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generetio~: (Sea Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gallday) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: petached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: INITSTD1 .WPD - 4196 Pag~ 5 of 10 Attached (indicate whether units am rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale pdces and/or rents: Sale Price(s) Rent (per month) 22) SPecifY number of bedrooms by unit type: to to $ 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 appmpdate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUS TRIAZ, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Desc~fbe type ~f use(s) and maj~r functi~n(s) ~f c~mmemia~~ mdustrfa~ ~r instituti~na~ uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type.' INITSTD1 .WPD- 4/9S Z '¢~"~"' Page 6 of 10 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift.' 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication orthe rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary).' 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hirad that currently reside in the City: '31] For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the soume, type and amount of air pollution emissions, (Data should b verified through the South Coast Air Qua~ty Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water~ sewer~ fire~ and ~d c~ntrc~ a~ encies serving the prcject been c~ntacted t~ determine their abi~ity tc adequate service to the prcposed prcject? If so, please indicate their response. arevide / il PageZot C ] 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 PC8 's; radioactive substances; pesticides and hetbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and ether flammable liquids and gases. A/so note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property. as weft as the dates of use, if known. 34) t4411 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 of aft such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses. along with the storage and shipment areas, shaft be shown and labeled on the application plans. I heraby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability. that the facts, statements, and infon, nation presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and beliei~ I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date.' Signature: Title: INITSTD1 .VVPD - 4~96 Page 8 of 10 ATTACHMENT A water Usatie Average use per day Residential Single Family AptJCondo Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial industrial Park Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 600 gallday 400 gallday 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 9al/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Sewer Flows - Residential Single Family AptJCondos Commercial/Industrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan. 9/86 270 gal/day 200 ga~/day 2000 gal/day/ac 100-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac INITSTD1 .VVPD - 4196 Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts AIta Loma 9350 Base Line Road. Suite F Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario. CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 INITSTD1 .VVPD- 4/96 '~ g ~ Page 10 of 10 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 13, 1990 Applicants Dan Coleman, Principal Planner HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCE SITES Effective July 1, 1987, Government Code Section 65962.5 requires each applicant for ar~y development project to consult the State list of Hazardous Waste and Substance Site,s. Based upon this list (available from the Planning Division) the applicant is required to submit a signed statement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga indicating whether the project is located on a site which is included on the list before the City accepts the application as complete. If the project site is listed by the State as a hazardous waste or substance siLe, the applicant must fully describe the nature of the hazard and the potential environment,al impacts on the Initial Study, Part I. Attached is a standard statement for the applicant to sign. I The State list of Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites may be reviewed at the City bf Rancho Cucamonga Planning DiviSion offices, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Attachment: Statement Form HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE STATEMENT I have been informed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga of my responsibilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (copy attached) to notify the City as to whether the site for which a development application has been submitted is located within an area which has been designated as the location of a hazardous waste site by the Office of Planning and Research, State of California (OPR). I have also been informed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga that, as of the date of executing this Statement, OPR has not yet compiled and distrubted a list of hazardous waste sites as required by said Section 65962.5. I am informed and believe that the proposed site for which a development application has been submitted is not within any area specified in said Section 65962.5 as a hazardous waste site. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: Applicant APPENDIX H SUBJECT: Dear Your application for the above referenced project has been reviewed for completeness and accLracy Of filing. As a result of the review, the project application has been found to be incomplete for processing. Attached ple~.se fin.d a list outlining additional informatio. n need. ed .prior to finding the application complet~ non-conform~tles w~th development standards, and major design ,ssues. Further processing of your project cannot begin until, at a minimum, the Completeness Items are submitted t e application accepted as complete. However to expedite processing of your project it is : om%ended,hat a,l iss es on ,he attaohed list be add;essed now. Submit eigh, oopies o, the ;vise'd applicationtothePlanningDivision. Tea I .... h pp ~cant must submit the reformabort and/or plans necessary to make the application complete within 60 days of the date of this letter. Failure to submit within this time limit may result in denial of your application. This decision regarding the incomplete status of your application shall be final following a ten-day ,appeal pedo~l beginning with the date of this letter. Only Completeness Items may be appealed at this time. A wdtten statement of reasons for the appeal must be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary an~ b~ accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. S ould you have any questions regardingthe review process, or if we can be of further assistance, ,please feel free to contact the project planner. * ' , at (909) 477-2750. Monday through Thursday frown 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p,m, I I Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Dan Coleman Principal Planner Attachment cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Karen Mosley, Public Svc. Tech. I FILE NO.: (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process. I. Plannina Division (909) 477-2750: A. Completeness Items - Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the application complete: 1. B. Technical Issues - The following preliminary technical issues are minimum code requirements which must be satisfied before the project can be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission. It is recommended that these issues be addressed in the revised plans: 1. C. Desjan Issues - The following are preliminary design issues that are recommended to be addressed in the revised plans: 1. Enaineering Division (909) 477-2740: A.Completeness: 1. B. Issues: 1. Building and Safetv Division ~909~ 477-2710. ext, 2233: Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit ,~909) 477-2710. ext, 2202: 16. I:~FINAL\FORMS\FORMLTRS\INCOMPAP.FRM Initial Study for <Insert Project Name> APPENDIX I City of Rancho Cucamonga Pag~ 1 City of Rancho Cucamong~a ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND 1. Project File: 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 5. General Plan Designation: 6, Zoning: 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: INITIAL STUDY PART II ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvin~ at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Initial Study for <Insert Project Name> City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: <Name> <Title> <Date> EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. , Initial Study for <Insert Project Name> LAND c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? Comments: City of Rancho Cucamoqga Page 3 ()1 () () POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: () () () ()! () () () () () () () ()i GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) Fault rupture? () () () NO ()! · Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga <Insert Project Name> Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) 0 Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) Comments: () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () d) WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? g) () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () NO () () Initial Study for <Insert Project Name> City of Rancho Cucamon a g Page ~5 h) i) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Comments: () () No ImOacl () () () () AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement. moisture, or temperature. or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) Comments.' NO () () () () TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) No () () () () () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga <Insert Project Name> Page 6 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? Comments: () () () () () () () () BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered. threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees. eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and verna[ pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Comments: () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ineffic ent manner? () () () () () () No () () Initial Study for <Insert Project Name> c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that Would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: City of Rancho Cucamonga Pag~ 7 () () () () m HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substanceS(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees?:' ( ) Comments: () () () () () () () () () () ()~ 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) Comments: () () () () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga <lnsed Project Name> Page 8 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) Comments: () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) C) d) g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Commerlts: () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () No () () () () () () () Initial Study for <Insert Project Name> 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: City of Rancho Cucamonga Page~ 9 () () () 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) C) d) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Comments; () 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Commen~: () () () () () () () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga <Insert Project Name> Page 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten t6 eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief. definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Commen~: EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga <Insert Project Name> Page ! 1 earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the Oity of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning DiviSion offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that appl~,): General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) Other: Other: APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study, I ackno ge thlat I wled , have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects wo~uld occur. Signature: Print Name and Title: I:\FINAL\CEQA\INSTUDY.PT2 Date: Z2E:/o'-/ MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Project File No.: Initial Study Prepared by: AP (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Applicant: Date: Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timlng of Method of Verified implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initial PoPulatl~t!&nd' Housing Sanctions for Non-Compliance TransportatlOnlClrculatlOn ' · ,': ;', :! · ~, :' :: i t BIological R~S~urces , Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials publlgSerVlc~s;~:,~i,~.~i-~; !::...~,:~:,,:::~,!! ...' ,..,: ......~ ,,..~ ....; . ~I. ..,,.~,~i:~,,;.:!~ !!.' ......", T ~ & i~ h, ::~::: ..~ ',:' .~ Sanctions for Non-Compliance CulturalRi~sourCes ": -c .~i:, ,;, .... ~, .... \ M~ndatory Findlngs ofSlgnlfican~e';:i~i;!!~;~i;.',,:i~!!; '::i'::::~!':'~';'''" Key to Checklist Abbreviations MonltorlngFr~lue~cy ' !': .: ',: Me~hodofVedncatJ~l'~L!~;~:',,",-,:: :' A * VV~th Each New Development B - Prior To Construction C - Throughout Construction D - On Completion E - Operating A - On-site Inspection B - Other Agency Permit I Approval C - Ran Check D - Separate Submittal (Reports I Studies I Plans) CDD - Community Development Director CP - City Planner or designee CE - City Engineer or designee BO - Buitding Official or designee PO - Police Captain or designee FC - Fire Chief or designee Sanctions 7:' ! 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit 3 - V~thhold Certificate of Occupancy 4 - Stop Work Order 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Other ~!:~INAL~CEQA'~MCHKLST.WP~D City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING FORM This form was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No,: Phase No.: Mitigation Measure # and Summary: Method of Verification: [] On-site Inspection by [] Plan Check FI Other Agency PermitJApproval l"1 Separate Submittal Disposition: FI Mitigation measure implemented. No further action is required. Mitigation measure is not fully implemented. Further action required (please explain below), Mitigation measure is not in compliance, Further action and/or sanctions required (please explain below). Comments/Revisions: Sanctions: [] VVithhold Recordation of Final Map [] W~thhold Certificate of Occupancy [] Revoke CUP [] Other (please explain): [] Withhold Grading or Building Permit [] Stop Work Order Issued [] Retain Deposit or Bonds Completed By: -T- /o7 Date: I:\FINAL~CEQA~AMREpORT.VVpD APPENDIX K NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of San Bernardino 385 N. Arrowhead. 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 FROM: City of Rancho Cucamon9a P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Project Title: ' Project Location - Specific: ' Project Location - City: Rancho Cucamonga Project Location - County: San Bemardino Description of Project: * Name of Public Agency Approving Project: ' Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out project: · Exempt Status (Check one) Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1 ); 1' 5268); ' Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Z Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c) Reasons Why Project is Exempt: ' Lead Agency Contact Person: ' Area Code/Telephone/Extension: * If Filed by Applicant 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes_ No_ Signature: Title: ' Date: ' APPENDIX L City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Project Name: Project Location (also see attached map): Project Description: Public Review Period Closes: Project Applicant: FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (t) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By APPENDIX M NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: FIELD(name) FIELD(company) FIELD(address) FIELD(city) FROM: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the staff has analyzed the request for PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: After reviewing the initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for ihe project, the st,aft has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared. ~ A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to consider this proposed NEGATI ~ E DECLARATION on , at 7:00 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center. council Chamber, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. ~ Public comments on the Negative Declaration will be received by the City beginning Fn . through ~ and all documents refere le Copies of all relevant material, including the project specifications nc d in the Negative Declaration, are available for public inspection at Rancho Cucamonga CiVic Center, Planning Division, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. ~ The project site is is not listed on any list of hazardous waste sites prepared pursuan! to Government Code Section 65962.5. Any information contained in a Hazardous Waste Substances Statement is attached tO this Notice. Date: By: Associate Planner (Title) APPENDIX N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is, ~ is not, attached. Because of the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. atthe PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT APPL CANT, IF ANY: DATE: SIGNATURE TITLE TELEPHONE Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(a). 15103, and 15375. I:\FINAL\CEQA~NOTPREP.FRM ,_Z'/// APPENDIX O NOTICE OF COMPLETION To: Office of Planning and Research State of Califomia 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Project Title Project Location - Specific Project Location - City Project Location - County Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project Lead Agency Division Address Where Copy of EIR is Available Review Period Contact Person Area Code Phone Extension 98~2,03 99903~0001 ~ 1731496 (2) 0-1 SCH ~ Notice of Comnletion Form A to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445-0613 .'ct Title: Lead Agency: Street Address: City: Zip: Project Location County: City/Nearest Community: Cross Streets: Zip Code: Asscssor's Parcel No. Section: Twp. Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Watchrays: Airports: Railways: Schools: Total Acres; Range:__ Base: Document Type CEQA: [] NOP [] Early Cons [] Ncg Dec [] Draft EIR [] SupplcmcnffSubscqucnt D EIR (Prior SCH No.) [] Other NEPA: [] NOt Other: [] EA [] Draft EIS D FONS[ Joint Document [] Final Document [] Other Local Action Type [] General Plan Update [] Specific Plan ,D General Plan Amendment [] M~stcr Plan [] General Plan Element D Planned Unit Development [] Community Plan r-i Site Plan [] Prezonc [] Use Permit t'l Land Division D Annexation [] Rcdcvclopmcnt [] Coastal Permit [] Other ypc [] Residential: Units Acres f2 Office: Sq. fi. Acres U. Commercial: Sq. ft. Acres [] [ndustrial: Sq. ft. Acres D Education [] Recreational Employees Employees Employees [] Water Facilities: Type.__ MGD~ [] Transponalion: Type D Mining: Mineral [] Power: Type Watts [] Wastc Treatment: Type [] 1 lazardous Waste: Type [] Other: Project Issues Discussed In Document [] Aesthetic/Visual [] Agricultural Land U AirQuality D Archcological/Historical D Flood Plain/Flooding [] Forest Land/Fire tlazard [] GcologidScismic U Minerals [] Coastal Zone [] Noise D Drainage/Absorption D Population/Housing Balance U Economic/Jobs [] Public Services/Facilities [] Traffic/Circulation [] Fiscal [] Recreation/Parks [] Vegetation C] SchoolsPJnivcrsities [] Septic Systems C] Sewer Capacity [] Soil Erosion/Compaction/ Grading [] Solid Waste [] Toxic/Hazardous U Cumulative Effects [] Other D Water Quality [] Water Supply/Groundwatcr [] Wctland/Riparian [] Wildlife [] Growth Inducing [] Land Use Present Land Usc/Zoning/Gcncral Plan Use Project Description NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. Ira SCI I number already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. ,.Z'//? REVIEWING AGENCIES Use latest listing obtained from clerical staff. Z'//'/ O-3 APPENDIX P NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City of hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of , (e.g., Staff or the Director of Planning) has analyzed the request for (project title and permit number) proposed to be located at (address). The proposal (briefly describe project and location) After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for the project, (e.g., Staff or the Director of Planning) has determined that this project may have a significant effect on the environment. The following significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project (list anticipated impacts) . Accordingly, an environmental impact report has been drafted. A public hearing will be held by the (hearing bodv) to consider this proposed environmental impact report on (date) , at (time) , at (location) . A public hearing will be held by the __ (hearing body) to consider the proposed project on (date) , at (time) , at (location) Public comments will be received by the City prior to final approval of the environmental impact report and action on the project, beginning , 19 , through ,19__. Copies of all relevant material, including the project specifications, initial study, and the environmental impact report, and all documents referenced in the environmental impact report, are available for review in the offices of The project site [] is [] is not listed on any list of hazardous waste sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Any information contained in a Hazardous Waste Substances Statement is attached to this Notice. Date: By: 980'203 99903~0001 sas 1731496 (2) APPENDIX Q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Clerk of the Board County of San Bernardino 385 N. Arrowhead, 2nd Floor San Bernardino. CA 92415-0130 FROM: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Documentap/Handling Fee ($35.00) Receipt Number SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT: (Name/Address & Phone) ° STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: N/A This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the above described project on made the fo ~ng , with an effective date of . and has Ilow' determinations regarding the above project. ' Lh ,:,:c; :,,&::, ?:i%T:&u,suant ,o provisions of CEQA. : ~ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were ~ere not, made a condition of the approva of this project. 4. A statement of overri~ng co~derations was, X was not, adopted for this project. 5. Findings ~ were, _ were not. made pur~ant to~e provisions of CEQA. This is to ce~ify that the final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is . available to the General Public at: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Dnv7, Rancho Cucamonga, California. : ~ City Planner (909) 477-2750 (Signature) (Date) (Title) ~elephone) i:~FiNAL~cORMS~FORMLTRS~IOO.WPO APPENDIX R ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS III. CEQA applies to effects on historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. Public agencies should seek to avoid damaging effects on an archaeological resource whenever feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated using the criteria outlined in Section III. In-situ preservation of a site is the preferred manner of avoiding damage to archaeological resources. Preserving the site is more important than preserving the artifacts alone because the relationship of the artithcts to each other in the site provides valuable information that can be lost when the artifacts are removed. Further, preserving the site keeps it available for more sophisticated future research methods. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site. B. Avoiding damage may be accomplished by many approaches, including: 1. Planning construction to miss archaeological sites; 2. Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites; 3. "Capping" or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities. Capping may be used where: a. The soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction; b. The covering materials are not chemically active; c. The site is one in which the natural processes of deterioration have been effectively arrested; and d. The site has been recorded. 4. Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements. If the Lead Agency determines that a project may affect an archaeological resource, the agency shall determine whether the effect may be a significant effect on the environment. If the project may cause damage to an important archaeological resource, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, an "important archaeological resource" is one which: A. Is associated with an event or pc[son of: 1. Recognized significance in California or American history or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and seful!i in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research] questions, Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last~ surviving example of its kind, D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity, or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can answered only with archaeological methods. be[ IV. If an archaeological resource is not an important archaeological resource, both the resource and the effect on it shall be noted in the initial study or EIR but need r~ot be considered further in the CEQA process. V. If avoidance of the important archaeological resource is not feasible, the Lead A en g cy should include an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qu~lities which make the resource ~important under Section III. A. If an excavation plan is prepared, it shall: 1. Be a brief summary of the excavation proposed as pan of a mitigation plan; 3. t I i f a resources if the pla will be made known to the general public. An excavation plan may: 1. List and briefly discuss the important information the archaeological resources contain or are li;kely to contain; v ful 2. Exp a n how the information should be reco ered to be use in address'ng, scientifically valid research questions and other concerns identified in' subdivision (a); 3. Explain the methods of analysis and, if feasible, d sp ay of exca ed materials; vat 4. Provide for final report preparation and distribution; and. VI. VII. 5. Explain the estimated cost of and time required to complete all activities undertaken under the plan. The Lead Agency may require a mitigation plan to be carried out as a condition of approval of the project. A public agency following federal clearance process under the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act may use the documentation prepared under the federal guidelines in the place of documentation called for in this appendix. LIMITATIONS ON MITIGATION. Special roles apply to mitigating significant effects on important archaeological resources. If it is not feasible to revise the project to avoid an important archaeological resource, the Lead Agency shall require the project applicant to guarantee to pay one half of the cost of mitigating the significant effect of the project on important archaeological resources. I. In determining the payment to be required from the applicant, the Lead Agency shall consider the in-kind value of project design or expenditures intended to permit any or all important archaeological resources or California Native American culturally significant sites to be undisturbed or preserved in place. a. Consideration of in-kind values does not require a dollar for dollar set-off against the payment by the project applicant. b. In deciding on an appropriate set-off, the Lead Agency shall consider such factors as whether the project design or expenditures would provide other benefits to the applicant and whether the design or expenditures required special changes in the project plans. 2. When it decides to carry out or approve the project, the Lead Agency shall, if necessary, reduce the mitigation measures specified in the EIR to those which can be funded with: a. The money guaranteed by the project applicant, and b. Money voluntarily guaranteed by any other person or persons for the mitigation. In order to allow time for interested persons to provide a voluntary funding guarantee, the Lead Agency shall not decide to carry out or approve a project having a significant effect on important archaeological resources until 60 days after completing the final EIR on the project. In no event shall the Lead Agency require the applicant to pay more for mitigation within the site of the project than the following amounts: a. One half of ope per.cent of.the pr.ojected cost of the project, if the prQject Is a commercial or industrial project. b. Three fourths of one percent of the projected cost of the projec~/'or housing project consisting of one unit. c. If a housing project consists of more than one unit, three fourths of~ .one percent of the projected cost of the first unit plus the sum of the following: (i) $200 per unit for any of the next 99 units, (ii) $150 per unit tBr any of the next 400 units, (iii) $100 per unit for units in excess of 500. Unless special or unusual circumstances warrant an exception, the field excavation 90 ays a ~ he phase of an approved mitigation plan shall be completed within d tier t t e applicant receives the final approval necessary to begin physical developmen dfth project. 1. With a phased project, the mitigation measures shall be completed within.90 spec c days after approval is granted for the phased portion to which the ~fi mitigation measures apply. 2. The project applicant can elect to extend the time limits for completing the field excavation phase of the approved mitigation plan. 3. A mitigation plan shall not authorize violation of any law protecting American Indian cemeteries. Excavation as part of a mitigation plan shall be restricted to those parts of an important archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed b~' the project unless special circumstances require limited excavation of an immediately adjacent area in order to develop important information about the part df the, resource that would be destroyed. important archaeolog' al Excavation as mitigation shall not be required for an IU~d resource if the Lead: Agency determines that testing or studies already comb , have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from andn about the resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR. The limitations on mitigation shall not apply to: R4 _22 VIII. 1. A public project if the Lead Agency decides to comply with other provisions of CEQA that apply to mitigation of significant effects, and 2. A private project if the applicant and the Lead Agency jointly elect to comply with other provisions of CEQA that apply to mitigation of significant effects. The time and cost limitations described in this section do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains archaeological resources, and if so, whether the archaeological resources are important as defined in this appendix. Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and 2. If the remains are of Native American origin, The descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall reenter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendant; The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation: or The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. IX. If the human remains are discovered before the Lead Agency has finished, the CEQA process, the Lead Agency shall work with the Native American Heritage Commission and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposino., with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave g6od~. ng, or removing h man remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). 2. The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. As part of the objectives,' criteria, and procedures required by Public Resources ~Code Section 21082 or as part of conditions imposed for mitigation, a lead agency should make provisions for archaeological sites accidentally discovered during construction. These provisions should include: an immediate evaluation of the find. If the find is determinedi to be an important archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotmentl sufficient to allow recovering an archaeological sample or to employ one ~f the] avoidance measures should be available. Construction work could continue on other~ parts of the building site while archaeological mitigation takes place. R-6 ~/o,~.~, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE GUIDELINES OF THE SECRETARY FOR THE RESOURCES AGENCY AS AMENDED TO DATE AND SUPERSEDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 81-195, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the adoption of procedures for the implementation of the California Environmenta Quality Act, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject adoption of the Local CEQA Guidelines is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of December 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. Adoption of the referenced Local CEQA Guidelines will supersede City Council Resolution No. 81~195. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on December 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Local CEQA Guidelines apply to all development projects within the City; and b. The proposed Local CEQA Guidelines will not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed Local CEQA Guidelines do not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan; and b. The Guidelines promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code; and pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTION OF LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES December 9, 1998 Page 2 c. The proposed Local CEQA Guidelines will not be detrimental to the pub c health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code and are in conformance with the General Plan. reviewed in 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, ,and further, specifically finds that based upon substan{ial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Guidelines ~vill have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed CEQA Guidelines ~re exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth n paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, ~nd adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meetin'g of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 1998, by the following vote-to-Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT December 9, 1998 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBDIVISION TIME EXTENSION PERIODS ABSTRACT: Staff is seeking Commission discussion concerning a proposed change in the draft amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance being presented to the City Council on December 16, 1998. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to the City's Subdivision Ordinance on July 22, 1998. The Commission recommended approval to the City Council. SUBDIVISIONS: The State Subdivision Map Act allows for an initial approval period for subdivisions of up to three years, plus up to five years of extensions, for a total of eight years before the final map must be recorded. The City's Subdivision Ordinance is more restrictive and provides for a initial two-year approval, subject to up to three years of extensions, for a maximum life of five years. On July 22, 1998 the Planning Commission recommended amending the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for an initial three-year approval, subject to up to two years of extensions for a maximum life of five years. ' During California's recession in the first half of the 1990s, the state legislature granted three years of automatic time extensions. above and beyond whatever time extensions cities may grant. For those projects which received such an automatic time extension from the state, the maximum life is eight years (five years of City approvals with extensions, plus three years of state extensions) under our current regulations. One such project, Tentative Tract 14875, has exhausted all possible time extensions and will expire on January 9, 1999. The applicant has not submitted for plan check: hence, cannot record their final map before it expires. The applicant has requested that the City Council consider amending our regulations to allow time periods up to eight years which is the maximum time period authorized by state law. Since Tentative Tract 14875 was granted three years of automatic time extensions by the state, this would extend the maximum time period, to 11 years. ITEM