The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99/03/10CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MARCH '10, 1999 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel i .Vice Chairman Macias i Com. Mannerino ~ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 24, 1999 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concemed individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17,85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. D, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the nodheastcornerofHighlandandLemonAvenues-APN: 201-272-17 and 18. V. OLD BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 TRACT 15727- PHASES 3,4,5,6,7 AND 8 o GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. - A design review application to amend the development standards for Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of previously approved Amended Tentative Tract 15727 consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and authorize the use of the Development Code optional standards, on 82 acres located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel -APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Development/Design Review 98-21, and 98-16. VI. NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 FOR TRACT 15727- PHASES 4,5,7 AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - A review of the precise site plan and building elevations for 154 single family units in phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on 82 acres of land located between Foudh and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel-APN: 210-02-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. related Files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Development/Design Review 98-23, 97-12, and 98-16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-05 - QUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORES - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a service station and mini-market in the Community Commercial Page 2 district (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUESTWITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 85 - FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Towne Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 APN: 1077-421-75. H= COUNTY REFERRAL CR99-01 - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT (Ref. County Application No. GPNCW1-849N). To amend the County General Plan Text to revise goals and policies related to land use and growth management within the city sphere of influence. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe genera/public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not a/ready appear on this agenda. IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS THE VICTORIA ARBORS, FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES, (AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO.) AND PRE- APPLICATION REVIEW 99-02 (OVERLAND COMPANY) THE WORKSHOP WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON TUESDA Y, MARCH 23 IN LIEU OF MARCH 24, 1999. 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 March 4, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 10, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An application to change the Development Districtzoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Project Density: Proposed General Plan and Development Distdct regulations will allow the development of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre of land. Presently 8 to14 dwelling units per acre are authorized. East West Surroundina Land Use and ZoninG: North - Vacant/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) South - Highland Avenue, future freeway and single family residential/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) within the Victoda Planned Community Flood Control Channel and single family residential development/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) Single family residential development/Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) General Plan DesiQnations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) South - Future Freeway and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) East Open Space (Flood Control Channel) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) West Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) ITEMS A & B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -GPA 99-01 & DDA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 10, 1999 Page 2 Site Characteristics: The site abuts an improved flood control channel to the east, existing Low-Medium single family residential developments to the west and vacant Low -Medium land to the north. On the south, the site is next to the future Route 30 Freeway right-of-way and Low-Medium single family developments beyond. The site is presently vacant and near identified Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Shrub and Coastal Sage Shrub habitats that may extend into the site. There are no large trees on the site and most of the vegetation is of medium to large native shrubs. The site slopes to the south at 4.3 percant and is subdivided into two parcels of 9.61 and 8.24 acres, respectively. Both parcels are owned by the San Bemardino Flood Control District. The future freeway is expected to be about 5 meters (16 feet) above the present grade at the present Lemon Avenue intersection. ANALYSIS: General: In 1998, a joint City Council/Planning Commission Task Force reviewed the land use relationship of many vacant multi-family zoned properties within the City. The Task Force made pdority recommendations to the City Council regarding the scheduling of potential land use amendments for each location. At one location, at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues, the Task Force recommended that the City consider rezoning the properties when possible. Before 1988, the multiple family districts, Medium-High and Medium, on the south side of Lemon Avenue extended from the Lucky's shopping center on Haven east to the Deer Creek Channel. In 1988, a Land Use Amendment was approved changing a portion ofthe Medium Distdct between Lemon and Highland Avenues to the west side of Lemon Avenue (as it turns south) to Low-Medium. This change allowed the development of a single family residential tract between the west side of Lemon Avenue and the existing apartments along the north side of the future Route 30 Freeway. As part of the processing of Tract 13890 in May 1988, the parcels along the east side of Lemon Avenue were included in a master plan concept with the tract map. This exhibit showed how the area to the east could also be developed with the same Low-Medium single family standards. The land use amendments did not, however, include the Medium Residential parcels along the Deer Creek Channel. If the area along the east side of Lemon Avenue were to develop as a multi-family project, as presently zoned, the single family tract (Tract 13890) would be "sandwiched" between two multi-family developments. With the changing of the two parcels, the Low-Medium, single family development will extend eventually, from properties along Banyan Avenue south to both sides of Lemon Avenue. Staff concurs with the Multi-Family task Force that this land use arrangement is preferable to the existing pattern. Presently, the site and all the surrounding land have a Master Plan Overlay Distdct to coordinate development planning. Appropriateness of the Existina Medium Residential DesiGnations: Residential is the predominate designation in the area generally north of Highland Avenue. With recant land use changes, only the existing multi-family projects along the south side of Lemon Avenue are within the Medium-High Residential Distdct in this neighborhood. Retention of the Medium Residential Distdct would not provide a continuation of the multi-family character east along Lemon Avenue due to the existing single family development of Tract 13890. The site could remain, however, as a potential multi-family site with Lemon Avenue forming a buffer between the existing single family neighborhood and a future multi-family project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 99-01 & DDA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 10, 1999 Page 3 APPropriateness of the Proposed Low-Medium Residential Desianation: W~th a few exceptions, the majority of the residential land north of Lemon Avenue is zoned single-family. Adoption of Low-Medium Residential for these applications would be appropriate with this trend and with recent land use changes in the immediate area. The two parcels, together, of this application are of sufficient size and configuration to design a high-quality project, as evidence by the Master Plan Site Plan illustrated for Tract 13890. D Housin.q: The only housing issue for these applications is the reduction in the number of potential residential units at build out and the affordability of the future units. The less intense land use density would result in a reduction of future units of between 71 and 107 units. This represents only. 18 percent of the anticipated 58,974 total units estimated for the City's build out (Housing Element, page 111-39). This loss, however and that of other General Plan Amendments, was more than made up for by the adoption of General Plan Amendment 95- 03A (Griffin Industries), which added 339 single family units (Low-Medium Residential District) to the anticipated build out. Because of the higher unit density, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) neighborhoods are generally more affordable than other lower-density, single-family districts. By dropping just one density designation, the resultant single family development should not be much less affordable than any other owner-occupied, multi-family units developed in the same area. Environmental Assessment: Parts I and II of the Initial Study have been completed. Staff has determined that no Significant impacts would result from reducing the residential unit density on the subject properties. This amendment proposal simply reduces the potential residential unit development within similar residential land use cetegodes. It is anticipated that most impacts generally expected from future residential development will be equal to or less than those expected under the existing category. The original environmental analysis for the existing land use category was included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Environmental issues will need to be analyzed when formal development proposals are applied for in the future. When specific development projects are proposed, existing environmental review requirements will be initiated to ensure adequate analysis of the impacts. Any impacts noted will be mitigated through the City's development review process. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based upon the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following facts for findings regarding these applications: The properties are suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and development district designation in terms of access and size with similarly designated parcels; as evidenced by the applicant generated conceptual master plans for General Plan Amendment 88-02A, Development Distdct Amendment 88-01, and Tract 13890. The proposed amendments would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Initial Environmental Study that indicate that no significant impacts would be expected because of this land use change. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 99-01 & DDA 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 10, 1999 Page 4 The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan and the Development Code because of the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for single-family residential development. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 99-01 and Development Distdct Amendment 99-01 with Master Plan Overlay requirement by the adoption of the Resolutions of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Bred Buller City Planner BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Maps Exhibit "B" - Development Distdct Maps Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Master Plan, Tract 13890 (GPA 88-02A; DDA 88-01) Exhibit "D" - Environmental Initial Study, Part II Resolution - Recommendation of Approval for GPA 99-01 Resolution- Recommendation of Appreval for DDA 99-01 Illlllllllllllllll~ !11111111111 IIIIIII COMMERCIAL/OFFICE I COMMERCIAL ~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. ~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ~ OFFICE; ~RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC LOW 2-4 DU's/AC LOW-MEDIUM 4-eDU's/AC MEDIUM 8-14 DU°s/AC MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU'$/AC HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC MASTER PLAN REQUIRED CITY OF R~N~~,CAMONGA PLAN~IS?ON Project: Title: Exhibit: H I~,..~ LAuJ::> CITY OF R~AMONGA .~.~.~.!~o. I I ./ Project: Title: co~Fru~lL Exhibit: City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: General Plan Amendment 99-01; Development Distdct Amendment 99-01 2. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 88-02A; Development Distdct Amendment 88-01 3. Description of Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues o APN: 201-272-17 and 18. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTAMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the Development Distdct zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential for 17.85 acres located at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan DeSignations: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site consists of two contiguous vacant lots on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Lemon Avenue, and west of the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel. On the west side there is a single family development, on the north side the land is vacant, the east side is bordered by the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, and on the south is Highland Avenue with single family residences beyond. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Alan Warren, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 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 (x) Transportation/Circulation (x) Biological Resources () Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (x) Noise ( ) Mandatop/Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) () (x) Public Services (x) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics (x) Cultural Resources (x) 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 eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an 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: ~"/// I,,!/ Alan V~arren Associate Planner February 1, 1999 .Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Signfficant 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Conlrrients: a) The project does not propose any development improvement. The request is to change the General and Development Distdct land use designations from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and community facility to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The General Plan and Development Distdct Amendments are the appropriate applications to change the land use designations. The approval precass, if granted, will not cause conflict with the General Plan and zoning. b) The site is near sensitive Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Shrub and Coastal Sage Shrub habitats. The land use designation changes will not impact the natural environment, as no development is being proposed. The General Plan and Development Code currently designate the site for residential uses and the proposal will continue the residential zoning but at a reduced unit density. c) Much of the land surrounding the subject properties is already designated for Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) uses. Changing the subject properties to Low-Medium Residential would be consistent with the surrounding area. . Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 4 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? peter~as~/ Impac~ No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) 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? ( ) trnpa~ ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () () () () () (X) (x) (x) (x) WATER. Vt411 the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, b) Pot~t~y or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) () () () () No (X) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 5 c) d) g) h) i) Potentially 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? ( ) No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) (x) () () () () () (x) (x) Commen~: a) The land use change is being requested without an accompanying development project. The land use change will not in itself cause any impacts to the water supplies. The future development of the site will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and any development will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and rooftops. Tentative Tract Maps usually include conditions of approval requiring certain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The impact is not considered significant. b) The site is owned by the San Bemardino County Flood Control Distdct and is adjacent to an existing flood control channel. The flood control facility is fully improved with a concrete lined channel. The General Plan indicates that the Flood Control land use designation is within the confines of the channel and therefore no flood hazard is expected to affect adjacent properties. f&g) Because of potential improvements anticipated after the land use change listed above, it is expected that some reduction in rainwater peroolation to the ground water may result. The future residential development of the site would be in conformanco with similarly developed residential land in the City and therafora the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 6 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? ( ) P~ente~y S~r~r=ant Irnpau Unless Than Mbgatk:n S~necant Incon~e~d Irn~a~ No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) a) The land use change is being requested without an accompanying development project. The land use change will not cause any impacts to the air quality. The future development of any vacant land in the city will add to the vehicle tdps and, as a result, add to potential air quality degradation whatever the land use designation. The subject preperty is currently zoned Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) which could result in 142 to 250 units. The revised designation, Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), could result in development of between 71 and 142 units. It is anticipated that any development under the Low- Medium Residential designation would expedence fewer traffic impacts; therefore, air quality impacts would be less than if developed under the current designation. Furthermore, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The preposed land use change retains the residential potential, but at a less intensive level. No increase in air quality impacts would be expected from the existing development potential. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) Increased vehicle tdps 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? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 7 e) g) Sv~mcar~ Iml)act 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? ( ) Potentially S~nift, ant Un~ss Then Met~au~ S~dmam Incomofate~ ImoaU () () ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) No (x) Commenb: a) The development of any vacant land in the city will add to the vehicle tdps and add to potential traffic congestion whatever the land use designation. The subject property is currently zoned Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units/acre) which could result in 142 to 250 units. The revised designation, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) could result in development of between 71 and 142 units. It is anticipated that any development under the Low-Medium Residential designation would exhibit traffic impacts less than if developed under the current designation. 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., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dpadan, and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) () ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) NO Co~en~; a&c) The site is near sensitive Riversidian Aluvial Fan Sage Shrub and Coastal Sage Shrub habitats. The land use designation changes will not impact the natural environment as no development is being proposed. The General Plan and Development Code currently designates the site for residential uses and the proposal will continue the residential zoning but at a reduced unit density. /4.4-6//-/ ;_Initial Study for GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Future development proposals in the area should evaluate their impacts on the habitat. Mitigation measures may be required if the impacts to the habitat are considered significant. It is recommended that a habitat study be included as a part of an environmental assessment before any authorization for development. b) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 9 t0. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Commen~: a) The project will add new sources of noise such as automobiles because it entails adding new homes to vacant land when developed. The increase in noise levels however is not excessive and not expected to exceed City adopted noise level limits. The impact is not considered significant. 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 govemmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Commen~: a&c) The eventual development of the site will increase the demand on public services since it will entail adding new homes on vacant land. Tract Map conditions of approval usually require the developer to participate in the funding of special districts for the necessary construction and maintenance of fire protection and pay appropriate school fees. Therefore, the impact is not considered significant. .Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 10 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distdbution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a,b, &d) A housing project at the site will produce a need for water supplies, waste disposal, gas and electdc service since new homes will be built. Typical Tentative Tract Map conditions of approval require the developer to provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewer system, water, gas, electdc power, telephone and cable TV. The cast of these improvements are borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. The unit density reduction should result in service need reductions below what would be expected under the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) designation. e) A housing project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and any improvement project will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and rooftops. Tentative Tract Map conditions of approval usually require certain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The cost of these improvements are borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) b) c) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) _Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 11 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) 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? ( ) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) No 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Comments: Sig~ce~ ~ The~ M,~ sio~fic~t Incomerated ;re;act No ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) a) Any housing project will increase the demand on parks in the area because it involves adding new homes. Developers will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered signfficant. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) . Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 12 b) c) d) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively bdef, definitive pedod of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eadier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following eadier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier 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 Environmental Impact Report (Certified Apdl 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, cartitled January 4, 1989) (X) Environmental Assessment Part II Initial Study for General Plan Amendment 99-01 and Development Distdct Amendment 99-01 (February 1, 1999) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 98-04; VCPA 98-03 Page 13 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significent environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Pdnt Name and Title: Alan Warren, Associate Planner Date: I:~FINAL~°LNGCOMM~ENVDOC~GPA99-01 .wpd k AHf~UpH~'t, IT' A~4,~,IOt4ELrI"' CITY OF R~AMONGA Project: ~P& ,ff~-o( ~ DDA 99-ol Title: L4ac--~flolU Exhibit: Date: E RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC LOW 2-4 DU's/AC LOW-MEDIUM 4-eDU's/AC MEDIUM 8-44 DU's/AC MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC MASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE COMMERCIAL ~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FT't NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. ~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ~ OFFICE CITY OF R~NC!~ PLAN 'C~UCAMONGA I ~I5~lON Project: Title' x,,AuD u<~F NAP ~P~O) Exhibit: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)TO LOW-MEDIUM (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 201-272-17 and 18. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has authorized the filing of an application for General Plan Amendment No. 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on March 10, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two parcels of land totaling approximately 17.85 acres, basically a rectilinear configuration, located near the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues and is presently vacant. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are vacant. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family residential project. The property to the east is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant with a concrete flood control channel. The property to the south, on the south side of Highland Avenue, is designated as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family residential project; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~GPA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 2 and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a signfficant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area as evidenced by the Conceptual Master Plan for a single family residential development exhibited in the previous Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 application; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by the adoption of this land use amendment application. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, togetherwith all written and oral reports included forthe 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 refl.ect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has rewewed 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 considedng the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 99-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Map for the subject properties to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' GPA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman 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 Cucemonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY, FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-272-17 and 18. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has authorized the filing of an application for Development District Amendment No. 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Distdct Amendment is referred to as '~:he application." 2. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recommended approval of the associated General Plan Amendment No. 99-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties at the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues. 3. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on March 10, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two parcels of land totaling approximately 17.85 acres, basically a rectilinear configuration, located near the northeast comer of Highland and Lemon Avenues and is presently vacant. Said properties are currently within the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per) Distdct with a Master Plan Overlay designation; and b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are vacant. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family residential project. The property to the east is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant with a concrete flood control channel. The property to the south, on PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. '~DDA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 2 the south side of Highland Avenue, is designated as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoda Planned Community and is developed with a single family residential project; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development upon the enactment of General Plan Amendment 99-01; and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specffic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area as evidenced by the Conceptual Master plan for a single family residential development exhibited in the previous Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 application; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by the adoption of General Plan Amendment 99-01; and 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 signfficant 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 Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration forthe 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 heraby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. '"DDA 99-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 10, 1999 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Distdct Amendment 99-01 to change the Land Use Map for the subject properties to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) with a Master Plan Oveday as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman 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 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: V.P.C. LM '~ BASELIN~'~)~D. C £ Exhibit: ~rno~ Date:~.S/i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIvIONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Salvador M. SalaT-ar, AICP, Associate Planner/~.~ SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 Please find the attached reduced floor plans and building elevations for-the above mentioned project. The plans were not included in your packet that due to the fact that the developer was not able to produce the reduced set of plans on-time. The building elevations are identical to those that were reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee on February 16, 1999. k, TALMEDGE AT ~HE HAWTHORN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES ~ ES 98251] 982~ x_.TjL_..__' 98259 z 98259 98259 ~'~ ' e ee LEFT -. 98259 98259 ~ B R THE AEBERN AT HAWTHORN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES' ES ~a25g 98259 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~._.'.!' !~i:::'~~.-:-: ...........~ ~ "~'= I IIi-'=-~ tlII. I i 98259 ~0 "'A-,4 7 98259 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 10, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 FOR TRACTS 15727-3, 4.5.6.7. AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. INC - The review of precise site plan (plotting) for 154 single family lots of Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on 82 acres of land, located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Design Reviews 98-21, 99-07, and 98-16. DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 FOR TRACTS 15727-4, 5. 7, AND 8 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. INC - Approval of building elevations for 154 single family lots of Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) s ngle family lots in the Low-Medium ReSidential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on 82 acres of land, located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel o APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Development Reviews 98-23 and 97-12 and 98-16. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Backaround: On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission approved the building elevations and detailed Site Plan for Phases I and 2. The Elevations for Phase I consisted of 2 one-story floor plans and 1 two-story floor plan. The plans for Phase 2 consisted of 2 two- story and I one-story floor plan. The Floor Plans and Elevations as approved could be used in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8, subject to Design Review and Planning Commission approval. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 98-23 that permitted the project to be developed under the Optional Development Standards. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the plotting for Phases 3 and 6 only. However, the remaining Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 had to be reviewed and approved at a separate public hearing because two additional model homes were introduced and additional time was needed to analyze the project. ITEMS C & D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT "DR 98-23 & DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND. INC. March 10, 1999 Page 2 On February 16, 1999, the Design Review Committee considered and recommended approval, subject to minor modifications, of the precise Site Plan (plotting) and building Elevations. Description: The developer is proposing to use in Phases 4 and 7, the plans approved for Phase 1 (2 one-story and I two-story), and in Phases 5 and 8 the plans approved for Phase 2 (2 two-story and I one-story). Additionally, the developer is proposing to introduce two new two-story floor plans; one for Phases 4 and 7 and one for Phases 5 and 8. The new two-story building size for Phases 5 and 8 is 2,685 square feet in size, plus a 525 square-foot garage. The building size for Phases 4 and 7 is 2,058 square feet in size plus a 393 square-foot garage. The pdme motivation for this new request is to increase the rear yard area for the residential development and to provide additional floor plan options for their buyere. As part of this application, Griffin Industdes is also requesting approval of the precise Site Plan for the plotting of the residential units in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 as required under Development Review 98-23 (Optional Development Standards). ANALYSIS: General: On February 16, 1999, the project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, and Henderson) and was determined that the precise Site Plan (plotting), Floor Plan, and proposed building Elevations, subject to minor modffications, were appropriate and satisfied the 360-degree architecture policy. B. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report for this project was certified by the City Council on November 20, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development/Design Review 98-23 and Development/Design Review 99-07 including the precise Site plan (plotting) through the adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SMS/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Precise Site Plan, Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 Exhibit "B" - Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit "C" - Design Review CommitteeAction Comments dated February 16, 1999 Resolution of Approval with Conditions QLENAIBE 37 1 1 OfiSVE 28 IF.I 2 r, 4 *12 , I 4 I'rHn HAV~-H0~NE8' R/*NCFIO CUCAMONCtA I ~'rl. 'RIVE I f.,~% ~1-, P 8FIOOK Otrllye 47 23 T t 22 29 ,,L4Na=e ~ HEARTHelD, COURT SHADOWBROOK DRIVE C~ J 8/IOOKVIE~I CO~IFIT 8 15 14 ELEV/~I'ION D i3-' ']:B (IZI ' · U. EVAm'M3N A ,,,;~,'4' 4% ELEVATION D OPTION OPTION OPTION I w~w* ELEVz~I'ION C I' I "' · coma BATION n .$EI~z~A PLAN2 / BL~VA'I'IIZ~ A "~"'~ 1'~.~.~TI F. LL~ATION C 5']~xIJ~SApLAIq2' SECOND FLOOR DEN/ ~.FT., ~K ~ttql'r~,~~ PORCH I .' FIR~rFLOOR MATERIAI.,S LEGEr~D PARTIAL PLAN/ROOF PLAN EIfVATION E ~ A I'LAN 3B l'~_~-.::~-i MATERIALS LEGEND OPTION I 17585Q, FF. Iq,EVATR~ A C~/ ' ~F? ®a ..... _0~ -7-==- . . _ , ELEVATION D MATERIAL~ LEGEND EI.EVAT1OI'I C SI~,IF, S B pLAN i ~I~SBf~L~I ! rT_~.,,~,~7:..i ------ :: -.-,-,..--,- """""" """" ,~=~ ~1 · ......,,, ,,.:..~,=,,,..,~:,,,,~,.~,_., SECOND FLOOR OPTION I I ! BEDP, QC~ 3-CAR CA.RAGE J FIRST FLOOR LEFT ELEVATION UNCHANGED LEFT ELEVATION UNCHANGED ~ITImlT ELEVATION B SERIES B PLAN 2 MATERIALS LEGEND INDUSTRIES ELEVATION B FAMILY j~ m~l{oo~4 w/~ ~ o~'~ Rrr. AREX.EVATIEa, I EI..EVATt~Ii $1~JF,$BPLAN3A BEDROOM 3 4'1'~ PLAYROOM BEDROOM 4 .__ SECOND FLOOIt 12U3 SQ. Fr. OPIION 2 DINING lIVING ~ FIRSt FLOOI~· 1112 StY. Irl'.' .1. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m, Salvador M. Salazar February 16, 1999 DESIGN REVIEW 99-07 - GRIFFIN I NDUSTRI ES - The approval of the building elevations and precise site plan (plotting) for 154 single family units for Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Tract 15727. Backclfound: Since the initial approval of Tract 15727, the developer, Griffin Industries, has presented various design review applications for three product types and gate features for a private community. On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission approved the building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases I and 2. The elevations for Phase 1 consisted of 2 one-story floor plans and I two- story floor plan. The plans for Phase 2 consisted of 2 two-story and I one-story floor plan. The floor plans and elevations were permitted to be used in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 subject to Design Review and Planning Commission approval. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission approved DR 98-23 which permitted the project to be developed under the Optional Development Standards. Concurrently, the Planning Commission approved DR 98-21, which approved four new model homes for Phases 3 and 6. Desion Parameters: The developer is proposing to use in Phases 4 and 7, the plans approved for Phase I (2 one-story and 1 two-story), and in Phases 5 and 8 to use the plans approved for Phase 2 (2 two-story and 1 one-story). Additionally, the developer is proposing to introduce two new two-story floor plans; one for Phases 4 and 7 and one for Phases 5 and 8. The prime motivation for this new request is to increase the rear yard area for the residential development and to provide additional floor plan options for their buye~:s. As part of this application, Griffin Industries is requesting approval of the precise site plan for the plotting of the residential units in Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 as required under DR 98-23 (Optional Development Standards). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Comer lots. The developer is proposing to place the new two-story floor plan in some of the comer lots, staff is not in support of that part of the project as one-story massing is preferred on corner lots. Options for corner lots (rear patio and window shutters). The developer is proposing to provide window shutters and patio covers only for corner lots; however, staff is recommending that all options be provided for all models. Entire patio should be concrete. Windows for rear elevations. As part of the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report, the developer is required to minimize the window area in the second floor for all units that are abutting the industrial area on the east side of the property. The windows that are facing the industrial area must be dual pane. The developer is required to modify the window size for those elevations. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES February 16, 1999 Page 2 Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed. and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Distribution of new two-ston/plan. Staff is recommending that the new two-story plan be evenly distdbuted throughout the site and not be in close proximity of each other. Percentacle of new two-ston/plan. Although the two-story plans represent approximately 32 percent of all homes within Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8, staff is recommending that the percentage be about the same as the other three model plans. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All policy issues from DR 97-44, DR 97-12, and DR 98-16 shall apply to the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to all recommended modifications to the project. All changes to the development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to Planning Commission review. Desion Review Committee Actioni Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart. Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar The Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: Major Issues: Corner lots: The developer agreed to minimize the number of two-story plans from the corner lots. Options for Corner lots: The developerSgreed to provide options for all homes on corner lots and for other homes at strategic locations throughout the project site. The total number of homes with all options as standard feature will be 40 percent (20 homes). The remaining 60 percent will be made optional standards to be selected by the potential buyers. Additionally, the developer agreed to extend the depth of the patio from 8 to 10 feet and to concrete the entire patio area. Windows for rear elevations: The developer agreed to modify the window elevations for those homes. Secondan/Issues: Distribution of the new twooston/plan: The developer agreed to evenly distribute the two-story plan throughout the site. PercentaQe of the new two-ston/plan: The developer agreed to reduce the number of two-story homes to represent approximately 25 percent (50 homes) of the 254 homes for Phases 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW NO. 98-23 FOR TRACTS 15727-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8, PRECISE SITE PLAN (PLOTrING), AND APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW NO. 99-07 BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 154 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF PHASES 4, 5, 7, AND 8, FOR LAND LOCATED BETWEEN FOURTH AND SIXTH STREETS, ADJACENT TO THE CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33. A. Recitals. 1. Gdffin Industries, Inc. ICornerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Development/Design Review 98-23 and Development Design Review 99-07, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development/Design Review requests are referred to as "the application." 2. On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Design Review 97-12 appreving 101 single family house products for Phases 1 and 2. 3. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and appreved Design Review 98-23, amending the development standards for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. However, the precise Site Plan for Phases 4, 5, 7. and 8 was required to be reviewed and approved separately. 4. On February 16, 1999, the Design Review Committee considered and recommended approval, subject to minor modifications, of the precise Site Plan (plotting), Floor Plan and Building Elevations. 5. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 99-07 approving typical single family house products (Elevations and Floor Plans), and the precise Site Plan (plotting) under Optional Development Standards as permitted under Design Review 98-23 for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8. 6. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 2 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on March 10, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed design, together with the conditions of approval, is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and e. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for this project by the City Council on November 20, 1996. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specffic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Plannincl Division 1) This approval pertains to the plotting of the building pads under the Optional Development Standards for the Amended Tentative Tract 15727, single family house products, and the previously approved Conceptual Landscaping Plan, and Master Plan of walls and fences. Any changes to the Tract grading concept or the type of house product will require a new Design Review application. Additionally, development requirements of this approval include the following: a) House plan products and yard setbacks (front, side, and rear) shall be as indicated on the approved Conceptual Site Plan file copy. b) Two private parks shall be provided on Amended Tentative Tract 15727 Lots 225, 226, and 336. Park plans, with the following recreational amenities, shall be submitted for approval by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits for any Optional Development Standard phases as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 3 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) i) A multi-purpose court for use in basketball, volley ball, and roller hockey in the larger park. A gazebo shelter at least 20 feet in diameter for gatherings of at least 50 people in the larger park. The shelter shall be of the same quality and architectural design of the project's guard house. c) A par jogging course, as proposed by the applicant, shall be provided along the sidewalk area on both sides of Golden Oak Road. A par jogging course plan, with construction details of the exercise stations, signing, etc., shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits for any Optional Development Standard phases. d) Each and every house in Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be provided with the Metlund Hot Water Demand altemative energy conservation system. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the system shall be included with the plan check construction drawings submitted to the Building and Safety Division. In order to ensure strength and longevity for all architectural treatments when stucco over foam is used, the specifications for this treatment shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval, prior to installation. Perimeter lots that have drainage easements along side property lines are to have special landscaping, irrigation, and garden walls as shown on the previously approved Conceptual Landscape Plan. Wall graffiti deterrent shall be incorporated in the perimeter Tract wall. Vine plantings along the inside wall base are provided with spaces through the wall to allow growth up the outside of the wall. These plantings shall be provided with a drip irrigation system from each lot backing up to the perimeter walls. Lot slopes of 5 feet in height shall receive planting and irrigation as required by Rancho Cucamonga Code Section 17.08.040.J. The planting along the west side of Golden Oak Road, opposite the park site, shall be planted with self sustaining plantings because of the significant off-site slope immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way. Tree planting is preferred if the applicant can obtain permission to improve the slope on the neighboring property. These plantings shall be provided with a temporary establishment irrigation system, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 4 7) 8) 9) lo) The plantings behind the sidewalk along Golden Oak Road may be adjusted with smallertree and shrub species, ground covers and hard scape, subject to City Planner and City Engineer approval, to accommodate the limitations of narrow planter areas. The plan shall contain a minimum of 40 percent decorative hard scape, including the sidewalks, or shall comply with adopted City Council policy at the time of plan approval. An intedm slope maintenance program shall be developed for the phasing of the Golden Oak Road landscape areas. The program shall include provisions for erosion and weed control subject to the City Engineer and City Planner approval. The Master Plan of Walls (and fences) calls for slump block with cobblestone columns/pilasters facing Fourth Street; slump block along the remaining project perimeter and along side street property lines, and intedor lot line wood fences. The Wall Plan is approved as submitted subject to the following conditions: a) The battened column/pilasters along Fourth Street shall be provided at every other property line and at each "step back" realignment of the wall. The wall shall step back only at the junction of property lines. b) The column/pilaster shall extend beyond the extedor wall face (Fourth Street and wrap around side property lines) by at least 3 inches. c) The wall cap shall extend beyond the wall face by at least 2 inches. d) All walls, including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist of a decorative exterior matedal or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master Plan of Walls). e) Provide minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on comer side yards and sidewalk. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint, or water seal. g) Retaining walls along Golden Oak Road shall have cobblestone elements at each end to tie in with the cobblestone hard scape theme. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. .DR 99°07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC.ICORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 5 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) To further enhance the histodc theme, cobblestone bases shall be provided with mail box stands throughout the project. All slopes 5 to I or greater and between 5 feet and 8 feet in vertical height shall have a permanent irrigation system and be landscaped with the following: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropdate ground cover with the density of 12 inches on center. Install the landscaping and irrigation system for all slopes including terraced slopes with retaining and/or decorative wall, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and prior to City's acceptance of the grading for the tract. Decorative paving in expansive driveways with side-on garages shall include various patterns/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the front door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other forms of stone/masonry may be manufactured products. Phasing (Final Tracts): An Eight-Phase Development Plan is approved as submitted, subject to coordination of public improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. The park development schedule shall be as appreved by the City Council approval that requires the neighborhood park to be completed when 30 percent of the units are occupied or 70 percent of the building permits issued. 17) The architectural elevations shall include the following: a) Double fascias shall be provided along all eaves and eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around. b) Secondary accent material in the gables or gable frieze bands shall be provided on all side street elevations. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds without shutters or other decorative details shall be painted an alternate complementary color (from the approved colors/materials schedules). d) Shutters shall be provided on all major second story windows that side-on or back-on to streets and on all first major story windows that side-on to a street. This applies only to those models that have front elevation shutters. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. -DR 99-07 o GRIFFIN IND, INC;/CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 6 e) The perimeter walls along Golden Oak Road are to be located outside of the landscape easement. The new materials/color samples are approved for all phases of the project, subject to providing detailed production sequence sheets for City Planners review and approval, pdor to building perrnit issuance. 18) Ddveways shall not exceed 7 ~ percent slope. 19) Use low maintenance and native plant matedais for the slopes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. 20) The westedy tract/retaining wall shall be built with a darker color split face block below the light colored slump stone block, subject to City Planner approval. Two monument signs are apprcved for each comer of Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road, subject to City Planner and City Engineer approval. The sign face shall comply with Sign Ordinance height and size requirements. The sign face shall be concrete with painted recessed letters. The City Engineer and City Planner may consider and approve altemative sign face matedal only if maintenance cost concems can be sufficiently resolved. Otherwise, only concrete may be used for the sign faces. 2_2) As part of the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report, the developer is required to minimize the window area in the second floor for all units that are abutting the industdal area on the east side of the property. In addition. all windows that are facing the industdal area must be dual pane. The developer is required to modify the window size, and location for those elevations. 22) The following design guidelines apply to the new two-story plan only: a) A minimum of 20 homes (inclusive of comer lot homes) on Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 shall have all options (patio covers, entire patio shall be concrete, shutters, etc.). EnQineednQ Division 1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future under grounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunicetions and electrical, except for the 66 kV electdcal) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid to the City, pdor to building permit issuance. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. --DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 7 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) lo) The traffic signal at Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be operational, pdor to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be operational, pdor to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of the park, whichever occurs first. The Park at the southeast comer of Sixth Street and Golden Oak Road shall be installed, pdor to occupancy of the 103rd unit (30 percent) or prior to building permit issuance for 239th unit (70 percent), whichever occurs first. Revisions to landscape easements shall be recorded, pdor to the issuance of building permits for the affected Lots: 1 and 30 in Tract 15727-3; Lots 30 and 36 in Tract 15727-6. All sidewalks shall remain as shown on currently approved Street Improvement Plans for Tentative Tract 15727-1, 2, and 3 (Drawing Nos. 1628 and 1629). Intedor local streets shall have property line adjacent sidewalks on all future phases. Sidewalk along Golden Oak Road shall remain 4 ~ feet from the curb line so as not to reduce the planting area for trees in the odginal approval. The precise Grading Plan for Tentative Tract 15727-2 shall be revised to reflect the proposed pdvate park on former Lots 51 and 52. If under sidewalk drains will be relocated, the Golden Oak Road street improvement plans (Drawing No. 1628) shall be revised as well. Process a parcel merger to legally combine Lots 51 and 52 of Tentative Tract 15727-2. Pdor to the issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract 15727-3, Drawing No. 1629 shall be revised to reflect approach relocations. The precise Grading Plan for Tentative Tract ~5727-3 shall demonstrate that overflows, in the event of sump catch basin blockage at the west end of Glenair Court, will not breach the right-of-way and enter Lot 30 east of the storm drain easement along the west property line. If the ddve approach for Lot 30 requires a special design to accommodate overflows, this also needs to be detailed on the Street Improvement Plans (Drawing No. 1629). Revise the Fourth Street Improvement Plans (Drawing No. 1628) to show the drive approach for City maintenance vehicles just east of Cucamonga Creek Channel. Any pdvate Landscaping or wall Plans, which give the construction details south of the perimeter wall for the overflow area, shall be approved by the City Engineer for maintenance vehicle access to the manhole. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. "DR 99-07 - GRIFFIN IND, INC./CORNERPOINT LLC March 10, 1999 Page 8 11) Any ddve approach relocations for Tentative Tract 15272-4 shall be shown on Drawing No. 1645, pdor to building permit issuance for that phase. 12) Any drive approach relocations for Tentative Tract 15272-5 shall be shown on Drawing No. 1646, pdor to building permit issuance for that phase. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'I'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 regula~y introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Desi.qn Review 99-07 for Tracts 15727-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Comerpoint LLC (Griffin Industries. Inc. Fourth Street and Cucamon.aa Food Contin Channe ALl, OFTHE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PRO,:IECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLO~NING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completion Dm 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 attomey'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. 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 Distdct'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. 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. SC - 1119/99 C. Site Development Proje~No, DR99-0? Completion Date 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, and the Development Code regulations. Pdor 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 Cede and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Pdor to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Build ing and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 10. 11. 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. / / 12. All site, grading, landscape, in'igation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first / / / / / / 13. Approval of this request shall not waive ccmplianca with all sections of the Development Cede, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 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 pdor 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 masonr~ walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy pdorto approval of the final map. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited te, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and secudty fencing. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developor shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's podmeter. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each suppert post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y=-inch lag belts, 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. Building Design All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Project No. DR ~9-07 Completion Date All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. 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 barder in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arbodst's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 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 orlargersize tree pereach 150 sq. f~. ofslobe area, 1-gallon or largersize shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 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. Pdor to releasing occupancy forthose units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. 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. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the pedmetar of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. Project No. DR ~)-07 CompletJo~ Date All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /.__ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. 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 shall require separate application and approval by the Planning division prior to installation of any signs. G. Environmental A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of intedor noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformanca with the mitigation rneasuras contained in the final report. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planning in the amount of $10,000, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to ratain consultanta and/or pay for city staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate ofoccupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner pdor to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identity the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. H. 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 stnjcture shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOVVING CONDITIONS: Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved pdor to construction, All plans shall be marked with the project file numbor (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Cede, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances. and recjulations 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. Pdor 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 rata. Such fees may Project No. DK 99-~? Comg~letJon Date include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee. Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recerdation and pdor to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Dedication and Vehicular Access Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all intedor public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Pdvate easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the podmeter streets (measured from street cantedine): 50-60 total feet on Fourth Street 44 total feet on Sixth Street 3. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 4. Vehicular access dghts shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Fourth & Sixth Streets. 5. Pdvate drainage easen;ents for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right tum lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. The developor shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Cede Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required forthe improvements, Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Secudty for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have been approyed by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 5 Project NO. DR 994)7 Completion Date J. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the fallowing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- [:)five Street Street Cumm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Fourth Street X X c X X e f Sixth Street X X, b g X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays 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 forthis item. (e) Class II Bike Land in street. (f) Bus bay per Standard 119, west of entTy monument on Fourth Street. (g) Sixth Street sidewalk along perk frontage shall be curb adjacent. 3. 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. Secudty shall be pested and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attomey guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Pdor 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. 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 widng. 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 bexes shall be No. 6atinteraectionsandNo. 5 along streets, amaximumof200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersectjons) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. SC-1119/99 CompletJon Date Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours dudrig 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 insfailed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner pdor to submittal for first plan check. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all pdvate streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Pdor to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineers office in addition to any other permits require. Street trees, a minimum of 15-cJallon 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 conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. K. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians. paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Fourth Street and "A" Street, south of the north property lines for Lots 196 and 227 and Lots A, B, C, D, E, and F. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs firsL Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. L. Drainage and Flood Control A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pdor to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. .A permit from the San Bernard ino County Flood Control Distdct and the Army Corps of Engineers ~s required for work within their rights-of-way. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 4. Pdvate storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the pdvate street. SC - 1119/99 Utilities Project NO. DR, 99-07 GomDletJon Date Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electdc 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 relocetion of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucemonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Departmentofthe County ofSan Bernardino. Aletterofcempliancefrom the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of pormita, whichever occurs first. .Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days pdor to final map approval ~n the case of subdivision or pdor to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. N. General Requirements and Approvals Permits shall be obtained from the fol Iowing agencies for work within their right-of-way: Southern California Edison and the City of Ontado. / / / / / / e A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, ccvedng the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, pdor to final map approval or pdor to building permit issuance if no map is involved. Pdor to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Rees Community Facilities Disthct requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flew requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flew test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and pdor to occupancy. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flew test of the on-site hydrenta shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel alter construction and prior to occupancy. e 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 deer with / / / / / / Completion Date 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 numl0ers. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and insta,ed prior to final / / inspection. SC - 1119/99 MASTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION March 9, 1999 Ms. Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISON The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Hand Delivered on 3/10/99 Re: Design Revie~v 99-05 Dear Ms. Van Buren: Our firm has been retained by Better Living, Inc., the parent corporation for the Quickset Organization to review and coordinate the development of their property located at 12167 Arrow Route in Rancho Cucanmnga. Please refer to the attached authorization letter dated March 5, 1999. We respectfully request that the discussion of Design Review Case #99-05 before the Planning Commission scheduled for March 10, 1999, be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. We wish to thoroughly review the background of the project; as well as to conduct additional due diligence on the subject property prior to the scheduled hearing on DRC #99- 05. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Brace McDonald Presidcnt CO: Jim Williams, Ware & Malcomb, via fax Karl Stockbridge, for Better Living, via hx Ken Cohen, Collette & Erikson, via lhx file, city correspondence 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 215, Newport Beach, CA 92660-3028 · Phone: 949-724-8886 · Fax: 949-724-8887 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-05 - QUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industdal Distdct (Subarea 15) of the Industdal Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundina Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacent;GenerallndustdalDistdct(Subarea8)ofthelndustdalAraaSpeci~cplan South- Vacant;GenerallndustdalDistdct(Subarea14)ofthelndustdalAroaSpecificplan East Alcohol processing plant; Heavy Industrial Distdct (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan West Vacant (utility easement); General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 14) of the Indu_stdal Area Specffic Plan General Plan Desiclnations: Project Site - Heavy Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East Heavy Industrial West Utility Corridor C, Site Characteristics: The site was previously occupied by AMPAC, a concrete pipe manufacturer. The site presently contains a landscaped front setback along Arrow Route and a 6-foot high screen wall and, in the far south end of the site, a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space. Quikset is proposing to retain the existing batch plant and expand the facility to include development of crane ways, a dip tank, offices, and an approximate 120,000 square foot manufacturing building. The site is bounded by the ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 2 Edison easement to the west, Metrolink tracks to the south, and an alcohol processing plant to the east. There are mature Pepper trees along the east property line that will be saved. The proposed development is consistent with the standards for the Heavy Industdal District. Parkincl Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Foota,qe Ratio Reauired Provided Existing Office 6,500 Existing Batch Plant 21,560 New Office 11,520 New Manufacturing 120,000 Total ANALYSIS: 1/250 26 1/500 43 1/250 47 11500 240 356 455 General: Quikset manufactures pre-cest concrete products, including modular classrooms and administrative offices. Quikset is proposing an office complex to house its corporate office and to serve as a model site for its pre-fabdcated buildings. The office complex consists of three buildings at the front of the site (Buildings B, C, and D). The buildings demonstrate their modular products and are set in a landscaped courtyard theme. Walls are constructed of exposed aggregate concrete with a metal canopy on all four sides. Quikset is relocating its pre-cast concrete and plastics facilities from Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Riverside to the Rancho Cucamonga site. The master plan of development is in three phases. In the first phase, scheduled to begin upon approval; Quikset would use the existing batch plant and office, and construct five new craneways. The second phase, scheduled later this summer, involves constructing the 3-building office complex, courtyard, and parking at the front portion of the site. The final phase involves constructing a new 120,000 squar~ foot manufacturing building and parking, anticipated in the year 2001. Desicln Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on February 16, 1999. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) recommended approval of the project as contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "1"). Technical Review Committee: The Technicel Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. Environmental Assessment: Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study and a Phase One Environmental Assessment of the subject site by Centec Engineering dated November 30, 1998, staff found no significant environmental impacts related to the development of this project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-05 ~ QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 99-05 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Overell Site Plan Northem Portion Site Plan Southem Portion Site Plan Office Complex Elevations Craneway Elevations Phasing Plan Landscape Plan Exhibit "H" - Grading Plan Exhibit "1" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated February 16, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions \ \ ~,ITE DATA ~ll lllJ Ill II illIll III ~lll III Ill III IIII~IJIIB Ill I Ill IIIII II Ifl IIII IllIll I~l~ IIIIll III rl [111 III IIIll Ill PIll [IJ P~ll III [liftIll [llll~ I Ill4 III III1~ III Flail [lllJ T T sT T ~ ~U~8~F~J~dd~ii~]~F~a~d~i~i~i~i~J]~i~4~F~i~i~iJF~F~;~d~4~]~r~i~F~i~ ! '\ VICINITY MAP FUTURE MANUFACTURING BUILDING CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ~2 DETAILS .... · DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren February 16, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9g-05 - QUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial Distdct (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. Design Parameters: The site was previously occupied by AMPAC, a concrete pipe manufacturer. The site presently contains a landscaped front setback along Arrow Route and a 6-foot high screen wall and, in the tar south end of the site, a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space. Quikset is proposing to retain the existing batch plant and expand the tacility to include development of crane ways, a dip tank, offices, and an approximate 120,000 square foot manufacturing building. The site is bounded by the Edison easement to the west, Metrolink tracks to the south, and an alcohol processing plant to the east. There are mature Pepper trees along the east property line that will be saved. The proposed development is consistent with the standards for the Heavy Industrial District. Quikset manufactures precast concrete products, including modular classrooms and administrative offices. Quikset is proposing an office complex to house its corporate office and to serve as a model site for its pre-fabricated buildings. The office complex consists of three buildings at the front of the site (Buildings B, C, and D). The buildings demonstrate their modular products and are set in a landscaped courtyard theme. Walls are constructed of exposed aggregate concrete with a metal canopy on all four sides. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. Provide standing seam metal hip roof on modulars as illustrated by the attached photographs from the Quickset marketing brochure. Planning Commission policy has been to require modular buildings to be designed to appear as permanent structures (which these are). The applicant submitted an Altemate "B" which has been appended to the original submittal. In Alternate "B," the modular units are shorter and are medffied to eliminate roof-mounted equipment and to provide an overhead trellis in the courtyard and greater landscape treatment around modular units. Staff recommends Alternate "B." Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. The existing "AM PAC" sign and pipe section should be removed. 2. The planting of a second tree type along the west property line may be considered. 3. The east property line has mature Pepper trees which should be preserved in place. 'XHIBt7 "I" DRC COMMENTS DR 99-05 - QUICKSET February 16, 1999 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to using the metal hip roof design. Attachments: Photographs Desi~3n Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The approved elevations have metal canopies on four sides. The canopy treatment was preferred over the metal hip roof design by both the Committee and the applicant. The Committee (McNiel. Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to adding trees along the southern property line to screen outdoor operations from the Metrolink and using the same color scheme for the modular lunch room as shown for the office complex. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 99-05 2. Related Files: Not applicable Description of Project: A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial Distdct (Subarea 15) of the Industdal Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: C. Michael Dobey The Quikset Organization 666 Baker Street, Suite 350 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial 6. Zoning: Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site was previously occupied by AMPAC, a concrete pipe manufacturer. The site presently contains a landscaped front setback along Arrow Route and a 6-foot high screen wall and, in the far south end of the site, a 21,560 squarefootconcretebatchplantand6,500squarefeetofofficespace. Quiksetispreposing to retain the existing batch plant and expand the facility to include development of crane ways, a dip tank, offices, and an approximate 120,000 square foot manufactudng building. The site is bounded by the Edison easement to the west (vacant land), Metrolink tracks to the south with vacant land beyond, an alcohol processing plant to the east, and vacant land to the north. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, (909) 477-2750 t0. Other agencies whose approval is required: Air Quality Management District - permit for operating equipment and batch plant Regional Water Quality Control Board - storm water permit E rH BtT "J" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (X) Geological Problems ( ) Water (X) Air Quality DETERMINATION (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandaton/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 preposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the preposed project could have a significant effect on the envirenment, 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 ENVI.RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner February 10, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga · DR 99-05 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 proposak 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 an'angement of an established community? () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) Commen~: a) The proposed use is a permitted use within the Heavy Industrial Area of the Industrial Specific Plan. c) 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 housing? ( ) ( ) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga -DR 99-05 Page 4 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) Comments: Potsr.~.y No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) ( ) (x) ( ) () () (x) h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association forthe site which may have soil beadng capacities that could limit some development. The General Plan states structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure. A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division pdor to the issuance of building permits. This impact is not considered to be signfficant. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 5 e) g) h) i) 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) 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 ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: b) The use of the existing batch plant and some operating equipment proposed on the site is subject to permit requirements by the Air Quality Management District. This impact is not considered to be signfficant. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) No ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 6 b) c) d) g) 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 barders for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) Commen~: NO ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) b) The master plan includes sepa rating the facility's truck traffic from passenger vehicle traffic by re-establishing a driveway on the western frontage on Arrow Route for truck traffic and utilizing the existing pdmary entrance ddveway on Arrow Route as the access to the site for all other vehicles (employees, visitors, etc.). In order to facilitate westbound traffic, the applicant will be required to modify the stdping plan for Arrow Route to provide a left-turn pocket to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This impact is not considered to be significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 7 Comments: a) The subject site is outside of the project areas identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maps as potential soil classifications which may support the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the ragion and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) A dsk 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? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Commen~: a) The subject site is a heavy industrial facility where petroleum and plastics may be used. Use of hazardous substances mquiras special permits from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prevention Distdct to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. This impact is not considered to be significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-05 Page 8 10. Impact NOISE. t4fill the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) 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? ( ) Impact () () (×) () () (x) () () (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) f) g) Power or natural gas? ( ) Communication systems? ( ) Local or regional water treatment or distdbution facilities? ( ) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) Storm water drainage? ( ) Solid waste disposal? ( ) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) () () () () () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga -DR 99-05 Page 9 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments; b) The proposed use involves extedor storage of row materials and finished concrete products, exposed overhead crone systems, and truck loading areas, which will be visible from the elevated 1-15 Freeway to the west. The project design includes a row of trees for screening along the west property line; therefore, impact is considered less than significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or culturol resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic culturol values? e) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the poten!ial impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ~) ( ) ( ) (x) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga -DR 99-05 Page 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES 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 ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga --DR 99-05 Page 11 (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH f~8802011.5, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981 ) (x) Other: Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Centec Engineering dated November 30. 1998 for the subject property APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Pdnt Name and Title: Date: I I VICINITY MAP II I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-05, THE REVIEW OF A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONCRETE AND PLASTICS PRODUCTS MANUFACTURER FOR A TOTAL OF 161,400 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDINGS ON A 40-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 15) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 12167 ARROW ROUTE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 229-121-15. A. Recitals. 1. The Quikset Organization has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 99-05. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of March 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on March 10, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Arrow Route with a street frontage of 520 feet and a lot depth of 1200+ feet, and is presently developed with a 21,560 square foot concrete batch plant and 6,500 square feet of office space; and b. The property to the north, south, and west of the subject site is vacant, and to the east is a heavy industrial alcohol processing plant; c. The proposed project is a request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial Distdct (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 2 a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the 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 infon'nation provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-cl) 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: Plannina Division 1) The approved elevations of Buildings B, C and D include exposed aggregate concrete panel walls and canopy as presented to the Planning Commission on March 1[:), 1999. 2) Buildings B, C, and D, shall only be constructed in conjunction with the overhead trellis and the landscaped courtyard which surrounds the buildings. Building permits for these units shall not be finaled until landscape and trellis improvements in the courtyard are completed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 3 3) Additional trees shall be planted along the southern boundary to provide screening of the outdoor operations from the passenger rail line. Trees and irrigation shall be shown on landscape and irrigation plans submitted for review, prior to issuance of building permits for the crane ways. 4) The color scheme for the modular lunch room shall match the color scheme of the office complex (Buildings B, C, and D). 5) The existing "AMPAC" sign and pipe section shall be removed, prior to final of building permits for the crane ways. 6) The existing Pepper trees along the east line shall be preserved in- place and protected during construction. EnclineednQ Division 1 ) The developer shall widen Arrow Route, north side, to provide left tum pocket for westbound traffic. 2) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of street improvements, prior to issuance of building permits. 3) Prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and construction permit shall be obtained from the City's engineering office in addition to any other permit required. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'I'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-05 - QUIKSET March 10, 1999 Page 4 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 99-05 Plastic Products Manufacturer Quikset 12167 Arrow Route ALL OF THE FOI~I.;OVIB~NG :CONDInONS APPLy TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completion Date 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, offcars, or employees, for any Court costs and attomey'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. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the Distdct's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the Distdct in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planners 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. SC - 1119/99 OomRl~on Date C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, amhitectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign progrsm, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Arsa Specific Plan. 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) pdor 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 prepertjes. 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. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. D. 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. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. E. 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). 2 Pfoje~No. DR99-05 Completion Date All parking spaces shall be double stdped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be stdped per City standards. Plans for any secudty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. For residential development, pdvate gated entrances shall provide adequate tum-araund space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 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. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commemial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feat. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or thrae bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Carpool and vanpool designated off-streat parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. F. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall pe.prapared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits or pdor final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing treas required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a censtmction ban'ier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those treas to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arbodst's racemmendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 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. All private slopes of 5 feat or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer pdor to occupancy. SC-1119/99 = PmjectNo, DR99-05 Completion Date For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible / for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of:way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage, 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. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedscabe as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. __/ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DMSION, (909) 47/-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WiTH THE FOLLOWiNG CONDITIONS: G. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and apprcved 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 Cede, Uniform Mechanical Cede, Uniform Plumbing Cede, National Electdc 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 Cede Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Pdor 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. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. H. New Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearencas considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading precticas. The final grading plan shall be in substantial confermance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Califemia to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. - / / / / / / SC - 1119/99 Project NO. DR 99-05 . Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water Distdct (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCVVD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days pdor to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE VVITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel 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 builder/developer and witnessed by fire depadment 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 pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. , Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Distdct standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed pdor to final inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of spdnkler system. SC - 111S/99 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Districrs fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Ranch0 Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 22. X Other: on-site fire access lanes shall be provided to meet RCFPD/UFC requirement. A Knox rapid entn/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 ordedng information. 10. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection 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. 12. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. L. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security LighUng All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 2. Lighting in extedor areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. N. Security Hardware One-inch single cylinder dead belts shall be installed on all entrance doom. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead belt shall be used. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. O. SecurityFencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox bex sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. Project No. DR99-05 Completion Date / / / / __1 I I I I / / / / / / / / / SC-1119/99 Projec~ NO. DR 99-05 Completion Date P. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background, The stencils for this purpose am on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department, 03-8-1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga C A 91729 Vineyard Shell 8919 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga 91730 Attn: Donald Granger Planning Commission Dear Sirs. I am writing to request a continuance for item" F" on the March 10 th planning commission meeting regarding sign permit 98-30. We are not prepared to appear by 3-10-99 due to business related issues. We need some time to prepare for this meeting. Please reschedule this item on the 4-28-99 planning commission meeting. Your understanding in granting this continuance will be greatly appreciated. Art and Diana FIores RECEIVED MAR O 9 1999 City ol Rancho Cucamonga P~anning Division CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 10, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Donald Granger, Planning Technician APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORES - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a service station and mini-market in the Community Commercial district (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specffic Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. ABSTRACT: The applicant is seeking approval to install a third pricing sign at the northwest tower elevation. The applicant centends that the installation of the third pdce sign is necessary for both public visibility and sales volume. BACKGROUND: On July 27, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 93-46 for the construction of a gas station and mini-market. Subsequently, in March of 1996, the ' Planning Division approved a sign package for the Vineyard Shell that included two monument signs for the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages (Exhibit "D") and one Shell logo sign on the northwest tower elevation. ANALYSIS: Presently, the applicant has installed a third pdce sign adjacent to the wall logo sign on the northwest tower elevation, as shown 'in Exhibit "E." The Sign Ordinance states that "the m~numentsignsha~~bedesignedt~inc~udetheidentificati~n~fthestati~nandgas~~inepdces. No other pdce signs are allowed." Approval of the third wall price sign would be inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance. Staff has made field visits to all service stations in the City and found them to have gasoline pricing signs on monument signs only. Therefore, approval of the appeal would set a precedent for the City and would lead to more requests by other service stations. The two existing monument signs for the station are located 19~ feet behind the curb face, just behind the right-of-way on Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Staff finds no justification for a visibility or business identification hardship. To further increase the visibility, the applicant could request to switch the pricing sign cabinet with the shell logo sign cabinet so that the pdcing sign is closer to the property line, as shown in Exhibit "F." Another option that the applicant could explore is to relocate the monument signs closer to the building. Based upon the above analysis, staff concluded that the Vineyard Shell has adequate business identification and advertising opportunity. Staff also finds no unique circumstances about the request that would justif~ any action for approval. ITEFI F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -SP 98-30 - FLORES March 10, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's decision and deny the appeal by minute action. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:DG/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appeal Request Letter Exhibit "B" - City Planner Denial Letter Dated January 11, 1999 Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Existing Monument Sign Elevation Exhibit "E" - Proposed Wall Sign Elevation Exhibit "F" - Suggested Placement Change to Pdce Sign Cabinet Exhibit "G" - Excerpt from Sign Ordinance Acc4~- CD\~Ro \~7Z~Eb(3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga 91729 SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT. 98-30 VINEYARD SHELL 8919 FOOTHILL BL. RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9 1730 (909)483-0100 /- To the Planning Division: Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter to appeal your decision about the price sign at my service station, on Foothill and Vineyard. The reason that this sign was needed was due to the many customer complaints about the lack of visibility of the prices on the existing monument signs. Due to the set back the signs are too far on the property and many customers complain that they could not see that this was a service"'~' station, and the prices were not visible to them until they had already passed the station. On Vineyard Ave.traveling south or north bound it is impossible to see the monument sign unless you are walking. Traveling east on Foothill the trees obstruct the view of the price sign. Sinee we installed the price sign on the comer customers are able to see the prices and we have seen a tremendous increase in business and positive comments about finally being able to see the prices. It is required by law to post the prices in a visible location. We invested 2.5 Million in this business due to the rigid requirments imposed by the City of R.C. We need to maintain a certain amount of business to meet our financial obligations . If your decision is to remove our sign it will adversely affect our business. We would be willing to remove the prices from the monument signs or if you have any other sugesstions please let us know. Sincerely ///~A~FI~ / RECEIVED T H E C I T Y (D F ANCHO CUCAHONG January 11, 1999 A Mr. Art Flares Vineyard Shell 3762 Henderson Place Claremont, CA 91711 SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 Dear Mr. Flares: Thank you for submitting the above-described sign permit application for a proposed third gasoline price sign. As a result of reviewing your proposed sign with the current Sign Ordinance, staff has made the following findings and determination: Service stations are permitted one wall sign and one monument sign per street frontage up to a maximum of three signs, which could be a combination of wall and monument signs. However, only monument signs are allowed to include the gasoline prices. No other price signs are allowed. 2. The site already has two monument signs with gasoline prices. one each at Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 3. The proposed gasoline price sign placed at the northwest (tower) elevation is a wall sign which is not allowed. However, the shell logo wall sign is acceptable in its present location. Based on the above analysis and findings, your sign permit application is denied. The gasoline price wall sign shall be removed within 21 calendar days from the date of this letter. This decision shall be l~nal following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be bled in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary. state the reason for appeal, and be accompanied by the $62 appeal fee. For your information the City now has a provision to allow the identification of subtenants within a service station. The sign standards are one wall sign per subtenant up to a maximum of two per station and a maximum of 12 square feet per sign. Therefore, you could submit a separate sign permit application requesting a wall sign for your other business, Church's Fried Chicken. If you have any questions. please contact Donald Granger, Planning Technician. at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:DG/jfs cc: Brian Jackson. Code Enforcement Officer Mayor Wilharn J, AloxancJ,Dr O Mayor Pro-Tom Dione Willtams Jack Lain. AlOe City Ivlonagor P.O Bo~ 807 I~cnch C~ Councllrnonrlb,;r Paul B~an,; COunCilmember Bob Dutlon COunCilmember James M CurcJtalo 105COCI,;icCenterDr=ve · 3. CA91729 · (qCg) 477-2700 · FAX(gCO}477-2B.';9 . :' ........ ~ ............................... J Existing Monument Sign Elevation Possible Alternative Monument Cabinet Design % Gas 109 9/10Shell Prices119 9/10Logo Here 1299/10'Here ermitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - Thelwing signs may be permitted in the commercial provisions listed: zoRes CLASS 3. Business identification (mumpie Fatessignal tenants mo~e than three), b. Spec~l Sendca S~n~ c. Speda~ Advmlisunenl d. Subtenant Signs 5.: pedesbian Trelf~c Signs SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT and Site Diredoi-f One per vehicular entrance. t 2 Square leer. Up to 8 feel {monume~l) M,0~ument One pet subtenahl rnonumetl sign. REMARKS e. Todireclvisltorsandemergencyvehidestobuildings. c. Illumlnotnd foe legibility 24 hours a day. d. Sign shaft locate buildings, driveways, and address of each building. Ftre hydrant oe Knox box locations may atso be shown as required by the fire dis~ct. A ground sign shaft rd exceed 6 feet in height, a window sign shall not exceed 6 feet in betghL a. Special edvedisement shall be limited to advertising spe~al Not above roof line oe 20 feet. a. A suotenar~ Is defined as a business that Is Owned or operated by the statio~ and/or Ihe frenchlaces of the station, or a subsjdiary Of the station; and, whose operation Is eeparate from, unrelated to, and different tram the station. Each subtenant shall occupy a minimum of 20 percent of the gross Not to exceed 12 feel above finished grade. monument sign. Products. SePtices, price signs for the Such sign shall contain only the Identification of Ihe business foe pedestrian baffic 22 Revised 8/97 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PRINCIPAL REGISTER The Mark shown in this certificate has been registered in the United States Patent and ;l~'ad~mark Office to the named re. rant. The records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that an applica~.;~n for registration of th~ Mark shown in this Certificate wa~ ~Ied in the Office, that the application was examined and determined to be in compliance with the requirement~ of the law and walt the regulations prescrfbed by the Commissioner of Patents tend Trademarks, and that the Applicant is entitled to registration of the Mark under the Trademark Act of J946~ as Amended, A copy ofthe Mark amtpertineat data from the application are a pan of this certific.~te. Th~ registration shall remain in force for TEN (IO) years, unless terminated .earlier as provided by law, and subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 6' of the Trademark Act of 1946, ~ Atne.tbd Maintenance Requirements · '.. ' Section 8: This regisWation will be cancelled after six (6') yeats by the Commi,~;sioncr of Pazents and Trademarks, UNLESS, before the endof the sixth year folj'owing the date of registration shown on this certificate, the registmnt files in lhe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office an affidavit of continued use a.s required by Section 8 or' the Tradestark Act- of 1946. 15 U.S.C. §1058, as .Amenclc~l. It is recommended that the Regts~rant contact the Patent and Trademark Office appro~mately five years after the date shown on this registration to determine the requin~ments and fees for filing a Section 8 affidavit that are in effect at that time_ Currently a fee and a specimen showing how the mark is used in commerce axe. required for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the certificate of regisu'atioa and both must be enclosed with the affidavit. Section 9: This registration will expire by law after ten (1O) years, UNLESS, beforetheendofthetenthyearfollowingthedateofregistrationshown on this certificate, the regiswant files m the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office an application for renewal of the registration as required by Section 9 of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S .C. § 1059, as Amended. It is recommended that the Regis iraat contact the Patent and Traderan rk Office approximately nine years ate r the date showu ou this registration to determine the requirementq mad fe~ 15{~r f~ing a Section 9 application for renewal that are in effect at that time. Cunrently a fee and a specimen showing how the mark i,s used in commerce axe requm'/.I/:br tach international class of goOdS and/or services identified in the cextificatc of registration and both must be enclosed with the application for renewal. lnt, CI,: 35 Prior U.S. CIs.; 10.3, 10I and 102 ~', United States P,atent and Trad.emark Office SERVICE MARK PRINCIPAL REGISTER 940~889895 Reg. No. 2,085,805 Reglstercd Aug. 5, 1997 P. 83 FuEtcoLanit FUNCO, INC. (MINNF_SO'F.~ CORPORATION) 10120 WEST 76TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55~4 FOR; RETAIL STORE SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTER PROGRAM VIDEO ,GAME CARTRIDGES. IN CLASS 35 (U.S. CLS, · 100, t0| AND 102). 'FIRST USE 10-19-19!~, IN COMMERCE OWNER OF U,S. REG. NOS, J,708,866, |,896,.'191 AND OTHERS. TlqE MARK IS LINED FOR, TI'IE COLORS YELLOW, ORANGE, OREP~N, BLUE AND RED. SER, NO, 75- 14S. 79g, FII, ISD 8-6-1~96, CATHERINE KAISER KREBS, EXAMINING ATTORNEy TOTAL P. 03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 10, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUEST WITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 85 - FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Town Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 - APN: 1077-421-75. ABSTRACT: The applicant is seeking approval to install a multicolored wall sign. The applicant contends that the multicolored sign is trademarked and is necessary for public recognition and business identification, BACKGROUND: Funcoland is a retailer of games within the Terra Vista Town Center shopping complex. The store is located west of the Ross department store as shown in Exhibit 'E." Funcoland has a leased space of 1,669 square feet and began operating the business in the Fall of 1998. Prompted by Lewis Operating Corp., Funcoland submitted a sign application on January 11. 1999, for a non-permitted sign. At that time, the Planning Commission was reviewing the revised Uniform Sign Program for Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square, which was then appreved on January 13, 1999. Staff reviewed Funcoland's sign application as shown in Exhibit "D "with the newly approved USP and denied it based on non-compliance with the sign criteria. The applicant appealed the action in a timely manner. ANALYSIS: Under the Uniform Sign Program, Funcoland is permitted to have one wall sign per building elevation, with a maximum letter height of 18 inches, maximum length at 75 percent of the leased store width, and only one color for the sign face. The current Funcoland wall sign is in compliance with all provisions of the Uniform Sign Program with the exception of the multicolored letters. The Uniform Sign Program states that only color is allowed for the sign face. The applicant contends that the multicolored sign is a trademarked logo and is necessary for public recognition. According to the City Attomey, the City cannot require alteration of a registered trademark, but the City retains the power to prohibit the display of the registered trademark. The City can also require that the registered trademark be reduced in size. The applicant notes in their letter that Payless Shoe Source has yellow letters and an orange letter "o" in the words 'Shoe" and "Source." AIthoughtheUniformSignProgramrequiresthatthesignfaceforin_linetenantsbeone color from the approved choices, it does permit flexibility for colors within trademarks/Iogos. A careful examination of the Payless Shoe Souce sign illustrates that the orange "o" is actually a dot, which is the trademark/logo for Payless Shoe Source, Accordingly, the Payless Shoe Source lettering and logo is consistent with guidelines in the Uniform Sign Program. ITEM G APPEAL NO. 85/FUNCOLAND -March 10, 1999 Page 2 The Uniform Sign Program would permit the applicant to propose a wall sign design that includes a separate Funcoland logo box having multicolors. One possible alternative wall sign design could include a reduced, separate logo box containing the multicolored letters for Funcoland placed adjacent to the wall sign utilizing one color from the approved list in the Uniform Sign Program. This design would allow the applicant to retain the multicolors that are necessary for public recognition, and still be in compliance with the Uniform Sign Program. Approval of the multicolored Funcoland wall sign would be inconsistent with the Uniform Sign Progam and set a precedent that would lead to other requests to deviate from the program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold, by minute action, the City Planner's decision and deny the appeal. CityPlanner BB:NF/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" o Appeal Request Letter from Outdoor Advertising & Lighting, Sign Permit Applicant Exhibit "B" - Appeal Request Letter from Funcoland dated January 11, 1999 Exhibit "C" - City Planner denial letter dated January 19, 1999 Exhibit "D" - Proposed Wall Sign Elevation Exhibit "E' - Photo of Funcoland Wall Sign Exhibit "F" - Site Plan Exhibit "G' - Excerpt from Uniform Sign Program dq-c. &9 ~/7~o RECEIVED e c o nd' Bring Home The Fun' via Federal Express - Monday a.m. delivery January 29,1999 QitAI303Z:! Mr. Donald Grainger City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: FuncoLand #325 Terra Vista Town Center, Rancho Cucamonga, CA Signage Appeal Dear Donald: Thank you for the time you spent speaking with me last night regarding our exterior signage at our above-reference FuncoLand location. Thank you for also verifying for me that we could leave up our multi-colored sign until the appeal process is completed. The sign installer OAL (Outdoor Advertising & Lighting, Inc.) was supposed to go down to your office yesterday to pay the $62 appeal fee. Since I have been unable to confirm that this fee was actually paid, I am sending you a check in the amount of $62 to file for the appeal. As you are aware, we received a letter dated January 19, 1999 from Brad Butler regarding the denial of our sign permit for our multi-colored exterior signage. I am enclosing the only copy of the sign application I have. I am sorry the copy is so poor. It appears that the sign application number is USP #85. Our multi-colored sign which includes the colors of yellow, orange, green, blue, and red is our corporate standard sign. I am enclosing a copy of our Certificate of Registration with the Patent and Trademark Office. We are a publicly held company traded on Nasdaq. We currently have 312 FuncoLand locations throughout the country and plan to reach 400 stores within the next 18 months. Our multi-colored sign is a logo that the public recognizes and looks for. It is of utmost importance to our company that we obtain approval to keep this multi-colored sign in Terra Vista Town Center through all means of Funco. Inc. ' 10120 W. 76th Street · Eden Pr'~'.g 55344 * Ph. (612) 946-8883 · Fax (612) 946-7250 appeal necessary. Our company does not have a large advertising budget so our signage is an important advertising tool for us. The letter from Brad Buller indicates approved colors for signage as red, blue, yellow, green, and white. The only color in our sign not on the approved signage colors is orange. The Payless Shoe Source which is located next to our FuncoLand store has their corporate standard signage which includes the color orange. (Please see enclosed photograph.) We, too, request to be allowed to use our corporate standard signage. Please pass this letter and information on to the Planning Commission Secretary so that we may start the appeal process. Either a representative of OAL (the installer) or Steve Berryman from US Signs will be available to attend the necessary meetings. If someone from Funco, Inc. needs to attend as well, please let me know. Please keep me informed of the scheduling. Again I appreciate your assistance and hope that we can work together to resolve the issue. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (612) 946- 7206. Sincerely, Funco, Inc. Real Estate Administrator kjms/ Enclosures CC: Jan Jasper, Lewis Homes Richard Reinhardt, Lewis Homes Steve Berryman, US Signs T H E C I T O F CUC C) C- Januar~ 19, lg99 A Funcoland 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 140 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: PROPOSED WALL SIGN FOR FUNCOLAND Gentlemen: As a result of comparing your sign application with the revised Uniform Sign Program as approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 1999, staff has made the following findings and determination: i The sign criteria that applies to Funcoland are: one wall sign per building elevation. maximum letter height of 18 inches for upper or lower Cases, maximum sign length is 75 percent of the leased store width. and only one color is allowed for the sign face. The approved colors to choose from are: red. blue. white. green. and yellow. 2. The sign dimensions of 10 feet. 6 inches in length with 18-inch high letters is acceptable and within the limits of the approved criteria. 3. The multicolor sign face of your sign does not comply with the approved sign criteria. , 4. The existing Funcoland sign was installed without a sign permit and building and electriCal permits. Based on the above findings. your sign appliCation is denied. The sign shall be removed within 14 Calendar days from the date of this letter. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary. state the reasons for the appeal. and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. A solution to the non-conformity of your sign request would be Io select one of the approved colors and replace the sign face of the individual letters with the color you selected. We strongly encourage you to comply with the approved sign criteria for Tetra Vista Town Center and resubmit a sign application as soon as possible. If you have any questions. please feel free to Call me Nancy Fang at (~97477-2750. "" Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:NF/jfs co: Richard Reinhardt. Lewis Operating Corp. Richard Alcom, Code Enforcement Supervisor Mayor William J. Aloxandor ~. Councilmemt:}er Paul Biane Mayor Pro-i'em Diana Willtams CounCdmember Bob Durlon Jack Lain. AICP. Cily Monagot Court< 'In !ruDer James % (: · I~cnchOCu~_.~O. CA{}172c/ · (~'09) 477-27C0 · 105CO Civic Censer Drive · P.O. Box B0] CouncilmemDer James %/Curatalo FAX (<~3q) ~77-2849 0~ 0I, 30" 36" SIDE VIEW tEATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR FUNCOLAND ~DRESS ~N LOCATION VARIOUS CITY SSGN NO. US 14129 DATE: ~G~R MD SCALE :COU~ff REPRESENTATWE STEVEN BERRYMAN JENTS APPROVAL DATE NDLORDS AJ~PROVAL CITY DALLAS, TX, 10 -29-97 B C 12 3/4" 10'-6" 14 1/4"11'-8" 17" 14'-0" 21 3/8"17'-6" 25 1/2"21'-0" 7q3 899 1000 940 380 9153 D 3 3/4" 4 I/2" ,, 6 1/4" 7 1/2" NOTES: ~NDIVIDUALLY LIT SIGN ELEVATION CHANI'~C L'~'~S ON BLDG. WALL -' FACES: 'P' & 'E # 2037 YELLOW, "O" # 2283 RED, 'U" & '/~' # 2119 ORANGE, ALL WITH 6500 WHTE NEON - "Ns" VIVD GREEN VINYL OVER WHTE ACRYLIG GREEN NEON - 'C" & 'O"//2051 BLUE, BLUE NEON - .050 ALUM. BACK - .040 DK. BRONZE ALUM RETURN - GOLD TRIM - 120 .VOLT SERVICE 30 M.A. TRANSFOR~ DESIGN AI{) E~ I$ SlJG;vlTEO AS O~Jq PROPOSAL AND T~ RrGHT TO USE AND REPRODUCE OR EXit N ANY FC~d IS NOT AUT~IZED V4114C~JT WR'TTEN PERIaS~(3N BY U S SIGNS F:hHOME~Lad~ENS~PHOTOS~LA\0325E.JPG (local) - Microsoft Intemet Explorer Page I of 1 1/29/99 1:46:24 PM NT Funcoland Store Location Pad Shop Tenantq, at l~ndlords discretion, shall be allowed signage on one (1) monument sign along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Pad, and two (2) wall- mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. As an option, each tenant may have three (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building face_ A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: Two line signs shall not exceed 18" including the space between the lines in total height and no individual line shall be more than 14" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 18" in height including downstrokes. 3. Single Line signs in all upper ease shall not exceed 18" in height. The length of sign shall not exceed 75% of Shop frontage, or 20 feet (209. whichever is less. Per sign sq. 1t. shall not exceed 30. Shop frontage shall be died as storefront dimension. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is i'registered" or regionally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements, subject to City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) face, and four (4) trim cap. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All non Restaurant/Theater Shop Tenants shall be limited to one of the following Plexiglas colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 10, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE(REF. COUNTY APPLICATION NO. GPAICWI-849N) Attached for your review is a memo regarding the General Plan Amendment recently proposed by the County. The memo outlines some important aspects of this issue. Additional information will be given at the March 10, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. City Planner BB:LH:Is Attachment ITEM H CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 3, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, City Manager r Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (REF. COUNTY APPLICATION. NO. GPNCW1-849N) BACKGROUND: The City received notice from the County on March 1, 1999, that they are proposing a General Plan Amendment, that will in staffs opinion, further weaken adopted polices relative to the encouraging of annexations to cities. The Notice indicates the matter is scheduled for County Planning Commission hearing on March 18, 1999, and subsequent Board hearing on April 13, 1999. A copy of the Notice, proposed amendment/s, and Initial Study is attached for reference. Because of the short period for City response the matter has been agendized for discussion by the City Planning Commission on March 10, 1999, and City Council on April 7, 1999. In addition, a copy of the referenced materials has been forwarded to the City Attorney for legal analysis. ANALYSIS: In summary, staff believes the City should oppose the Amendment for the following reasons: The proposed amendments to adopted County General Plan policies appears to be following a pattern to back away from a previously established program of cooperation with cities to assure that urban development occurs whenever possible within cities. The proposed revisions will lead to the creation of inadequately served county islands that will be problematic for the future residents, cities and the county in terms of providing quality and efficient government services. The revisions are making the existing General Plan Policies less specific and therefore, may lead to legal challenges with regards to compliance with State mandated referral provisions of the existing law, MEMO GP POLICIES AMENDMENT March 3, 1999 Page 2 CONCLUSION: This memorandum reflects staff's initial reading of the County application. A thorough analysis of the law and the circumstances surrounding annexations and response by the County to City comments on applicable development requests will be provided at the previously mentioned Planning Commission and City Council meeting dates. Council and Commission Members may wish to contact their respective associates in other cities to open a dialog concerning these issues. LH:mlg cc: Joe O'Neil, City Engineer Brad Buller. City Planner Jerry Fulwood. Deputy City Manager Dennis Michael. Fire Chief Attachments SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT NOTICE Date: February 25, 1999 VICINITY MAP COMMUNITY: APPLICANT: FILEINDEX: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: COUNTYWIDE LAND USE SERVICES DEPT. GPA/CW1-849N General Plan Text Amendment to revise goals and policies related to land use and growth management in city spheres of influence Sphere of Influence Areas, Countywide N/A The proposal affects sphere of influence areas surrounding all e Cou.ty 1999 Proposed Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration City ot Rancno Cucamonga ATTENTION REVIEWING AGENCIES: Planning Division The General Plan Amendment described above is proposed by the San Bemardino County Land Use Services Department-Planning Division. You are invited to review the enclosed project information and submit wdtten comments and recommendations. The Initial Study/Environmental Checklist supporting the proposed Negative Declaration is available for review in the Land Use Services Department, at the address given below. At this time, it is antidpated that the Planning Commission will consider this proposal at its meeting on March 18, 1999 and make a recommendation for action by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on Apdl 13, 1999. Notices will be mailed ten (10) days in advance of each headng. For full consideration, your written comments should be received by this department no later than March 16, 1999. Please refer to the proposal description indicated at the top of this notice in your comments, and send them to the address or fax number provided below. No reply is necessary if you have no comments. If you have any questions, please contact the project planner, Terri Rahhal at (909) 387-4124. San Bemardino County Land Use Services Department/Planning Division 385 N. Arrowhead Ave. San Bemardino, CA 92415-0182 Phone: (909) 387-4 124 Fax: (909) 387-3223 If you want to be notified of the project decision pdnt your name legibly on this form and mail it to the address given above, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. COMMENTS (attach additional pages, as needed) SIGNATURE DATE AGENCY IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR IF A PUBLIC HEAR NG S HELD ON THE PROPOSAL YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAJSED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITFEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEAR NG BODY AT OR PRi TO THE HEARING. DUE TO TIME CONS'II~JUNTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS W1SHING TO GiVE ORAL TES~MONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAy ~E P CE ON'ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEAPJNG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WiSH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ENSURE THA~E TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. GPA/CW1-849N February 25, 1999 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS AFFECTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANNING AREAS APPLICANT: San Bemardino County Land Use Services Department COMMUNITY: Countywide PROPOSAL: General Plan text amendment to revise goals and policies related to land use and growth management within city spheres of influence SOURCEDOCUMENT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN adopted July 1989 and revised November 1991 (as amended through February 1999) The General Plan text amendments presented in this proposal are based on the current San Bemardino County General Plan document cited above. A brief project summary is provided below, followed by the full text of each goal or policy affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Each item is identified by a General Plan goal or policy number (i.e. Goal D-60, Policy LU-9) and the beginning page number where that item can be found in the current General Plan text (i.e.p. II-D6-45). Proposed revisions are shown as strikeout text to bo doleted and double underlined text to be added. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed General Plan text amendment would revise several goals and policies related to encouragement of annexation, land use planning and growth management for unincorporated lands within city spheres of influence. It addresses and clarifies the County's approach toward coordinating planning functions and development proposal review with cities. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to cladfy the land use planning authority and development approval discretion of the County Board of Supervisors in all unincorporated areas of San Bemardino County. GPA Summary 2/25199 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Land Use/Growth Management Goals, Policies and Actions: Goal D-60 encourages annexation of urbanized areas in city spheres of influence. This 'goal is revised to clarity the exception stated in it. The portion of Land. Use Policy LU-9 that implements Goal D-60 is also amended, accordingly. Goal D-61 is revised to eliminate repetition of Goal D-60, and to emphasize the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors in determining appropriate compatibility with city development standards and public facilities. Land Use Policy LU-9 defines the County's approach to planning and growth management in city spheres of influence. It is amended as follows, to assert the County's authority and responsibility for land use planning in all unincorporated areas: A blanket requirement of Conditional Use Permit applications in sphere of influence areas is deleted, leaving standard County procedures in place to determine the appropriate review process. The discretion of the County Board of Supervisors in land use planning and land development decisions for all unincorporated lands is clarified. Instead of "reflecting" city plans for sphere of influence areas in County land use designations, the amended text requires consideration of city plans in the County review process. Land Use Policy LU-10 addresses the need for coordinated planning efforts and cooperation with other agencies that have jurisdiction over lands within the County, It is amended as follows, to clarity the County's responsibilities: Language that might be interpreted as a requirement to incorporate policies of other agencies in the County General Plan has been deleted, One action item related to consultation with State and Federal agencies is deleted because another item addresses this issue more thoroughly. Requirements related to participation in SANBAG to address growth management issues are deleted because they are not consistent with the current functions of SANBAG. Land Use Policy LU-I 1 details incentives that should be implemented to promote urban infill. One action item related to compatibility with city policies is deleted because the same issue is addressed adequately in Policy LU-9. GPA Summary 2/25/99 ii West Valley Foothills Planning Area Policies: Two policies requiring adoption of city standards or use of "similar" standards are amended to implement County requirements in a manner compatible with city standards: Noise: A policy requiring site planning standards similar to those of adjacent communities to reduce potential noise impacts is revised to refer to noise abatement performance standards of the County Development Code. Hillside Development: A policy requiring adoption of the hillside development standards of adjacent communities is deleted, leaving the discretion to implement County standards and determine compatibility with adjacent communities to the County Board of Supervisors. East Loma Linda/West Redlands Planning Area Policies: The proposed General Plan Amendment includes deletion of the following two policies related to public services in the East Loma Linda/West Redlands Planning area: Service Requirements: A policy requiring all new development in the Loma Linda and Redlands spheres of influence to comply with the service requirements of the sphere city- is deleted. This leaves the authority for determining such requirements with the County Board of Supervisors, consistent with all other unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Service Commitments: A policy requiring necessary service commitments prior to approval of development is also deleted. Without the city service requirement referenced above, there is no need for a specific planning area policy on service commitments. Appropriate public service commitments are already required of new development proposals in all unincorporated areas of San Bemardino County. GPA Summany 2/25/99 iii .SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Goals Goal D-60 (p. II-D6-45) Encourage citios to annex urban unincorporatod aroas within designatod city sphoros of infiuonco 3nd support 3nnox3tions/incorpor3tions of urban designatod lands, except ~,4~oro thoco lands 3ro desirod to bo maintainod 3s non urban opon spaco. The Board of Supervisors will maintain land use and growth management controls on all properties in the unincorporated areas of the County. It will consider support of annexation to cities, of properties within designated city spheres of influence, where it is deemed appropriate, based on overall County goals in its sole discretion. Support of such annexation applications at LAFCO, however, will be in the sole discration of appointed LAFCO members. Goal D-61 (p. II-D6-45) Develop a policy ~nich encour3gos Encourage implementation of compatible development standards and public facilities in sphere of influence areas where feasible, as determined by the Boa~ Supervisors in its sole discretion 3rid oncour3ge annexation for those lands Ioc3ted within tho sphoro of influence (SGI)of 311 cities. MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-9 (p. II-D6-45) Eoc3use St3te law gi>/es citioc tho ultimate responsibility 3ftor 3nnexation to manago lands within their '~doptod spheres of infiuoncG, 3nd bocause citios 3re usu311y bos~ 3ble to manago urban growth through tho pro,~ision of sor~/icos, tho CountS, has 3 ror, ponsibility to coordin3te its land uso policies ~th tho citios. The County needs, thorofore, to pursuo pl3ns, policios 3nd programs that support city siandards and policies wherever such s~ndards havo boon agrood to 3nd jointly 3doptod. Because cities assume jurisdiction over territory upon annexation, and because spheres of influence identify areas that may be annexed to cities, the County will consider coordination of its land use plans within city spheres of influence with the affected cities. Nevertheless, while areas remain unincorporated, the County is responsible for land use planning and orderly development within these areas. Until joint pl3ns have boon '~doptod, The County will oxerciso its 3uthority to may refer development applications to affected ~ities for comment, and may requiro dovo~ment to conform to incorporate city development policies and standards whenever it deems appropriate. 2/25/99 //LJ///~ 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions ' Policy LU-9 (continued) In '~ddition, tho following policios 3nd st3ndards that encour3go 3nnox3tion 3nd tho use of city standards within city spheres of infiuonco will bo considered: Therefore, the County shall apply the following policies and standards within city spheres of influence: Ad_'2;t Consider implementing joint regulations/plans whonover possiblo through the adoption of oveday districts, specific plans, zoning studies, infrastructure support plans and other appropriate mechanisms. P, oquiro Conditional Use Permits ,^~ithin city sphoros of in~uonce for all dovolopmont othor than single family rosidoncos ~nd o,×pansions of existing uses that 3ro loss than 25%. ~ Service connections may be required for projects that are less than one mile aw~ from sewer main lines, where the connection is available in a timely and economically feasible manner, as determined by the authorized County reviewing authority. av3il3bilit~ Excoptions (for pack3ge w3s~e v~3tor treatmont plants, individual on site and multiplo ownor soptic. systoms, holding tanks, and experimontal systems) my be approvod subject to reviow 3nd 3ppro\~l by tho County DEHS, tho 3ppropriato rogional w'~tor quality./control board, 3rid tho w~astow~3tor 3goncy. S'-;;c.-t Review and consider requests for city annexation/incorporation of urban designated and sphere of influence lands based on community interest, city ability and commitment to develop and provide services, and overall County goals. Support before LAFCO for such requests, however, shall be at the sole discretion of appointed LAFCO members. Rocognizo 3nd imploment Consider implementation of growth control limits adopted by cities as they apply to spheres, unless the Board of Supervisors determines that the limits would materially impair achievement of County economic development or housing goals. Consider Joint Power Agreements (JPAs) with cities to allow for city or County~'6'~ment fees to be collected and distributed accordingly_., whonovor ///D 2/25/99 2 .SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-9 (continued) Designate Improvemont Lovols 3nd Lsnd Uso M~ap changes to moro rJosoly rofloc, t city proparod gonor31 plans, prozoning 3nd infrsstructuro 3nd development s~3ndard£ for sphero areas. Consider the nature and intensity of development in adjoining incorporated areas and review the City's pre-zoning, general plan designations and infrastructure plans when establishing improvement levels and land use designations within a sphere of influence. Designate Sphere of Influence areas on tho Land Uso Maps as ,~ Planning Areas and '_'t!!!_-c consider special city standards in these areas to the extent they are incorporated ~np~"~('~'adopted as descdbed in sub-policy (a), above. MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-10 (p. II-D6-46) Because the County wants to minimize land use conflicts between the County and other agencies that have jurisdictional control over lands located within the County, and because the County wants to cooperate and coordinate with adjacent municipalities and other regional agencies to address regional problems such as traffic congestion, air pollution, water quality, waste management and job/housing imbalance, the following policies/actions shall be implemented: Review the master plans and/or general plans of ~ affected agencies and consider those plans in the implementation of incorpor3to 3ny an"~'d'3ll policios that ~ro 3pplicablo and approprlato into the County General Plan. Solicit commonts from tho military 3nd othor Foderal and State agencios that control land in the County on projocts ~hich are proposod within thoir designatod podpher31 3roas. Develop a procedure to assure that the County, the incorporated cities, and the vadous special districts refer major planning and land use proposals to all affected judsdictions for review, comment and recommendation. 2/25/99 //'//{// 3 .SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES ~ Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-IO (continued) Establish a "Review Area" around each state, militan], or other Federal jurisdiction, and review development proposals or proposed General Plan amendments and revisions within the established Review Area with the appropriate agency. Work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other public agencies to eliminate conflicts between public and pdvate lands by reducing the checkerboard pattern of public/private ownership. Work with BLM and the Forest Service to ensure that large blocks of public land are not further subdivided or classified as Government Small Tracts, and to ensure that disposal of public lands shall be based on definite proposals for development consistent with the County General Plan. Work with BLM,. the Forest Service and other public agencies to facilitate public/private land exchange to eliminate the need to cress public lands to reach privately owned lands. Such land shall, when exchanged, be subject to all the policies and standards of the "Resource Conservation" (RC) District. However, if such land is determined by tho Drainage Division of the County Land Managomont Transportation/Flood Control Department or by FEMA to be subject to severe flooding, it shall be subject to the policies and standards of the "Floodway" (FW)' District. A General Plan Amendment is required to determine the apprepdate land use designation for exchanged lands. Work with BLM 3nd othor public State and Federal land management agencies in the designation and protection of wilderness and restricted natural areas in the approval and management of recreation events and sites__.; ospocially in tho E3st Mojave National Scenic Area (EMNSA), i, h_.Work with Indian tribes and State and Federal agencies in the development of plans for land within their jurisdictions. Permit development adjacent to prisons and similar detention facilities only when compatible with the secudty needs of the facility and public safety is assured, and: i) Work closely with State and local officials responsible for administering these facilities when considering land use proposals on adjacent lands. ii) Discourage high density residential uses on adjacent or nearby parcels. 2/25199 //L//~ 4 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-10 (continued) Roques~ that SANBAG 3ct 3s 3 forum for dir, cussion of the Counb./'s growCh rnanagemont plan 3nd work toward 3 consonsus ,^~ith 311 tho cities for ultim3to Dosignato S,/~NBAG as the city/county growth managemont forum concoming rogional issues and Continue working toward a consensus on regional growth management issues v~th surrounding counties through SCAG and SCAQMD. Continue to work on spe.ci~c projects to improve traffic flow, such as the Foothill Freeway (State Highway 30) extension project__., the Route 91 T3sk Force, and tho Routo 60//1 working group, MAN-MADE RESOURCES - Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-11 (p. II-D6-47) Because urban infilling promotes more efficient use of existing infrastructure and decreases the need to construct extension of services, the following incentive actions to encourage urban inflll shall be implemented: Designate urban infiil areas on the Infrastructure Overlay Maps as the highest intensity Improvement Levels (i.e. ILs 1 and 2) except where prohibited by other regulations and policies. Recommend Land Use Map changes to reflect higher intensity and compatible uses in urban inflll areas, except where prohibited by other regulations and policies. Reduce processing times for "urban projects" (commercial, industrial and residential of 4 or more dwelling units per acre) that fall within either Improvement Levels I or 2 that will use underutilized infrastructure capacities as determined by the Planning Officer Director of Land Use Services. 2J25199 5 ,SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS MAN-MADE RESOURCES ~ Land Use/Growth Management Policies/Actions Policy LU-11 (continued) Direct the Department of Economic and Community Development to provide information to prospective firms, in order to recruit industdal and commercial development to Urban In~ll areas (ILs 1 or 2 with urban land use designations of industrial and commemial), and to promote use of grants for upgrading infrastructure in these areas. Direct all County Departments to pdodtize capital improvements and public works to upgrade urban infill areas, including supporting creation of improvement distdcts, except where prohibited by other regulations and policies. Raquiro that 3ny and 311 ineontive actions bo consistent 3nd compatiblo with 3ny 3doptod 3pplic3blo ci'e./sphere of in~uonco policios or othor rogulations and WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA Policies/Actions Man-made Hazards Noise Policies (p. III-B1-23) Establish siting and construction standards to mitigate noise hazards from major traffic corridors. Require the submittal of an acoustical analysis on all new residential projects that will be adversely impacted by existing or expected future noise generated by major transportation corridors. Establish simil3r sito pbnning s~andards of adjoining communities to roduco noiso !m;: cts. Implement noise standards per County Development Code Sec. 87.0905. Reduce interior residential noise levels from outside sources to acceptable levels. Locate noise sensitive land use away from high noise areas. 2/25/99 6 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS WEST VALLEY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA - Policies/Actions Man-made Resources Land Use/Growth Management (p. III-B1-26) (select policies concerning hillside development) · Adopt 3nd imploment tho slopo dovelopment guidolinos of 3djoining communitios. · Require a slope analysis for all residential projects located within the foothills. · Discourage residential development on land with slopes greater than 30 percent, ridge saddles, canyon mouths and areas remote from existing access. · Allow up to a 100 percent transfer of residential density from these areas depending on the holding capacity of the area to be developed. · Retaining these areas in open space will be necessary in order to obtain density bonus consideration. · Limit residential development on slopes greater than 30% to a density of two (2) dwelling units per acre or less. · Establish the following grading requirements for areas having a slope of f~teen percent or greater. - Minimize grading for roads, home foundations, pools and drainage facilities. - Utilize contour grading techniques in order to compliment and blend into the existing natural terrain. - Conceal graded slopes by landscaping and structures. - Finished slopes generally should not exceed a 2:1 ratio unless to blend with natural terrain. · projects, including minor Require a preliminary grading plan for all residential subdivisions, that are located within the bothills. Require building foundations to conform with the natural slope on building sites, where the slope is fifteen percent (15%) or greater. Apply strict adherence to all hillside and fire safety development standards. 2/25/99 7 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GPNCW1-849N LAND USE/GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AMENDMENTS EAST LOMA LINDA/WEST REDLANDS - Policies/Actions Man-Made Resources Land Use/Growth Management Policies (p. III-B2-29) Permit residential development where services are readily available. Limit residential development along Interstate 10 and the proposod Tennes~oo Freo~^~y State Highway 30. Limit residential development in high hazard areas. Small neighborhood convenience commercial centers should be developed along major access routes compatible with the policies of adjacent cities. Restdct neighborhood centers to a minimum of one mile of each other or another commercial area. All now developmont within tho sphoros of Lorn~ Linda '~nd R~dlands respoctively shall comply ~th the sor~ico requiremonts of tho 3ppropriato city. All now dovelopment sh311 havo tho noces¢ary sorvico commitmor~ts prior to Actively pursue all available funding for sidewalk improvements, including County Capital Improvement Programs, State and Federal grant funds 3nd the Office of Community Do~/olopmont's such as Community Development Block Grants for public improvements. /-//; 2/25/99 8 ~ 05 '99 (WED) 09:05 ' PAGE. 2/23 SAN BBRNARDINO COUNTY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This form and the descriptive information In ~e application package co~titute the contents of Initial Study pumuant to Courtly Guidelines under Ordinance 3040 and Section 15063 of the S:;,~ I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: COMMUNITY: COUNTYWIDE LAND USE SERVICES DEPT. GPNCW1-849N General Fqan Text Amendment to rev~e goals and lxtcles related to land me and growth management hcttysphsesofinfluence USGS Quad: T,R,BectJon: Thomas Brm: Planning Area: OLUD: Impmvement Level: Countywide Count~vicle Ooun~jwlcle Verious PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: The pmj~ is a proposed amendment to me text of me San Bamarclino County Genmal Plan, It wou~d revise several goes. p~kMe and scion statements related to anrexatJon, g~uwth managemere and land use planning for unimorpo~;4~l lands in city sphere of irtuence planning areas. The amendmeN also addresses the County's general approach towaffi coordinating land The~xr~x~e~f~heGen~ra~P~an~rnendm~nti~t~daffiy6~eC~unty~ndu~p~anningauth~dty and development approval dlscmlbxt in sphere of influence areas, as treated In the General Plan County Board of ~. PROJECT SCOPE County General Plan, affecting countywide goals, policies and action statements related to annexation, land use and growth management In unlnoorpomted areas wfitdn ally spheres of plans and develoixnent standards In sphere areas, using the environmental review process prescribed by CEQA to identify poten~al impacts and debarmine appropriate mffigatton, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The swimmental factors checked below would be potentially a~i~ted by this project, involving st least one impact that is a 'Potenlially Signfficant Impact" as indicated by lhe checklist on the following pages. [] H~-ms & Hazardous Materials [] Mineral Resoumes [] Public Services [] Utames I Servi~e System [] Agriculture Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Hydro~W / Water Qu~.y [] No e [] Recreation [] Air Quality FI Gemogy [] Land Use/Planning E] Population I Housing [] Transporlatjon/Traffic I"} Mandatop/Findings of SIgnificance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [] The proposed I~oject COULD NOT have a slllnicant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The proposed project MAY have a 8ignfficant effect on ihe environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The ~ proiec, MAY have · 'porentiS/m~nmcent impact' or "potemialhZ elgnmcant m mffi~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~nL bm m i~t ~ ~ 1) h~ ~n ~ a~l~ ~ an ~dir ~ffi ~m~ ~ appN~ble ~{ st~, a~ 2) ~ ~n ~dms~ by mHig~on ~ / ~ ~ ed~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ s~t. ~ E~IRONME~I Although the proposed project could have e significant effect on the environment, bemuse all potentially idgnificant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to ~ppH~ble stenderds, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that esdier EIR o~ NEGATWE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures lhat am imposed upon the ProPoBed project, nothing rurffieris requfred. S~rmtum (prepared by) 2 6F--NERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT SUMMARY Clarification, or to refine existing Goals and policies consistent with b'm intent of the odg[nal text. A brief summaW oflhe mare substantive changes in the proposed General Plan text amendment follows. Land Use/Orowlh M qaga:b4,bl Goals, Policies and Aetjons God D-60 encourages annexalion of urbanized ames in city spheres of influence. This goal is revised to clarify the exception stated in it. The podion af Land Use Policy LU-9 which implements this goal b also influence. ~ti~amend~d~sf~~~~ws~~~asseft~heC~un~y~s~uth~dtyandresp~~ibi~ityf~r~~ndusep~annin~~n al ~-~F--.~:d areas: · A blanket requirement of Conditional Use Permit appficalions In sphere of influence ames Is deleted, · Thed~scret~~n~ftheC~un~yB~~rd~~~upendsmin~andmp~mrdn~and~~nc~deve~~pmentdec~~~ns for ell unincorpomted lands Is carlfled. I.and Usa Policy LU40 eddreeuas the need f~ coordinated planning efforts and ccxqx~ation wire other agencies ~at have jurisdiction over lands within the County. It is amended as follows, to clarify the County's r~!._b~_: · LangLmge that might be intmpmted as a requirement to incorporate poictes of other agencies in the County General Ran has been deleted. · Requirements related to participetion in SANBAG to address ~r~vth management issues are deleted because they am riot consistent w~h tie current functions of SANBAG. ~ Use Policy LU-11 details m thai should be implemenhld 1o promale urban in~ll. One aclion item related to compatibility with city policies is deleted because the same issue is addressed adequately in Policy LU-9. West Vdley Foothllb Planning Area Policies Two policies requiring adoption of city standards or use of 'eimiler' standards are amended to implement County requirements in a manner compatible with city stanclarcis: Notae: A policy requidrtg site planning standards similar to those of adjacent communities to reduce potenthi notae Impacts is revised to refer to noise al}atement peefonnance standards of the County Development Code. HlliMe Development: A policy requiring adoption of the hillside development standards of adjacent cornmunltles is amended to require implementation of compatible standards, as determined by the County Ealt Lomb LlndNWemt Redlands PlanNeR Area Polldes: The proposed General Plan Amendment ir~udes deletion of ~ following two pdiclas Febfled to pubtic se~lces In the Ellst Lore LindsANest Redlea Planning area: · ervice Requirements: A po/ky reqtddng all new deveinpmefff in the Loma Linda and Redands spheres of infkNmoe to comply with the service requiremonte of the sphere city is deleted. This leaves the authority for determining ~uch requlrementa wiffi the County Bosrd o~ Supervisors, consistent wi~ all other unincorlxtated ereas d San Bemardlno County. · ervice C....,db,~enlS: A policy requiring necess~y service c~,.,,lin,erb Ixtor to approval of development is also deleted. Without the city servk~e requirement mference~ above, them is no need for a specific planning area policy on service commitments. Approl~'~te public service commitments are required of new development proposals in all urdncoqx3tabi areas of San Bernardino County. (The MI text of aft me aforemen!toned policies and proposed arrlendments is attached to this Inilial Study.) The exisiX] site is comprised of all unincorporatad lands within designated spheres of influence of the 24 cities in indudes aft areas a_ffe~.__ by the land use and growth management poicies incJuded in the General Plan Regkal Locat~ Orange and Los Angeles. The eastem boc.mclary of the County, as defined by ~ Colorado River, abuts the states of Nevada and Arizona. The Courtty consists of three d/geographic areas, eac~ with unique natural and soCo-economic env~nments: Valley, Mountain and Desert. 4 Vale/ The San Bemardino Valley is ufoanlzed, but still suppods some agrk;uttum, including dairies, vineyards and orchard crops. The area is deeclerbad by moderate to steeply skiping foothills and alluvial ins rising from the flatvaJleyfioor. M~st~f~henat~a~vegetat~~nhat~beendlsturb~d~buts~me~irnitedna~ivep~~nthabi~atsremaln~ including alluvial fan sage saub, chaparral, fiparfan wOOdlands, grosslands and wetlands. The vaBey area has a Mediterranean climate, with hot, dry summers and mild wintes. Tempemturas range from occasional ffosls in the Iow30's towNI over l00o F, The mlnyseason in the valley area ls Dm:mnberi~.utagh March, wjth an avefage The 480 square mile vaeey comprises less than 3% of the County land area, while it is home to approxknately 80% ofthe population. Ofthe 24 cities in Sa~ Bemardino County, 15 am located in the vale/area: Chino, Chtno Hills, Colton, Fontare, Grand Tenace, Highland, LoreaUntie, Montclalr, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, RiNto, San I~, Upland, end Yuadpa. Mourltlijn Mountain RangeofSouthemCalbmte. Elevations in ffiis Range extend from 2,000 R. alo~glhefoolhllisto 11,500 ft. on ML San Gorgonlo, the highest peak in 8outhem Calltomta. Several distinct plan communities mr in the Mountain Region, including chaperred, live oak woodlands, conifer forests and mountain dpurian forests. Ferest, adn'dnis*e'~d by the Urdled Slatss FometService. Big Bear Lake ls~he ordy clty in lhe San Bemardino Mounfains. end dry lakes. Most of Ihe Desert Region is ~ of undeveloped federal lands administered by the BLM, NaUonal Park 8errIce and vadous mllary branches of the Department of Defense, The Desert Region contains line woodlnd. MoJave Desert scrub, saltbush ecmb. elkall sink, dunes and desert dpmrlan. The Desert Region nK:alvms lmm than four inch~s of raln mmually, onavmage. Tem range firom betowfmezing toover120o The (lesert popuINjon is sparse (<20% of tolal Ccxmty pop.), and apmte~ 80% of It is clustered In eight desetc~m~ThernmN~nhDesurtcitbsofAddanto~Sars1~w~Hasper~a~Victevi~leandtheTmm~fAppie~`.~ey Twentynine Palms and !he Town of Yucca Valley are located in the more remote southeaslem podion of the county. OlOnmc.nt $10nlflemwffit $1Onlf~m I, AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a mbstantil adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] [] [] [] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to. trees. rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [] [] [] [] c) Subetantially degrade the e=dsling visual character or quaVty of the site and its suffoundings? [] [] [] D d) Cramtee new source ofsubstenUal lightor glarewhich would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [] [] [] [] The Ixicy changes proposed in this General Plan Amendment are not expected to rasult in any significant environmental impam related to open space or scenic views. The projecl would revise County policies concerning city sphares of Influence end coonllnaUon of Ceunty planning wtth other agencies. The revised p~iciesemphasiz~theprkna~y~fC~unty~ndu~epians~r~dp~ici~s~verth~mofanydty~mam remains ur~rmoqxeated, under County Jurlsdlct~n. No changes are proposed for any goals, poicias or acl;un items related to open space or scenic insours___-; This proje~ will have no direct physical impacts on the environment, and the potential differences in future land development would have no significant elfect on ~re~v__,rces. Standard County development review procedures, Indudlng a review of the General Ran Open Space Overlay and aceriG route llng. and appicatkm olm protective development standards would minimize Potentiallmpactsonq~m~ceandscenicre~urce~. II, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining wheVer impels to egdr, uttued re~ou_r,:~,__ are aignlrmam environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing impacts on egricuiture and farmland. Would ~ projec~ a) Convert Pdme Farmland, Unique Farmlend, o~ Farmind of Stalewide Imporlance (Farmland), as shown 6 on the maps pret~red pursuant to the Fermiand Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non.agricultural use? [] [] [] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Wgliarnson Act contract?. [] [] [] Invotve oener changes in the exiBting environment which, duetothelrlocadon ornatum, coufd result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agri~ltuml use? [] [] I~ SUBSTANTIATION (check..X. JfPmjectisk)catedlnthelmporlantFamdandsOveday): As an Indireci result of this project, more properties may develop under County land use jurisdiction instead of annexing to c~es. Remaining unincorpomted would not affect existing or future agriculture. Standard County development review procedures, including e review of the Imlxwtant Farmlands Map and appticaUon of appropriate conservation requirements would minimize potenllal Impacts on agricultural resoumes. ~L AIR QUAUTY- Where available, the significance crlteda established by the applicable air quaFdy management or jr pollution control disffict may be a) Conflict with or obstruct impternentetion of the applicable air quality plan? [] [] [] c) Violate any air quality standard or contribute subslantially to an existing or projected air quality violalion? Result In a cumulatlvely considerable net Increase of anY cdterte Potiutent for which the project reOion is non atbalnrnent under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quant~alt~ lhnmShoid~ for o~ precursors)? [] [] [] [] [] [] Poleoueily Lees than Lees than No d) Expose sensitive receptom to substantial pollutant concentrations? [] [] [] [] e) Create obJectUmbie odors affecllng a substan4bl nLuTsber of people? D [] [] [] SUBSTANTIAlION (discuss cc~onn~ web Ira South C_~_._t Air Quality Management Plan, if applicable): The~x~cych~nge~pr~p~eedk~hisGene~P~nAmendmen~ren~expec~edt~resu~tin~nysi~ni~c~nt enviroeqnlental ifnl~ds related to air quality. The project wouid revise County policies concerning city spheres of IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURGF. S- Would the projed: Heve asubsfantiel edveme eG=ct, either direcUy or through habitat rrmdificafdons, on any species idefltffled as a caMam, sensitive, or special status species in Iooal orlregiona plans, policies, or mgulations, orbythe California I:~nt of Fmh and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildr~Sefvice? b) Have e substantial adverse effect on any ripadan habttat of other sensive natural oommunlty idefi~ad in local or regional pins, polk:tes, regulations or by the Califomi Department of Fish aml Game or US Fish and Wildlife ,Senttea? c) Have a subslantial adverse effect on fedemlly Protected weUands es defined by Bection 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, ~ not llmlbd to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Ibmugh direct ramoval, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] D [] [] 8 PAGE. 10/23 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native reident or migratoW fish or wildlife spedes or with established naive resident or migmtoW wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native vvjkife nursery s/les? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances Pm(ecljng btological resources, such as etme pmsetvel pdlcy ot ordlrmnce? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation conseretion plan? Pellf~illly Lltl titan 1.1%l ~In [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 8UBBTANTIATION(ctBckiflxojeclislocatedintheBiologkalReotm:esOve~ayX or contalns habttat for any sPectes;;~e;linlheCallfoITdaNaturalDiversityDatabase X ): ' The ladicy changes prWx~sed in this General Plan Amendment are not expected to result in any significant envfro~me~a[ rmpacls related to biological resources. The project would revise County policies con~ city IxtmacY of CountY land use plans and pormies over those of any dty as long as an area ~ ~m~, field mporl requirements and rniUgaUon measures as necessa/y to conserve knportent Imbltst and minimize V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Woukl Ihe project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signirmance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ~e signirmance of an archaedogical resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] O [] [] 9 .... ]viAl 03 '99 CWEU~ ~9:0e ........... ' PAGE. I1/23 d) Distufo any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [] [] [] [] SUBSTANTIATION (checkWthelxojectislocatocllnffieCultuml__XorPaleoniotoglc__XResourcesovedaysor The policy changes pmpoMd in this General Ran Amendment am not expected to result In any significant environmental impacts related to cultural or pek~ldc,jml resoumas. The projecl would revise County policies pellc~ wnphasi~ the primacy of County land usemnsand peUcies ovor ffnse of any ctty es long as an area remains uninoorporated, under County Jurisdlclion. No changes am proposed for any goals, poficies or action p~ten~d~re~'~nfu~um~nddeve~pmentw~ukihaven~signi~cante~c~nhist~ric~pm~istor~corcuis~1 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOIL.~ -- Would the project: a) E-,q~osepeo~borstroctur~topo~mUa~r~b.~tbl i) RuPttweofa known eethquake fault, as delineated on the most mcent,AJquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning MaP issoed by the S::-;,, Gedogisl for the area or bnsed on other substanffial evffienz:e of a known faR? Refer to Division Of Mines and C-,edogy Special Publication 42. ii) Strong so~dc ground sh~kb~g?. Jib Seismic-related ground ilium, including llquefaclion? iv) Landslides? I~) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss Of topsoil? D [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] I~ [] [] [] [] [] O D [] [] [] [] [] MAE 03 '99 ~WED) 09:08 PAGE12/23 c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil Ihat Is unstable, or thm would become unstable as a resull of the projecL and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subekfeme. liquefaction or co. apse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating subsbntialdskstolifeorprol~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of seplic terdm or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers ma not mraifable for lhe disposal of waste Po4enumdly Lm~m tlmm~ Lmmm titan NO [] O [] [] O [] [] [] SUBSTANTIATION (check X If project is Ic, caiad in the Gedoglc Hazards Oreday Dlsffict): As an indirect result of Ihis proJecl, mote properlles may develop under County land use judsdiclion instead of procedures mciud ' nize pots ' geokxjc h,w-rds. Slandard County development review ,' ing appropriate erosion conlrol requirements, would minimize potential erosion h~-prds. In the We~t Valley Foothills planning area addiUonal slope analymae building and landscape standm'ds end am ~ encouraged as hliside development guidelines. These development requirements ard guidelines provide additional proreckon from various natural _lw-~_,rds. including fire, erosion and geologic hazards in the West Valley I/!1. HAZARD8 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would lIB project: a) Create a significant h-~,:.rd to lhe pubic or the environment through the routine transpmt, use, or disposal of ~ materials? [] [] [] [] 11 b) Cceate · significant hazard to the public or the environment through masonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [] [] [] [] Emit hazardous embslons or handle I~rdOUS or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [] D [] [] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of h~mdous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signifmant he~-rd to the public or the [] D [] [] e) Foreprojectlocatedwilh~nanairportlanduseplan or, where such a p~en has not been edoptad. within two miles of a public airport or publI; use ahl~l. would the pmject result in a safely hazmd for people residing or working in the project area? D [] [] [] e f) Foraprojectwithlnthevicinltyofaprivateairstrip, would the project result ln a safety hazard for people reskfing or working in the proJe~ area? [] [] O [] g) Impair implementation of or physically interim with an adopted emergency response plan or emegen~ evacuation plan? h) ExPeepeoplewstmclures~ssignirx:ant,skofles. Injury ~ death involving wildland rims. Induding where wildSands are adjacent to u~anlzed .,ms of where residences are intermixed with wildlends? [] [] [] [] The policy changes proposed In this General Plan Amendment am not expected to result In any significant envimmnental impacts related to hazardous or radioacUve materials, tim hazards or aviation safely. The project w~u~drevi~eC~tm~yp~ici~s~rmemingcitysprem~nf~uence~ndc~rdin~tm~fC~untyp~anningwith~ther agencies~Themv~sedp~~ciesemphasize~hep~macy~fC~unty~andusep~ansandp~~icies~verth~~e~~any city as long as an area remains unin~, under County jurisdiction. No changes am proposed for any im~ac~s~theenvimnment~ndthep~teria~di~eef~sinfu~ur~anddeve~pmentw~u~dn~increasetherisk of upset, fire hazards or avia6on safety, nor would it uoate ~'m peq~ to health hazads. 12 VIII. HYDROLOQY AND WATER QUALrrY -- Would Ihe e) VIolate any water quafily stain:Is or waste dis{~arge requirements? b) ~ubslen~ deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ~ with groundwater rechame sum that them wouldbeanetdefidtlnaqulfervdumeoreloweringo~ the local groundwatertable level (e.g., the production rateofPre-exlsUngneebyweiswoulddroptoeleved which wotad ~ot etq~ort existh'tg land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ;alteration of the course of a 6;,.am or river, in a manner which would result in substantial eroslet or sitration ore- or off-site? rate or amount of marrace ranoff In a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Creeteorco~tributemrloffwierwhid~wouldexoeed l~e capacily of edsltng or planned slormwater drainage systems or provide eubstanlial a~filional eources of pollmeal runoff? f) Othenei~ substanti/ly degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a l(X)-year llood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood 1-1~7~rd Boundary or Flood Insurance RNe Map or other flood hazard delineation map?. [] [] [] [] [] [] O [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] D D [] [] [] O [] [] 13 MAK 0~ '~9 (WED) 09:09 ............. ' PAOE.~5/2~ h) Place within e lO0-year fiood hazard area stn.mlures which would Impede or redlrect flood flows? D [] [] [] I) ~peopleorstruclurestoaslgnfficantrlskofloss. inJun/or death involving flooding, including flooding as a j) Inunciatian by seiche, tsunaml, or mudfiow? [] [] O [] $IJBBTANTIATION: The policy changes proposed in Ibis General Plan Amendment are not expected to result in any significant mtalimpac~tok~l hazards. water supply or water quality. The project would mvise County area remains unb~cc.i,o, ated, under County Ju~sdk:iion. No changes am proposed for any goals, policies or aclton items related to hydrology or water quality. ~ Ixoject will have no direct physical knlxids on the environment, and Ihe potential differences in fu~we land dBvido~T4.1~t would not increase tbod hazing, nor IX, LAND IJBE AND PI-N¢NING -- Would the project: s) Physicslly divide an established community? b) Conflict wfih any applicable land use plan, policy, or mgulaUon of an agency wilh jmisdic~on over the proiect (including, but not limited to the general plan, specl~c pin, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance} adoptsd for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat consenmtion plan or natural community conservation plan? [] [] [] [] O [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 14 F'otmmfiatly Lm litan I.m tim Mo The poky changes proposed in this General Plan Amendment are not expected to result In arty significant efwimmmn~ impacts related to land use. The project would revue Co~mty pc~k~es conoeming city spheres of County land use plans and polctes over those of any city as long as an area remains unlncoqxtamd, under ThisProieGt~ihavenocnrmphy~mk~acbsmtheen~rcxYm~butltn~/kx~msemeiiceihood~ insphemamast~beap~vedand~ve~under1he~unty.s~uri~c~i~n~bas~d~nc~unty~andusep~ns~ This would help prevent the division of established unincorporated con'n'nunffies, and would not cor~llct with any a) Result in the loss of availability of n known mlrmml re~ource that would be of value to the mgion end the remidenWofthestate? D [] [] [] b) Result in fire loss of availability of a locally Imporlant general pin, specific plan or olher land use plan? [] [] [] [] SUBSTANTIATION (check X.~ if project is located within Ihe Mneh-al ~ ~Jarm Overlay): The policy changes propmad in ~ General Plan Amendment are not expected to result in ~ny signirmnt environmental Impacts {s;.a;~ to mineral ~ or mining. The prolsd wuuld revise County poicies concerning city r. pheres of influence and coon:lkmlion or County planning with oeter agencies. The revised remains urdncc,~rj~l. under County Juriscicllon. No changes am proposed for any goats, policies o~ aclion items mIMed to mineral resources. This projed will have no direct physical Impacts on ~ envlromnent. and the p~t~nt~~~di~~renc~sinfuture~an~~d~ve~~pmentw~u~dh~v~msign~cante~sd~nminer~~r~~~Urce~~ As an Indirect result of this project. more proprates nay develop under County land use juriadiclion instead of anneXrig tD ct'des. Remaining unincoqxxated would not affect existing mineral resources. Standard County development ram procedures. induding a review of the General Pin MIneral Resource Overlay and 15 Pmmla~y L.mlhan Leesthan No 81Onll~m~ 8i~ntwHh 81gnlfleanl lmpa~ Irapad MltlgaMn Ineeq~ Irapeer XI, NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Eqx~um of Pesmm to or generation of noise levels in exces~ ~ mndirds eelablihed in the local general plan or noise ordinalIce, or applicable standards of other agencies? O [] [] [] [] [] b) rmqx~ure of persons to or generation of excessive groundhome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levets tn the proJeCt vlcinny above levels exisUng without [] [] [] [] d) A substantial tempoan/or periodic increase in ambient noise levels b the project vldnity above levds exist~iwfihouttheproject? [] [] [] O e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such aplan has not been adopted, wilhin two miles of e Publlc airport or public use alrport, wouldthe area to excf...lve noise levis? [] [] 12) [] f) For a project within the vicinity of e private airstrip, the project area loexceseive noise levels? [] [] [] [] X or is subject to SUBSTANTIATION (check ff lhe project is located in rite Noise Hazard Oreday District severe noise levels a,~e~'dlng to the General Ran Noise Element..X ): The policy changes proposed in this General Ran Amendment are not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts mimed to noise. The lxoject would revise County policies concerning ally spheres of influence and moffilnatfon of Cour~ planning with other agencies. The revised policie~ emphasize the pdmacy of County and use plans and policies over those of any ally as long as Im am remains unincorpomtecl, under ~untyjurisa~i~n~N~changesampr~p~mdf~r~ny~s~pdic~es~r~cti~nmm~reu~dt~ndse~Trdspr~ vAIl have no direct physical impacts on the environn'le~t, and the potential differences in future land As an indirecl result of Ibis project, rnom proper6es may develop under County land use jurisdiction instead of annexing Io cities. Remaining unin~ would not affect extsUng noise hazards, Slandard County development review procedures incbde a review of the General PMn Noise Hazard Ovmtay map and application Of attenuation requjremenls and perfo,;~mce slaMaids fTOm be County Developrout Code, These meaeures would minimizs potential noise hazards. 16 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area. ."herdkecey(rorexamrde, bypropodngnmv homas and businesses) or indimcth/(for example, lhrough extension of roads or other infraslmclure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construct/on of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substanlial numbers of people, necessitating the consmacUon of replacemere housing elsewhere? SUBSTANTIATION: [] O [] [] [] [] [] [] ci~y~pheres~fird~uen~eandc~'d~aU~n~fC~untyp~anningwi~h~herag~nci~s.Therevis~dp~ciesemphasize the primacy of C~)unty land use plans end poicies over those of any city u long as an area remains Th~spr~jectw~haven~dimctphys~c~mp~c~s~eenvir~nment'butitmayin~sethe~ike~i~m In sphemamasto beapprovedanddevelqxxi underthe County'sjudsdicUon, based on County goals for housing jugdiction is Ihat existing lend use and housing plans would be in'4~,,elted and not changed due to annexation. X~l. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result In substantial adverse or physically altered govenmentel facilllies. the mnsm,,ciio~ of wh/4:h could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable Mr,doe ratios, response limes or other performance Pol/ce pf~;,~,clion? [] [] [] [] [] [] 17 POtmalJdly Less that Lass thln NO Schocds? [] [] [] D Other pubic facilities? [] [] [] [] The poacy changes proposed in this Gereal Plan Amendment am not expected to result in any 81gnfficant environmental imlmacts related to public services. The project would revise County polictes confining city the pdffmcy of County land use plans and poieies over those of any dty as loog as an ama remahs a) Wodd the project inaaase the use of existing neighborhood and fegionat parks or other recreational fa~ililies much that subatantjal phyaical deterioration of [] O [] [] b) DDeS the project Include rea'eaUonal facilities or require the cormtru~m or expandon of recreational faci~eswhichmiOhthaveanadvemepllyalcaleffec~on lhe environment? [] [] D [] County land ,_._~e_ plans and ~ over those of any dry as ~ as an area remains unlneorpomted, under This project will have no dlrecl physical lmpacts o~ the envtronment, but it may incresse lhe likeihood for projects h sphere areas to be approved and developed under ~he County's jurisdiction, based on County land use plans. Since this woua not constitute a departure from existing phanned land use, no significant environmental impacts on recreation resources am anticipated. 18 XV'. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC __ Would the project: Cause an incsmise in traffic which ls substantial in relaUonWthee.,datingtramcloadandcapacityonhe ibmel system (Le.. meu~: in · substantial increase in ellher on made, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed. elther individuelly ar cumutaGvely, alevel of sewicestandardastablishedbythecmanlycongeslion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Remuit in achange~eir traff'm paUems, lnciudin9 eltheranlncreaaeinlmfllcleveisoradmngeinlocation that results in subetantial safety dsks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ehmp tunes or dangerous intersections) Ix b~compalibl= uses (e,g., farm equipment)? e) Result in Inadequate emergency access? supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bm turnouts. bicycle rocks)? SUBSTANTIATION: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] O D [] [] [] [] [] ~a [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] The policy changes proposed in this General Plan Amerxlment are not expected to result in any significant the PdrnacY of County land uae pbmns and polctes over lhoee of any dty as long as an area ~m to Imnsporlallon or i~e;~ This project will have no direct physlcaJ Inlacl~ on lhe envkonmenL end the potential bi~SF, u, latiun. Coenty development review procedures. including a review of the General Plan Circtdagon Element and the plane of any adjacent judsdlceon woWd mininlm poreheal treaportatieVctrcuSaUon impacts. 19 MA~ 0~ '99 (W=D) 09:1~ PAGE. 21/2~ MItllmkm Irmorp. Impa~ XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYb ! =MS -- Would the proiect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? mr Imatrnent fedlies or expansion of exisUn9 feclges. the constm~on of which could cam slgrtibnt envIror, mental effects? weir drainage t~gi~s or expenskm of ~dsOnO facilities, the ~N~lruc~on of which could creme signicanl enviro~memtal d) Have sulrmient water supplies availebb to aerve the ProjectfromexislingenUtlementsandmsources, orare new or expanded entitlemen~ needed? demand in addition to the providere existing f) Be served by · landfill(s) with eufficient peOTdtted capacity tO F;_-,:~i~da/te projects solid waste d/posalneeds? g) Cemp~w~h ideml, ~me, and ~cel ~a~dls and mgub,~ns mb~ed to solid wasi? SUBSTANTIATION: [] O O [] [] [] [~ D [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] D [] [] [] [] [] [] city spheres of influence and coordination of County planning with mar agencies. The revised policies emphasize the primacy of County land use plans and policies over those of any city as long as an area mains urincaP~dted~underC~un~yju~sici~n~N~chang~s~mpr~p~sedf~ranyg~a~s~p~id~s~rac~i~n~temsre~ated This pm/e~ wig have no direct physical irnlacts on the envimnmenL It may increase the likelihood for projects in sphere of influence ereas to be apWoved and developed under the County's jurisdiction, based on Counly plans peterdial differences In plannir~ and ran/ice ju~m:lic6oll world have no signirmanl adveme environmental effects. INandard County planning and development review prooedums enmjre adequale ~ of utility sen/toe XVIL MANDATORY FINDING~ OF ~IO NIFICANCE-- arareore,dan~-.,~lplamo~anlrnalorelirninateirnlx~lant [] D [] D [] [] [] [] SUBSTANTIATION: (a). As~tat~dthmugh~utm`~chec~d~Ln~gn~rm~n~mp~s~nbi~ic~rcu~tura~r~s~urc~s~m=rd~c~Nm~ thisprojecL (b). NoPo~entlailYs{mmcamenvi{{mpac~havebeenidentmed. ThecumulaUveeffac~d theProjectmi~enoconoems~*'mtwemnol{inthecheckr~ofindividuallmpacis. (c). No potential for ~ of EnvlrdwL;atal Bvimim~ The revimd land use and growth nma~e,d polcies of this project ciarlfy ihe authcatt,/. discrelion and wilh ~ In the review of develOl:h'~,.ll proposals. this project glve~ the County Board of 8upewtsors absolute discretion In all unincorpomted areas. The result is that the County wii not be otlged to impteme~ dty plans or 21 xv'm, MITIIiA"nON ME, A~URE~ (None Required)