HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/02/23 - Agenda Packet - Adjourned1977
WEDNESDAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
III·
IV.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Lumpp
Commissioner Melcher
Commissioner Tolstoy
~nnounoements
Approval of Minutes
Adjourned Meeting of December 8, 1993
January 26, 1994
Adjourned Meeting of February 8, 1994
Adjourned Meeting of February 9, 1994
February 9, 1994
V. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected
to be routine and non-controversial. They will be
acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
Ae
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 79-01 -
UNOCAL - A request to modify the color scheme
for a gas station within the Rancho Town
shopping center, in the Community Commercial
District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9082 Foothill
Boulevard - APN: 208-101-17 through 20, 49,
and 50.
VII ·
VIII.
VI. Public Hearings
IX.
X.
The following items are public hearings in which
concerned individuals may voice their opinion of
the related project. Please wait to be recognized
by the chairman and address the Commission by
stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for
each project. Please sign in after speaking.
DRAFT SUBSEOUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -
GENERAL DYNAMICS - A public hearing on a Draft
Subsequent EIR for the General Dynamics Rancho
Cucamonga Subarea Specific Plan 93-01, General
Plan Amendment 93-02A, and Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment 93-03 for the
redevelopment of 380 acres of land that would
include recreational, commercial, and retail
facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course,
bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east
by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. &
S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by
Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street. (Continued
from January 26, 1994)
Director's Reports
Ce
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A plan
for the development of 380 acres of land that
would include recreational, commercial, and
retail facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf
course, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on
the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by
the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on
the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street.
Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Commission. Items to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
agenda.
Commission Business
&djour-ment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment
time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be
heard only with the consent of the Commission.
VICINITY MAP
~r CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 23, 1994
Chairman and Members of the Planning Conm%ission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 79-01 - UNOCAL - A request
to modify the color scheme for a gas station within the Rancho Town
shopping center, in the Community Co~ercial District (Subarea 2)
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9082 Foothill
Boulevard - APN: 208-101-17 through 20, 49, and 50.
BACKGROUND: At the meeting on January 12, 1994, the Commission reviewed
Unocal's request to change the color scheme to a two-tone grey with an orange
stripe. The Commission directed the applicant to work with staff in choosing
a color scheme that would blend in as well as provide for compatibility to the
rest of the center's colors. The Co~ission then closed the public hearing
and directed staff to bring the item back for their consideration as a Consent
Calendar item once the color issue is resolved.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to contact the property owners of
the shopping center and find out whether they have any plans or would be
interested in repainting the center. Lewis Homes owns all the in-line retail
buildings except for Standard Brands, the former Gemco building, and the
Kragen Auto store building.
Staff contacted representatives from Lewis Homes and Target. Mark Johnston of
Target explained that the company has 13 more years left on the lease of the
building and currently there are no plans to repaint or modify the building's
exterior. They are, however, in the process of doing tenant improvements on
half of the space (54,000 square feet) for a Target discount store. The
remaining half of the building (50,000 square feet) is being used as a
building maintenance service center for all the Target stores in the western
region. According to Rick Mager of Lewis Homes, they would be interested in
repainting the center if new retail businesses go into the old Gemco building
and they propose repainting that building.
Until the center is renovated with the new colors, the applicant has proposed
repainting the Unocal orange stripe and the dark grey color to the light
grey. Staff found that the one color grey for the gas station would blend
with the center.
Staff believes that the opening of a Target discount store could be the
catalyst for a renewal in the center and the increase in retail activities
could lead to an update of the center.
ITEM A
PLANNING CO~4ISSlON STAFF REPORT
CUP 79-01 - UNOCAL
February 23, 1994
Page 2
RECO~24ENDATION: Staff reco~ends that the Planning Co~m~ission approve the
modification to the Conditional Use Permit through the adoption of the
attached Resolution.
Respe~lly s~te~
Cit.~/Planner
BB: NF/j fs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Draft Planning Co~ission Minutes dated
January 12, ~994
Resolution of Approval
Commissioner McNlel asked if staff had any concerns regarding parking the
center is fully leased.
Mr. Hayes stated he did not foresee any parking problems later.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Raul ZendeJas, owner of the restaurant, stated he would
original request and extend his entertainment permit to
the hours by a couple of hours. He stated that he
who had instructed him to make his extension request ght.
to expand his
days and extend
with Mr. Hayes
Comnlissioner Lumpp stated he had been to the sit
extension would be fine; in fact, he had
asked for it initially.
felt that an expanded
why the applicant had not
Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Zendejas
wish. to extend his original request.
days and how many hours did he
Mr. Zendejae responded that
request to include Thursday,
P.M..
he wis~
to extend
and Saturday
his entertainment permit
from 5:00 P.M. to 11:00
Commissioner Melcher asked
the restaurant and bar usually closes.
Mr. Zendejas responded that
11:00 P.M..
restaurant closes at 10=00 P.M. and the bar at
Chairman Barker closed public hearing.
Commissioner
extension.
he did not have a problem with granting the
Commissioners
and Tolstoy concurred.
Motion:
take pla¢
11:00 P
by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve
Permit 93-05, with the modification that the entertainment will
)n Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, between the hours of 5:00 and
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 79-01 - UNOCAL - A request to
modify the color scheme for a gas station within the Rancho Town shopping
center, in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9082 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 208-101-17 through 20, 49, and 50.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRA
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ON .¥
- 3 -
January 12, 1994
A letter from the applicant's attorney, Mr. Howard Stilldoff, was received and
filed.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner presented the staff report.
Commissioner McNiel asked if additional lighting had been placed at the
station.
Me. Fong responded affirmatively and stated that the applicant had brought the
lighting down to the fascia of the canopy and that lighting is no longer an
issue.
Com~lssioner McNiel stated he had heard that the old Gemco building may be in
use and aeked for verification on that.
Ms. Fong responded that staff had received tenant improvement plans for
approximately one-half of the building for a discount store (owned by Target)
called 'Smart.#
Chairman Barker asked if Commissioner Melcher had any questions to bring up
since he was on the Design Review Committee.
Co~miseioner Melcher stated that the staff report was an accurate accounting
of what took place at Design Review. He stated that some options had been
discussed, but in a general context.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Howard Stilldoff, counsel for Unocal, 1810 State Street, San Diego, stated
he would be passing out a copy of the letter they sent out, a copy of the
petition that was signed by 65 customers, and a diagram of a color board from
Unocal. He co~ented that the grey color the station has been painted is so
light that you can't even see it on the diagram. He stated the colors that
they feel have been found objectionable are the dark grey color (at the base
of the building) and the orange stripe (at the top of the building). He
stated they were willing to repaint the canopy part, which includes the
stripe, with the light grey color. He further stated that, if the Commission
wants the bottom portion repainted, the applicant would prefer to make it a
light color. He co~aented that they would be very opposed to repainting it a
dark chocolate color. He said the center has had security problems in the
past so the applicant would prefer to keep the color light. He stated it is
their desire to cooperate with the City and that they would prefer not having
to come back to resolve this issue, if possible.
Mr. Austin Shin, 1899 Palomino, Upland, station dealer, etated that he was
glad that there will be activity in the center because it has been empty for
several years. He also stated that he had three customers robbed at his
station between 7 and 11=00 p.m. during the past two years. However, since
the station was painted with the new colors, customers and other tenants in
the center have told him they feel safer. He stated he would like to keep the
colors the same because he needs all the help he can get Just to stay in
business these days.
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
January 12, 1994
Coa~lssioner Lumpp asked Mr. Shin if he understood him correctly that people
had been robbed as a result of the earthtone colors and that the new colors
will increase his business.
Mr. Shin responded that there have been no robberies since repainting the
building and that people have told him they feel safer with the new color. He
co~ented that he has installed new lighting which makes the color stand
out. He said if people feel safer at night, he will not be losing customerB,
especially since he is open 24 hours and the rest of the center closes at
7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if he felt the new colors would increase his
business.
Mr. Shin responded that he sure hoped so.
Commissioner Lumpp asked Mr. Shin if he has actually had an increase in
business since repainting.
Mr. Shin responded that he had initially seen an increase, but business had
decreased some in the last month.
Chairman Barker asked if the new lighting was installed at the same time the
station was repainted.
Mr. Shin responded affirmatively.
Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Co~missioner Tolstoy stated he was strongly opposed to changing the
Commission's current policy regarding uniform color schemes for shopping
centers because it makes the centers more attractive. He suggested that they
paint the station to match the light-colored stucco finish in the shopping
cen=er and eliminate the orange stripe.
Chairman Barker asked staff if the owners of the center had any plans to
repaint the center.
Ms. Fong replied that there are currently no plans to change the color of the
cen~er.
Chairman Barker asked if the owners had been contacted.
Ms. Fong stated that they had not heard anything from Lewis Homes regarding
desire to change the color scheme at the center.
commissioner McNiel asked if staff could contact Lewis Homes and see if they
were considering modernizing the center with a lighter color~ if not, he
stated he agreed with Co~missioner Tolstoy that the building should be painted
to match the light stucco in the center. He commented that he did not feel
that color was an issue where personal safety is concerned.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 -
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
January 12, 1994
Commissioner Melcher commented, the orange stripe could be repainted, but he
did not want to ask the owner to repaint the whole building again~ he felt
that would be an undue burden for the owner.
Com~issioner Lumpp asked if Commissioner Melcher thought the Commission should
change its policy.
Comm~iasionar Melcher replied that he thought the policy should be examined.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher that repainting the whole
building would be an undue burden for the owner, but suggested that the
decrease in robberies was more likely due to the additional lighting rather
than the color of the building. He stated that the lights facing Foothill
should be turned downward so as not to impair the vision of motorists. He
suggested, in regard to the building's colors, leaving the light color as is,
removing the orange stripe, and repainting the grey-tone on the bottom of the
building to a light tan color to match the center. He suggested a second
option of leaving the light grey/white color as is, painting the two mullions
along the fascia the same color as the stucco color of the center, painting
the bottom portion in the same tan color of the shopping center, and removing
the orange stripe.
Chairman Barker stated he preferred that no action be taken until the
Commission finds out if the owner is planning to repaint the center. He
suggested that some type of shutter could be installed on the lights to
maintain security in the area as well aa preventing the lights from shining
into motorists' eyes. He stated he also felt it was important to maintain a
color scheme within the center and he thought Commissioner Lumpp had some
workable suggestions along those lines.
Chairman Barker asked the applicant if he was in agreement with a continuance
on the project.
Mr. Stilldoff asked if the Commission wanted the applicant to come up with new
color boards, submit them to staff, and come back before the Commission.
Chairman Barker responded affirmatively.
Mr. St£11dorf stated that would be acceptable. He stated they would also
correct the l£ght£ng problem.
Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Mot£on: Moved by McNlel, seconded by Tolstoy, approved 5-0, to bring back
Cond£tional Use Permit 79-01 as a consent calendar item with a resolution
modifying the colors to staff's satisfaction for upon the conclusion of
discussions w£th Lewis Homes. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOBSt
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERSt
COMMISSIONERSt
COMMISSIONERS~
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
Plann£ng Co~mission Minutes - 6 -
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
January 12, 1994
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-01, TO MODIFY THE COLOR
S~4EM~ FOR A GAS STATION WITHIN THE RANCHO TOWN SHOPPING
~ENTER, LOCATED AT 9082 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 208-101-17 THROUGH 20, 49 AND 50.
A. Recitals.
1. Unocal has filed an application for a Modification to Conditional
Use Permit NO. 79-01 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit
Modification request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of January 1994, the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following the conclusion
of that hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application under the
Consent Calendar portion of the agenda at the meeting on February 23, 1994.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho ~ucamonga as followsc
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
during the above-referenced public hearing on January 12,
written and oral staff reports, together with public
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
this Commission
1994, including
testimony, this
a. The application applies to property located at 9082 Foothill
Boulevard with a street frontage of over 800 feet and lot depth of 800 feet
and is presently improved with a gas station and shopping center; and
b. The property to the north consists of single family homes and
the properties to the south, east, and west are commercial; and
c. Unocal has repainted the gas station, without proper review
and approval, with a color scheme different from the colors approved for the
shopping center; and
d. Under Planning Commission Resolution No. 80-04, a Condition
of Approval for the shopping center requires that the site be developed
according to the approved plans on file at the City Hall which include
elevations that show the color scheme.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
MOP TO CUP 79-01 - UNOCAL
February 23, 1994
Page 2
e. At the public hearing, the applicant agreed to repaint the
gas station with a color scheme that provides compatibility with the center.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Conditions of Approval
as contained in Resolution No. 80-04.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
the :following conditions=
PlanninQ Division
1)
The approved color is light grey. The repainting
of the gas station shall be completed within 30
calendar days from the date of approval of this
resolution. The applicant shall contact the
Planning Division for an inspection upon
completion of the repainting.
The site shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with the approved plans which include
site plana, architectural elevations, exterior
materials and colors, landscaping, sign program,
and grading on file in the Planning Division, the
conditions as contained in Resolution No. 89-04,
and the Development Code regulations.
$. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST=
Brad Bullet, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
MOD TO CUP 79-01 - UNOCAL
February 23, 1994
Page 3
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, paesed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Con~ission held
on the 23rd day of February 1994, by the following vote-to-wit=
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES= COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
February 23, 1994
Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~m%ission
STAFF REPORT
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - GENEP4tL DYNAMICS - A
public hearing on a Draft Subsequent EIR for ~he General Dynamics
Rancho Cucamonga Subarea Specific Plan 93-01, General Plan
Amendment 93-02A, and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 93-03
for the redevelopment of 380 acres of land that would include
recreational, commercial, and retail facilities surrounding an
18-hole golf course, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the
east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F.
(Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica
Street.
BACkgROUND: This item was continued from the meeting on January 26, 1994, in
order to provide an opportunity for public review of the Draft EIR and testimony
concerning same. At the time this report was written, the City had received two
written comments on the DEIR (see Exhibits "A & B"). Attached is the staff
report from January 26, 1994.
The 45-day public review period will close March 11, 1994. Following the close
of the public review period, written responses to public comment~ will be
prepared and included in the Final EIR. The Planning Comm%ssion's final review
of the Draft ~IR is anticipated on April 27, 1994.
Commiss2Lon recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council. Prior to
approving the General Dynamics Subarea 18 Specific Plan and related amendments,
the City Council must adopt findings and certify the Final EIR.
COmmu it~elopment Director
RS:DC/ fs
Attachment:
Exhibit "A" - California Integrated Waste Management Board Comments
Exhibit "B# - South Coast Air Quality Manaqement District Comments
Exhibit "C" - Staff Report dated January 26, 1994
ITEM B
State of California California Environmental Protection Agency
Memorandum
To :
Marl Lemos
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacr~-mento, CA 95814
D~m Coleman
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
January 28, 1994
-- RI¢SI¥iD --
CITY ~ I~AI~CI.I~ ~UGAMONGA
~i. ANNINO
an F[~ 0719~4 m
From
~ ~' ~ lVhnagement Specialist
o~ane, -~s~ciate W~'te
Environmental Review Section
Pe,-.itting and l:-nforcement Division
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Subject:
SCH # 93102055 - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Rancho Cucamonp IASP Sub-Are~ lB Specific Plan, San Bernardino
County.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff have reviewed the
D~-IR for the proposed project cited above. In consideration of the California
Enviro-,~,.ntal Quality Act (CEQA), ._e,~__,_'on 15:205(c) CIWMB staff wOl focus the
followins co,,,,,,ents on specific issues involvin~ v-_ste leneration and disposal.
In order to help decision-makers 1) identify potential impam from
construction/demolition pro'_lect___% 2) determl-e whether any such impacts ~re
significant, aad 3) ascertain whether significaat imp'am can be mitipted to a level of
insignificance, CIWMB raft request that the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FI:IR) include the following i-;ormation:
A.)
Identification of the final disposal rite(s) for the proposed project's
anticipated waste generation, both durl-.~ construction phases and
after project implementation, including, potential alternative methods
for disposal (i.e. shmidiug of wood for hog rue J, compostins of rood
waste for ben~c/al r~use, ~ .m.~a,,~nt of dud~e to land,
etc.).
ldentific~on of the ~nzieit~ed types of ~olid wute (i~. wood
concre~ meal, municilxl solid ~rute, ~c~) and es~x~ ci~ndties
o~ solid ~,ut~s to b, d~po,~L; both durlns cor~mc~ion pl~ues
project completion, including ~klition~! slud~ from the wastewater
treatment plant servicing the project, and miti~atlon(s) in the event
that some of the waste ~.net~ted by the project are determined to be
haz. udous.
c.)
Identification of the potenti.! impacts of these quantities on the
permim~l ever~ ~nd t~k daily tonn~es of the intended dispo~
site(s). JJ:tclud~ tile c~lc~lat~l ~ ~pon the l~ld~l:d]'s r~nqj~in$
cap~city and ~toci~l site4i~e if quanti~ies a~ detertalced to be
sit~iflcant.
o.)
ldenr. ff7 any pa~ or present areas c~ permitt~ or unpermi~ed
I..ttfi,t~$ and/or dumpin~ ~t tb~ proposed project's site 1ocar. ion md
how these areas will be r.~e,!;~/ 'uudSr,~
'D~e~opments of ~ew comm~rcizl complex., light industri~ facilities ~xl recre~ion~l
develop,~nu increase the amount of w~e b,i..- sero to landgls. To mi-im;,. rJ~e
~nuunt o£ solid w~e ~oin~ imo lancffRls, recyclin$ and reduction efforts should be
mcorporated into the Ciry's and/or Coun~'s Solid/Inrq~ated Wa~e lVl~na~ement Plans.
This will help to preserve ~he fini~ land~ space within the waste management
jurisdiction, u wet~ u ~ help achieve the manda~ of d~e Csliforni~ Inr--.l~ed Wute
Man~ement Act (AB 939) of 19~. ~ staff su~st that dee fo!!owln~ measures be
incorporated into the projoct by tl~ project propouem I~ ]~.Ip to at~ieve these manc~es:
A.)
lmnlemen~ion of ~ recyclinK proKram at the proposed construction site
co~,nercial/indmtrial developmen~ cornplats.
B.)
Provldc informat. ion to ;-,-,',~;,,: !~J.n~ ~ h..dustt'~l £~ili~s about the
recycli~.- services in the project area (i,e. office paper pick-up, cndbo~rd
pick-up, e~:.). theI~ buy.b~ck/recydiz~ centers ~nd possible m~rkets for
recy~lables in ~tfonn construction workers and future r~mnts of
the need to recycle aluminum, gJa~, metal, paper, ca. rdbozrd, plastic, tin c~ns,
·nd other mst~ri-!- ~o the maximum extent fmiblc.
c.)
D.)
Utilize produrn (i.e. imulztion) ~ ~m re~c~d materSt, ~n
construction of project structures.
Include recycle .~m~ ar~s into the d~i~n of th,, proj~t's xrucrures (i.c.
interior ~nd exterior stor~e _re~__ptacles ~or recyclable n~.erials).
Mr. Coleman Page 3 0~2g~94
Develop a cornposting program at the site and golf course to recycle grass
clippings and greenwage from the development's landscapes to be used as
soil amendments and mulches for landscape maintenance and water
conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. CIWMB staff ask
that you keep the Board apprised of solid waste generation, disposal, and source
reduction/recycling issues associated with the planned development.
For assistance with local planning issues concerning compliance with AB 939 requirements,
please contact Judith Friedman at (916) 255-2302 of the CIWMB's Office of Local
Assistance; or if you have any questions regara;ng these comments or would llke additional
assistance from CIWMB staff, please contact me at (916) 255-2654.
South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Dan Coleman
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000
~ ~ RECEIVED
ITy OF RANCHO CUCAM(:}NGA
~LANN~NO DIW~ON
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91'729
February 7, 1994
all FEB ! 4 lSS4 m
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Ri~: Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sui~Area 18 Specific Plan
SCAQMD# SBC940127-01
Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time.
SGAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in
the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the inf~)rmation in the
Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your
project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in
evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects.
The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluateprojects of a regional nature.
We are available to answer any questions you may have regarding the use of the CEQA
Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - CEQA section at (909)
396-3109 for assistance.
CAD:Ii
Sincerely,
Program Supervisor
Planning & Technology Advancement
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
January 26, 1994
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMenTAL IMPACT REPORT - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A
public hearing on a Draft Subsequent EIR for the General Dynamics
Rancho Cucamonga Subarea Specific Plan 93-01, General Plan
Amendment 93-02A, and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 93-03
for the redevelopment of 380 acres of land that would include
recreational, commercial, and retail facilities surrounding an
18-hole golf course, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the
east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F.
(Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica
Street.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of tonight's public hearing is to receive public comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Re~ort (DEIR). No action is needed.
BACKGROUND: On October 6, 1993, the City Council approved a M-~randum of
Understanding (M~J) regarding the development and processing of plans for the
General Dynamics property. The MfN3 set forth the intent of the City and General
Dynamics to process a specific plan and related amendments; defined the various
type of applications and environmental documents! and established a processing
schedule and working relationship between the applicant, the City, and the
Redevelopment Agency.
The M~J established the scopu of this DEIR based u~on the concept plan contained
in the NOU for developing the site. Under the terms of the MO~, the DEIR was
prepared by the applicant's consultants subject to the City's independent review
and analysis. Copies of the DEIR have been provided under separate cover.
THE P~)JECT: The pro~ed project is a Specific Plan for the ~evelopment of 380
acres owned by C~neral Dynamics and formerly occupied by its Air Defense Systems
Division. As proposed, the Specific Plan would provi4e for the establishment of
a broader mixture of uses than currently permitted under the City's existing
Industrial Area S~ecific Plan. The plan envisions a mixed-use project that may
include such uses as recreational, entertainment, hotel/conference center,
retail, restaurant, office, research and ~evelo~aent, and light industrial (see
Exhibit 3-3 in the DEIR). These uses would surround an 18-hole championship
public golf course, clubhouse, and golf training facility that would comprise
nearly 40 percent of the project site. The plan would provide for the adaptive
commercial and industrial reuse of the three existing buil~ings on-site. The
plan also provides for the Clty's Metrolink station at the northeast corner of
the site.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - GENERAL DYNAMICS
January 26, 1994
Page 2
The Specific Plan, related amendments, and various permits to be issued by the
City, are considered as the "project" as defined by the California Environmental
Qh/ality Act (CEQA).
THE EIR PRDCESS: Under CEQA, the City, as the lead agency, is responsible to
cause the preparation of an EIR. With the adoption of the MO~, a decision was
made ~:o prepare an EIR and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent to other
agencies on October 15, 1993. The NOP i~,ediately triggered a series of meetings
with these agencies, conducted by staff and the applicant, to obtain their input
on the content of the EIR. The written co---ents of these agencies are included
in Appendix A of the EIR.
A screencheck DEIR was submitted to City staff for review and co---ent on December
14, 1993. Staff forwarded comments back to the applicant on December 29, 1993.
Staff met with the applicant and consultants on January 4, 1994, to review our
comments. Staff's comments were minor in nature and did not require major
revisions to the DEIR.
A Notice of Completion for the DEIR was filed on January 21, 1994, wi~h the
public release of the document and transmittal of copies of the D~IR to other
agencies and the local branch library. This began a 45-day period for the public
to review and co~-ent on the DEIR which will close o~ March 7, 1994. Tonight's
public hearing is being held to provide an opport~nity for public comment on the
DEIR. Comments on the DEIR may be both in written form and oral testimony at
tonight's hearing. During the public review period, we will concurrently be
conducting Planning Co-~{ssion workshops on the Draft Specific Plan.
Following the close of the public review period, written responses will be
prepared on any environmental issue comments received fr~ persons or agencies
who reviewed the DEIR. The response to co~ents may take the form of a revision
to the OEIR or included as a separate section in the Final EIR. The response to
comments will be su]x~itted to the Planning Co~mutssion on April 7, 1994. The
final Commissio~ hearing on the Draft ~pecific Plan and General Plan and
Industrial Area Specific Plan Am~n4ments, together with the final action on the
DEIR is anticipated on April 27, 1994.
The Planning Cc~m4ssion recommen~ations will be forwarded to the City Council.
The City Council is the final approval bo~y for the Specific Plan and related
amendments, and must certify the EIR as adequate. Prior to approving the General
Dy~Am{cs Substem 18 Specific Plan and related Amendments, the City must adopt
findings and ~ertify the final EIR. Following project approval, the City will
file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
ANALYSIS: This DEIR has been prepare~ in conformance with CEQAand is intended
to inform decision-m~kers and the public generally of the significant
enviro~ental effect of this project. In addition, the DEIR identifies possible
ways to minimize (i.e., "mitigate") the significant effects and describes
reasonable alternatives to the project.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR- GENERAL DYNAMICS
January 26, 1994
Page 13
For a s,,-~ary of the findings of the DEIR, please refer to the section starting
on Page 2-1. Briefly, the significant environmental effects identified by the
DEIR, and associated mitigation measures, are in the areas of land use planning,
traffic and circulation, air q~ality, and water quality.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTSt The DEIR provides a description of the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, as well as mitigation
measures to reduce the environmental impacts as much as possible. The DEIR
identifies two impacts that would not be reduced to a level of less than
significant after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The two
significant unavoidable impacts include the long-term loss of agricultural land
on the project site and the short-term impact on air quality d~ring construction.
The loss of approximately 305 acres of producing vineyards would also occur under
the existing Industrial Area Specific Plan land ~se designations. Since the
project includes a ]55-acre golf course, the potential exists for conversion back
to agricultural use, which would not be possible under the current ISP.
Therefore, development of the proposed project is oonsidered to have a lesser
significant and unavoidable impact.
During construction of the project, a measurable increase in airborne dust will
occur. This "fugitive dust' would be reduced by im~le~enting the meamurss
required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District; however, the level
of dust would still be significant for the duration of grading and excavation
activity. The dust problem would also occur under the existing ISP.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: The City Council must balance the
benefits of this proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project. ~f the benefits outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, these effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA
requires the City to a~opt a written statement of its views that the significant
unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable due to the overriding concerns. The
statement would be include4 in the project approval resolution for City Council.
ALTERNATIVES: The CEQA Ghlidelines require the SIR to analyze a reasonable range
of alternatives that could feasibly attain the objectives of the project.
"Feasible' means ca~able of being successfully accomplished in s reasonable time
frame, and taking into consideration economic, environmental, social, and
technological £ac~ors. The SIR must focus on those alternatives which could
eliminate or reduce sig~ificant environmental impacts, including a no-project
alternative.
Of the three alternatives analyzed, in a~ition to the two no-project
alteznatives addressed, nons were found to meet the project objectives as defined
by t~e M~J. Under the residential alternative, the project sits was analyzed as
if it were to be developed with 2,560 residential units surrounding the golf
course and 1.6 million square feet of c~srcial and industrial uses. This
alternative was found to result in fewer impacts in s~e areas, yet greater
impacts in others. There arm no other large ~racts of undeveloped land available
which meet the project criteria.
PLANNING CO~ISSION STAFF ~EPORT
EIR - GENERAL DYNAMICS
January 26, 1994
Page 4
MITIGATION MO!IITOP~NG P~OGRAM: State law requires the City to adopt a monitoring
program for the changes to the project which are required or mitigation measures
which are adopted. Essentially this is a reporting program ~esigned to ensure
compliance during project im~lementation. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (~P)
for the Subarea 18 Specific Plan will be a~opted by City Council as ~art of the
project approval findings. The MMP will be in place through all phases of the
project, from initial ~esign through construction and o~eration.
The MMP identifies each adopted measure or required changes in the project design
which mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. For each mitigation,
the MMP lists who is responsible for implementing (i.e., developer or City)~ when
the mitigation is implemented (i.e., ~esign, plan check, construction, etc.)~ and
who is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the mitigation. The ~P also
establishes the reporting format and is intended to provide a means for ~ecision
makers to gauge the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the DEIR has been prepared in accordance with
CEQA and State gui~elines and supports the a~equacy of the DEIR.
RECOmmENDATION: Staff reckends that the Planning Co~aission conduct a public
hearin~to receive ~ublic comments on the DEIR.
Cleounit ~h4~ lop~ent Director
~:~x:/:~fs . _
~ttachments: ~aft ~v~o~ental ~ ~ort Processing S~edule
DATE:
FROM=
BY=
SUBJECT=
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 23, 1994
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - A plan for the development
of 380 acres of land that would include recreational, commercial,
and retail facilities surrounding an 18-hole golf course, bounded
on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the
north by the A. T. S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by
Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street.
SUMMARy: The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan is the result of the cooperative
efforts of the applicant and City to facilitate development of a multi-use
project oriented around an 18-hole golf course. This is a first in a series
of workshops concerning the Draft Specific Plan and will focus on two key
policy areas of the Draft Specific Plan: land use flexibility and regulatory
procedures. The next workshop scheduled for March 23, 1994, will address
design issues, standards, and infrastructure phasing. The final Commission
hearing is anticipated on April 27, 1994.
Staff supports the proposed land use changes for the golf course as a catalyst
for development of the surrounding planning areas. The 18-hole championship
course is the cornerstone amenity for the project. The large open space of
the course defines the basic shape of the individual planning areas and
provides opportunity for complementary adjoining uses, such as a
hotel/conference facility. The ISP currently allows recreation facilities,
including golf courses, as a permitted or conditionally permitted use on the
General Dynamics project site. The Draft Specific Plan proposes that the
course and related facilities (i.e., clubhouse, driving range, training
facility) be permitted uses.
BACKGROUND: As a planning tool, the Specific Plan is intended to implement
the goals and objectives of the General Plan and to facilitate development by
permitting greater flexibility and encouraging more creative and imaginative
designs for major urban development projects subject to large-scale community
planning. The Specific Plan process is also intended to attain physical,
social, and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly
planned use of land resources, and provide for a harmonious balance of
commercial and industrial activities, provide a high level of urban
amenities. The proposed Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan is consistent with these
objectives.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF R~PORT
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS
February 23, 1994
Page 2
The Specific Plan proposes a multi-use development composed of 11 interrelated
planning areas organized around a central golf course amenity. Distinguishing
elements of the concept plan include an 18-hole championship golf course with
clubhouse and related golf training facilities; a hotel/conference facility;
possibly a family-oriented recreation/retail/entertainment facility; a mixed-
use commercial center; and a Metrolink station (see figure 4-3). The planning
areas range in size from 16 acres up to 28 acres. Approximately 75 acres of
the site are fully developed with three industrial/office buildings with
unique adaptive reuse potential.
Upon completion of the review of the Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact
Report, and related amendments by the Planning Commission, a public hearing
will be held before the City Council, probably in early June. Once approved
by the Council, including the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the Draft
Enviro~unental Impact Report is certified, specific development proposals may
be considered. Conceptual designs are already underway on the golf course,
which is the first phase of development. It is anticipated that the golf
course will be submitted for review prior to adoption of the Specific Plan and
be processed concurrently.
ANALYSIS: The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan document has been prepared in the
same format as the current Industrial Specific Plan (ISP) wherever possible to
simplify administration. Therefore, the basic organization of the document,
and its specific provisions, are based upon the ISP. This report will focus
on those areas where the proposed Specific Plan differs in terms of policy or
standard.
Topic NO. 1. Land Use Flexibilitv/Retail Development (Section 5.2~ -
The key to the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan is flexibility in land
use. The Plan proposes a wide range of land use options for all
planning areas (see Table 5-1). This flexibility is necessary
because the market is unknown and constantly changing as new uses are
created. The Plan proposes that retail/commercial, office,
recreation, and entertainment uses be allowed within all planning
areas, except for the golf course parcels. The Plan encourages
mixed-use development projects which utilize the land use flexibility
to combine two or more compatible uses into an integrated project.
The Plan recognizes that an individual planning area may be more
suitable for one type of land use than another because of its
location, size and shape, yet still allows latitude in whether a
parcel is developed as commercial, office, industrial, etc. The
Draft Specific Plan references a mix of uses and estimates buildouts
in the various land use categories, but relies on the market to reach
those absorption levels. This flexibility is intentional in the
Plan. Another key component of the Draft Specific Plan is the
expansion of retail uses. One of the project objectives in the
Memorandum of Understanding adopted by City Council is the desire to
maximize the project site's key location "by promoting a more
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS
February 23, 1994
Page 3
marketable commercial focus and enhancing the potential to create
jobs and revenue." Currently the ISP only allows for those retail
uses, such as office supply stores, which support the primary
business function of the industrial area.
To establish a commercial focus, the Draft Specific Plan proposes
three new commercial land use categories: Mixed-Use Commercial (page
5-10), Retail-General (page 5-12), and Retail-Home Improvement
Related (page 5-13). The Mixed-Use Commercial category encourages
combining two or more types of compatible uses, such as retail,
office, and restaurant, into a single, integrated development. The
Retail-General category would allow a variety of uses the City
currently considers as "general commercial", such as clothing stores,
drug stores, shoe stores, sporting goods stores, etc. The Draft
Specific Plan proposes that these uses would only be allowed within a
Mixed-Use Commercial center.
According to the Fiscal Impact Report in the Draft Specific Plan
(Appendix A), approximately one-fourth of the total square footage at
buildout in Sub-Area 18 would be retail land use (37 percent would be
office use, and 18 percent would be business park'use). Retail is
assumed to occupy all or part of five of the nine non-golf related
planning areas. Staff agrees with the Fiscal Impact Report
conclusion that the proposed Draft Specific Plan will have a positive
economic impact primarily because of the retail component. Retail
accounts for 71 percent of the estimated total annual revenues for
Sub-Area 18. A market study was not included to address the retail
market absorption potential for the area.
Recommendation: Develop a process within the Specific Plan that
allows the desired land use flexibility but ensures through the
Master Plan process, a proper balance and mixture of land uses and
conceptual design development patterns within each planning area.
The Planning Commission's review and approval of these Master Plans
at this early stage will guide and support the proposed staff
development/design review of specific projects. This does streamline
the process for any future project submittals within this Specific
Plan.
ToPic No 2. Review Process (Section 6.2) - The Draft Specific Plan
proposes some changes in policy regarding the review process for
subdivisions and development projects. These changes are intended to
streamline the process and provide flexibility for the developer. As
a result of discussions with the applicant, a revised proposal is
outlined in the attached Exhibit "B". The policy changes are
discussed below:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS
February 23, 1994
Page 4
ToPic No. 3. Master Plans - The applicant proposes that master plans
would not be required to subdivide a planning area. A developer
could volunteer to submit a master plan in conjunction with a
subdivision. If the master plan is approved by the Planning
Commission, no further review by the Commission or Design Review
Con~aittee would occur.
The Planning Commission policy has been to require master plans to
facilitate coordinated development. For subdivisions, the Commission
has relied upon simplified master plans which indicate conceptual
site plan layout of building footprints, parking, access, and
circulation. An example would be the recently approved Olive Garden
parcel map. Where structures are proposed, the Commission has
required master plans to also contain detailed design guidelines,
such as the Bixby Business Park.
Recommendation: Staff's preference is for a simplified master plan
to be required at the time of first development application or
subdivision within a planning area. Staff also recommends continuing
to require detailed design guidelines as part of a master plan where
structures are proposed.
ToDic No. 4. Development/Design Review Review by Design Review
Committee would occur only if the Planning Commission is the approval
body, such as for master plans or Conditional Use Permits. Currently
all projects along a special boulevard (i.e., Milliken, 4th and 6th)
require DRC review and Planning Commission final action. The
applicant is also proposing to establish a 60-day time period for
processing. Currently the Development Code has no time periods and
simply relies on California statute which mandates final action
within six months of completed application. Staff believes that
delegation of approval to staff will adequately shorten the review
process.
Recommendation: Staff supports the concept provided that the master
plan contains detailed design guidelines. Staff recommends no
changes regarding time periods for processing.
ToDic No. 5. Minor Development Review - Under the Development Code,
projects of limited size, generally 10,000 square feet cr less, are
subject to a streamlined process known as Minor Development Review.
The applicant proposes no Design Review Committee or Technical Review
Committee; which is typical of most MDR's. The Plan also would
require final action within 15 days of completed application.
Recommendation: Staff supports this change.
ToDic No. 6. Environmental Clearance - Current practice is for
environmental clearance (i.e., issuance of Negative Declaration) by
Planning Commission in all cases. For projects which do not require
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SPECIFIC PLA~. 93-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS
February 23, 1994
Page 5
Commission review, the environmental clearance has been considered
routine and non-controversial; therefore, it has been placed on the
consent calendar. California law requires a minimum of a 21-day
notice prior to environmental clearance.
Recommendation: Staff supports this change.
Ris¢¢1111~tted' ~ .
~o~n i~Deve lopment Direct or
/RG: DC~: sp .
IAttachments: Exhibit "A" - Comparison of Regulatory Procedures
1. M~ater Plan
2. Subdivision
Current Procedures
Required &e condO=ion
&11 mubclivimione
Dovel~.~ent/Doeign Review
required ~y Pls--tng
C.--L-tlmeion if no Liter
Application requires
building footprint,
mt&tmnent of architectural
intent, &ccelm points,
parking
~olf Corerroe mubtiviei=
would require ~olf =ourem-
Otion=if ted in final BIG
Joint pro=seeing of Phase
Z ml~ IndSpecific pl&n
e~title~ente permitted
Joint processing of Maeter
Pl&n, lulx$ivilion, and
Dev~lc~mmnt/Deeign PJview
~Sdreoe pomeible overlap
o£ review p~ce4urem
S or nmre p~rcel
mubdivilion governed by
C~m~ore XG.lG and 16.18
of Sub~tvieioG
& or loam p&rcel
euM~Avieione governed by
Chl~tore 16.20 and 16.22
Pormi= Stre~mlining Act
and Subdivision Ml~ ~=
p~i~ for 30 ~ review
peri~ for ac~i~ ~
~=i~ of Nega=i~
Declara=i~/Cs~fica=i~
of EIR
Pruce~uvel Proposed
NoC required as condition
to subdivision; required
in order co avoid PlAn-trig
Devuloi~nonc/Deeign review
S~
S~
Sm
Joint
persicced, buc
specifically co~c-~.. latll
ono~t~acio~
Development Director
[6.2C.2 (d) ]
Slml, e3c~l~C for PhiBe I
(eee nt~)
Se~le
Devel~kM4nc/
Deeign ~evie~
Procedures Proposed
Planning C~ielin- review
only if ~ecer Plan noc
approved.
Pro~eccl requiring D/D
Review decermined ~
Sl?.OG.010B of DevelopBent
Code
Aur. h~ri~ and findings per Same
SX'7.06
~nv~ro~Bencal clearance by
~nvir~em~nCal clearance
· lCilion -lAncer;
acknowledgee Program gI~.
Rev,.t1/ by hli~ Review, Review ~ Design Review
~rad/ng, ana Te~i~l C.'-L~] ~cee ~ if PlYrig
c ......~ CCoe ~ for
De~i~C pm~e~l.
De~X~C C~ ~l ~C
w~e -~C~IiCil 30
M/rim= Developlinc Review
~Acluanc Co S17.06.020; no
~l~lel/ I~d £i~al actarm
within 1S ~a~l of
c,-~. leCe~ a~licacion.
~h:~vez-ned by Ix?. o4
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY PROCESS
Master Plans. Would not be required as a condition to
subdividing the property; however, if a particular
Planning Area were subdivided after the initial
Reparcelization (see discussion below) and a Master Plan
is not approved by the Planning Co~L~Lission concurrently
with such subdivision, each Development/Design Review
project within such Planning Area would require Planning
Co~m%%ission approval. While we believe that the
prospects of multiple Planning Co~%m~ission
Development/Design Review would provide a strong impetus
for the applicant to apply for Master Plan approval
concurrently with subdivision, because of uncertainties
in the current market, we cannot rule out the.
possibility that individual applicants would desire to
subdivide a portion of a Planning Area before they are
in a position to establish building footprints,
architectural themes, and specific access points for
each of the remainder parcels in the Planning Area. The
requirement that the Planning Co~=L~ission review
subsequent Development/Design projects within every
Planning Area for which a Master Plan has not previously
been approved ensures that the C~ission will be given
an opportunity to carefully review architectural and
design considerations before any development within the
Planning Area occurs.
2. Subdivision.
(a) Phase I Reparcelization. This would consist
of the Reparcelization of the project site (including
the Golf Course) to confoza~ to the Specific Plan Land
Use Map. Pursuant to Section 66426(c) of the
Subdivision Map Act, because this Reparcelization would
be done within the context of a co~,~,ercial/industrial
project and acceptable access to each of the designated
Planning Areas will be maintained, the Reparcelization
would be processed as a parcel map. Improvements and
improvement security for each of the Planning Areas
outside of the Golf Course (Planning Areas IA, IB and
III) (the "Non-Golf Course Parcels") would be deferred.
Improvements required to operate the Golf Course (but
only the Golf Course) would be identified in the final
Parcel Map. The Reparcelization would be processed
concurrently with the Specific Plan/Development
Agreement. After discussion with City Staff, we concur
that the Planning Cou=L~ission will be the approval body
and that waiver of a final map is unnecessary.
203870 [25757] I
15- FEB- 94 17:00:33
(b) Subsequent Subdivisions. Prior to development
of the Non-Golf Course Parcels, a new parcel map or
tentative map (depending upon the number of parcels)
must be submitted in accordance with existing City
Procedures, and appropriate improvements and improvement
security will need to be identified as a condition to
filing a final map. Subsequent s~hdivisions will be
processed within the time periods currently established
by the City, provided that the City will respond to any
resubmission of application materials within 10 days
instead of the 30 currently contemplated under the
Permit Streamlining Act. The 10-day turn-around on
resubmissions shall only apply after the initial 30-day
period has expired and shall not apply if required
drainage or soils reports are omitted from the initial
application submittal. Additionally, Specific Plan will
acknowledge use of the Program EIR for purposes of
focusing subsequent environmental review upon only those
significant environmental impacts which were not known
or could not reasonably have been known at the time the
Specific Plan was approved. In the event of joint
processing of Master Plan, Subdivision, and
Development/Design Review, C~%~nity Development
Director will ensure that duplication of applicant
submissions, review processees, meetings, and hearings
are avoided to the greatest extent practicable.
3. Development/Design Review (DDR).
The criteria for DDR, authority of decision maker,
required submissions, and findings will all be as
currently provided in the Development Code. All DDR
projects will be subject to City Planner approval,
except those in a Planning Area for which a Master Plan
has not previously been approved by the Planning
Co::~,~ission. The City Planner will no longer have
discretion to shift DDR to Planning Co~%%ission. In all
instances where Master Plan has previously been approved
by Planning Commission (i.e. where the City Planner is
the approving body) no Design Review Co~%~%%ittee review
will be required. The Development Code does not
currently describe the time periods for processing DDR,
and the current process schedule provided by City Staff
contemplates a 12-week process in which three weeks are
devoted to preliminary staff analysis and coz~ittee
reviews, and four weeks are devoted to final staff
review and report prior to Planning Co,~m%ission public
hearing. It is also our understanding that all
environmental documents go to the Planning Co~,~L~ission
for approval even if the City Planner would otherwise be
203870 [25757]
-2-
15-FEB-94 17:00:34
the decision maker on the DDR. We would propose to
streamline this process by combining the co~L~Ltittee and
staff reviews and requiring that this process be
completed within 45 days from application submittal.
Final action would be within 60 days from application
filing. Environmental clearance would be made by the
decision maker: i.e., the City Planner in all cases
where Master Plans have previously been approved.
4. Minor Development Review. Same as current
Development Code, except that no formal Co~Littee Review
will be required, environmental clearance will be by the
City Planner, and final action will be taken within 15
days of the date the application is deemed complete.
5. All other Permits. Same as currently provided in
Section 17.04 of the Development Code.
203870 [25757] i
-3-
15-FEB-94 17:00:35