Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/05/09 - Agenda Packet - PC J THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAY 9, 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell Fletcher_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca _ • II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 25, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 - CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES -A review of a proposal for 32 single-family residences of between about 2,600 and 3,300 square feet in conjunction with a previously approved 32-lot subdivision of 9.08 acres in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive - APN: 1100-191-05. Related file: Tentative Tract Map • 1 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY 9, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUBTT18096. On December 13, 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157, and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL • AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport- Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS • 2 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY 9, 2012 RANCHO CUCkMONGA VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 3, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. • INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda,you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. • 3of4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA zi MAY 9, 2012 RANCHO CUCkMONGA The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m.to 6'00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,216 for maps and $2,328 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at • www.CityofRC.us • 4 of 4 Vicinity Map •Planning Commission Meeting May 9 , 2012 B A --------------------------, - - - --------- - , - - ------- r..J a poC c j I L d G) C > i I 0. a 1 Cn j U I f R = O m 19th St c Base Liner /Base Church 1 1 Church Foothills E , Foothill c i R R � Arrow E R Arrow 1 i_ J rsey r i _ ; 1 8th __— . o _ ° ° • �c —16th m N 6th ' _ € dtY 1 w Q Z 2 3-I E �� ...+4th 4th .�. ..-.. �..-. .._.�..�. - _ -.� �. Item C: The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Meeting Location: Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) City Hall and Cooperative Agreement for 10500 Civic Center Drive establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Regular Meeting April 25, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:16 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner;Jim Markman, City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Jeffrey Bloom, Interim Planning Director ANNOUNCEMENTS • None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca abstain),to approve the minutes of April 11, 2012. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00868 - GONZALO MENDEZ-A request to convert an existing non-conforming residential site into an industrial use within the General Industrial (GI) District (Subarea 8) located at 13249 Arrow Route-APNs: 0229-171-15 &0229-171-16. This project is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (n) (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities) Conversion of a single-family residence to office use Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no comment, Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. • Vice Chairman Howdyshell said it is a straightforward request. Commissioner Wimberly said he has no issues with the request; it is an adaptive reuse and he is in favor or the project. Commissioner Fletcher said it is an appropriate use, it includes beneficial site improvements, and • the request is reasonable. Chairman Munoz concurred with the prior comments and he has no issues about the request. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Design Review DRC2010-00868. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER. HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENTAND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011- 00641- HOMESCAPE CUCAMONGA, LLC - Architecture and site plan review of a 94-unit, small lot multi-family residential subdivision on 11.7 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwellings per acre) located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-201-01, 21 and 44. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18817, Minor Development Review DRC2011-00892 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00891. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18817- HOMESCAPE CUCAMONGA, LLC - A request to create a 94-lot tentative tract map on 11.7 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwellings per acre) located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue-APN: 0207-201-01, 21 and 44. Related • files: Development Review DRC2011-00641, Pre-Application DRC2010-00530, Development Review DRC2004-00705 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17013. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT - DRC2011-00891 - HOMESCAPE CUCAMONGA, LLC - A request to remove 11 trees related to Development Review DRC2011-00641, a 94-unit small lot multi-family residential subdivision on 11.7 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwellings per acre)located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-201-01, 21 and 44. Related files: Development Review DRC2011-00641, Pre-application DRC2010-00530, Development Review DRC2004-00705 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18817, Minor Development Review DRC2011-00892. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. He noted there is a recreational easement that has been added because the original layout was for zero lot line product. He said this had to be created to satisfy an issue with Building and Safety. In response to Vice Chairman Howdyshell and Commissioner Fletcher, he explained that the walls facing open space easements between the structures often have a wall plane with no windows or very high windows which offer more architectural interest and yet provide more privacy between neighbors. He noted that Engineering standard conditions have been added and are before the Commissioners for their information and are now attached to the final resolutions being considered for adoption. Chairman Munoz asked how the neighbors are informed about the 6-foot easement and if the • Commission is being asked to make a decision regarding access. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 25, 2012 Mr. van der Zwaag said information about the easement will be clearly stated in the CCBRs. He added that the applicant has discussed the gate issue with the residents of Casa Volante and the • other property owner. He was uncertain if staff could add a condition regarding the issuing and managing of remote controls for the gate access. Jim Markman, City Attorney stated the management company for Casa Volante should manage this and not the developer as it is not the developer's issue. He said the City does not have jurisdiction to tell the residents what to do over time. He said the developers should install the system once (whether it be clickers or a key pad) and then leave it to the others to manage. Commissioner Fletcher asked if this is a one way easement. Mr. van der Zwaag confirmed that it is one way easement for the Casa Volante residents. Commissioner Oaxaca confirmed that the Vesting Tract has a 2-year life with 3- 1 year extensions. Steve Sheldon, Homescape LLC said he was present at the study session (DRC). He said they read and agree with the conditions of approval. He said Staff was great to work with. He said his group has complied with the direction give at the DRC. He said they met with the neighbors at a community meeting on the access issue the best they can. He said they would prefer to work with the property owner on the type of access/remote controls for the benefit of the elderly residents of Casa Volante. Chairman Munoz confirmed that is the solution they discussed with the management of Casa Volante. Mr. Sheldon confirmed that is what they are proposing in light of the comments received from the • residents of Casa Volante. Commissioner Fletcher said he agrees with the comments of the City's legal counsel, however, Mr. Sheldon says they would rather control the management of the remote controls. He asked why they would want to do that. Mr. Sheldon said it is because they have concerns about security and access and they want to know who has access. Commissioner Fletcher said he would think this would be problematic and that he would think the manager of Casa Volante could do this easier. Mr. Sheldon said although it may be easier to have Casa Volante do it,they(the applicants)feel the burden is easier for them to take care of it as they want to know who has them, how many, if they are not working; and, ultimately it is better for them to have control because we (the applicant) is obligated to provide the access. He added that it needs to be discussed with the property owner as well. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Tommo Wilkins stated he is a resident of Casa Volante and that he lives at the sourtheast corner of the project area in space 106. He stated the concern is that with the new development, many more people will want to cut through Casa Volante to get to Foothill Boulevard. He said the applicant is sensitive to this issue. He said there is also concern about the method of controlling the access. He said he represents many of the residents and they have discussed several options: remote control, a • slide pad, etc. He said anything other than a remote control would require residents to jump out of the car to punch a code into a control station. He asked the Planning Commission to make a Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 25, 2012 ` 1 condition of approval because it has a lasting effect, it is a lifestyle issue and a real problem for the residents. He said they also want full access during construction and they also want this to be a condition of approval. • Chairman Munoz asked for clarification as to who he thought should manage the remote controls. Mr. Wilkins said Casa Volante management should as they do not believe they should burden the new community (developer) with this responsibility, but the applicant should install the gate. Commissioner Fletcher asked what is his capacity in this matter; if Casa Volante is a 'for rent' property and he asked why the onsite management from Casa Volante did not come to the meeting. Mr. Wilkins said he is a resident and believes he represents many of the Casa Volante residents. He said it is 'for rent' property and he did not know why the management did not come to the meeting. Mr. Esfahlani said he lives and owns an adjacent parcel of about 1 acre. He said when there was a prior owner of the developer's property. He said at that time the City proposed that he and the other owner would share one access. He said at the City's behest, he and Mr. Howard worked together and got an 18-unit condo project approved with one access to Arrow Highway. He said he should now be provided an access to Arrow Highway with this development as well. He asked that a condition be added to provide this access by the Home Owners Association in the future should he desire that. Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. He asked Mr. Sheldon to respond to the last issue heard. Mr. Sheldon stated that Mr. Esfahlani is asking to take an easement on their property to his property • for free and that does not seem right. Commissioner Fletcher recalled that at one point this issue was looked at from a master planning standpoint. He said there was a concern about these properties/parcels located in the middle. Vice Chairman Howdyshell made reference to the prior master plan. Mr. van der Zwaag said staff asked the applicant to master plan the site to show the possible options. Chairman Munoz noted that master planning is not binding. Mr. van der Zwaag said that it would be difficult with multiple property owners. He said the goal from the Engineering Department is to limit the number of driveways-shared access is the goal. Chairman Munoz revisited the concern about the remote controls. He stated that legal counsel said legally it is best for Casa Volante to manage this. Mr. Markman said the access is provided by the developer and that how they manage that should be Casa Volante's problem. He said he did not see how the City could impose a condition of approval into perpetuity. He said with respect to the easement, if they have an easement for them to use, it is up to management—he did not believe the developer needs to manage this. Commissioner Fletcher said he was assuming the access gate would be on Casa Volante's property and control panel on their property, so that would be theirs to manage. • Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 25, 2012 Mr. van der Zwaag said that the access gates are currently on the project site and it is their electricity and they will maintain the operation of that gate. • Chairman Munoz said there is much that has not been resolved. He said the applicant and Casa Volante have opposing views as to who has the legal right to manage the gate access. He felt this should have been resolved prior to coming to Commission. Commissioner Oaxaca said that the details are outside the purview of the Commission. He said he just wants an assurance they will resolve all this as the Commission should not even discuss these details; they need a mutual agreement and we just need to allow the access-both parties need to agree. Mr. van der Zwaag said it has been Staffs goal to reach an agreement, we cannot force them to do it; we had them place the gates but the owner of Casa Volante is not here and never contacted staff. He said they got all the information. He said their renters have talked to them and if the renters are not satisfied they will take legal action. Vice Chairman Howdyshell agreed with Commissioner Oaxaca in that the decision is not within the scope of the Commission, both parties need to agree. Chairman Munoz confirmed with legal counsel that a decision on the project application could be made tonight. Mr. Markman said the Commission could proceed with their decision-the land use entitlement does not solve their issue. Mr. Sheldon said it does make the most sense for the management of Casa Volante to manage the • clickers but he is obligated to provide access. He said the management company is not here but he can work out an arrangement with the ownership. He said they just wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors. Chairman Munoz asked if there is any legal requirement for the owner to provide mutual access for the other property owner (Mr. Esfahlani). He then closed the public comment section. Mr. Markman said he can get that access but not by extracting it from this project. Chairman Munoz suggested Mr. Esfalani should seek information from planning when he decides to build on his property. He then asked for final Commission comments. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she favors the architecture and the layout of the map. She said this area needs the development. Commissioner Oaxaca said the applicant did a nice job on the aesthetics and layout. He said this is a reminder that although persons would like us to be the referee; they need to work these issues out as private parties amicably. Commissioner Wimberly noted that he worked with them at DRC. He maintained that there were some issues that the Commission has no purview over and were tabled at that time. He said the final product will enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Fletcher said this has always been a difficult property and that we had hoped that the adjacent properties could be acquired and made into one development. He said he was surprised • that the management of Casa Volante was not here to express how they want to handle this gate and their property. He said these homes are new product for our residents, less dense than the Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 25, 2012 original proposal, the parking is adequate and the development adds to a wide range of product available. Chairman Munoz concurred with all the comments and noted that it is a difficult property. He • applauded the applicant for the design and layout. He said the density is at the low end for this zone. He said he appreciates that and recommended the project for approval. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolutions approving Development Design Review DRC2011-00641,Vesting Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18817 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00891. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS E. TRACT MAP SUBTT18782 AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2010-00361 - Lewis Apartment Communities - A request for on-street parking on Town Center Drive west of Spruce Avenue adjacent to the Santa Barbara Multi-family housing development consisting of 192 units-APN 1077-422-21, 22, and 25 Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. In response to Vice Chairman Howdyshell, he said the request is for 24-hour parking. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, he said the only vehicle access points are on Church Street although there are several pedestrian points of access. He confirmed the request is to benefit the residents of the Santa Barbara project. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, he said for vehicles parked on Town Center Drive, the • pedestrian access on Spruce and Elm would be used. He said there would be about 24 parking spaces provided. In response to Chairman Munoz, Mr. James said Engineering strongly considered the number of truck trips and safety and this is why we recommended against allowing parking on the south side of the street. He said if it is only on the north side, the trucks are near the center and they have a painted median,they will have room to maneuver, plus room for moving traffic and room to park. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, he said directly south of the proposed parking is the backside of the shops. John Young, Lewis Operating Corp apologized for not asking for this parking prior. He said there is only one pedestrian entrance; the others are required by the Fire Department. Chairman Munoz said when he brought the Santa Barbara development forward, he assured us the parking was adequate. He said that may not be the case based on what Engineering has told us. He said on the next project the DRC/Commission may question the words of assurance. He said this was a key issue and from what is being presented, he is not really seeing compelling reasons to grant the request. Mr. Young said they need parking relief. Chairman Munoz noted that they are not even finished building yet and therefore he is concerned. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she is concerned people may take short cuts and resort to jaywalking. She said the back lot at the Target center gets full with the theater crowd on weekends. Commissioner Fletcher asked where the pedestrians would cross. • Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 25, 2012 "s Mr. Young said at Elm and Spruce. He said he believed most pedestrians will go out at the east and west ends of the development. • Commissioner Oaxaca said a compelling reason would be to promote walkability to the Town Center and access but this parking request does not fit that. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she would like some more analysis. Chairman Munoz affirmed her quest and asked Engineering staff to request that for an informed decision. Mr. James said Lewis Corp did a study on town center drive but not necessarily on traffic trips. He said they did a history and a current study and Engineering staff reviewed it. He said collector streets are usually 44-feet wide and this is 64-feet wide. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said Church Street is very busy. She said she wants to make sure this would not be a hazardous decision for the residents. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Commission recommends this proposal, can it be withdrawn at a future date if it became a problem. He asked if the proposal could be considered again after the development is finished. Mr. James responded affirmatively to both. Commissioner Oaxaca said he had no problem deferring the decision until more information is available; however, he saw no compelling reason to support it. He said that once access is opened with an attractive destination, people will jaywalk-they will take risks. He said he still has issues with • the request. Commissioner Wimberly concurred with Commissioners Howdyshell and Oaxaca. He said he never saw a traffic study and this was a major point discussed at DRC; particularly parking within the development and ADA access. He said this might create more of a problem in that it assumes this parking will be utilized by the Santa Barbara development and that may not necessarily be true. He said he would like to see a study specific to trucking and to find out if it is really safe for vehicles to park at the requested location. Commissioner Fletcher said he would normally concur with staffs recommendation but this seems premature to be asking for this. He said he would rather wait and see how the project fills out and see what happens with Town Center and how the pedestrian access is utilized. Chairman Munoz concurred with the expressed concerns. He said we do not know enough at this time and he did not see compelling reasons to take the risks as there is not enough data. Mr James said staff would not go forward with this request; he has taken into account and heard the Commissioners' comments. • F 1 R R PUBLIC COMMENTS None • Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 25, 2012 COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Wimberly said he attended the APA conference in Los Angeles and was hoping to • see some of our planners there. He said he met folks from all over the country. He said he hopes to receive the PowerPoint presentations from some of the meetings to share with staff. Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted that the topics addressed were broad including: GIS; 'Silver Tsunami' (what we are doing to accommodate the baby boomers). She said our city is ahead of the curve in that we have already accomplished many things that were addressed. She thanked the City for the opportunity to attend. She said it was hard to choose what sessions to attend. Chairman Munoz offered his thanks to the City in that we want to make sure the Commission is exposed to this type of educational/development opportunity. Commissioner Wimberly commended Staff and City Management. He said we obviously have visionaries at work as other commissions do not get along. He said we work well together but they heard much about confrontations experienced within other Commissions. Chairman Munoz recognized Administrative Professionals Day and offered his thanks and congratulations to staff and the administrative assistants. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0 , to adjourn. The Planning • Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Approved: • Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 25, 2012 0 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date: May 9, 2012 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA From: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director By: Mike Smith, Associate Planner Subject: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 - CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES - A review of a proposal for 32 single-family residences ranging between approximately 2,600 and 3,300 square feet in conjunction with a previously approved 32-lot subdivision of 9.08 acres in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive - APN: 1100-191-05. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. On December 13, 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. •PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-Family Residences; Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay) South - Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Corridor; Open Space (OS) District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay) East - Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Corridor; Open Space (OS) District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay); Single-Family Residences and Parking Lot (City of Fontana); R-1 Single-Family Residential and P-UC Public Utility Corridors (City of Fontana) West - Single-Family Residences and Garcia Park; Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential North - Low-Medium Residential South - Flood Control/Utility Corridor East - Residential Planned Community and Public Utility Corridors (City of Fontana) West - Low-Medium Residential and Open Space C. Site Characteristics: The project area is a triangular-shaped parcel of approximately 396,000 square feet (9.08 acres), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive (Exhibit B). A subdivision of the parcel into thirty-two (32) lots • Item A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-01065 —CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES May 9, 2012 Page 2 • the southwest corner and north perimeter of the project site; low vegetation otherwise dominates the site. To the north are single-family residences, and to the west are single-family residences and Garcia Park. To the east are single-family residences and a parking lot in the City of Fontana. Aligned diagonally from near the northeast to the southwest corners of the site is a Southern California Edison (SCE) utility corridor. The zoning of the property and the properties to the north and west is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay). The zoning of the utility corridor is Open Space (OS) District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay). The zoning of the properties to the east (within the City of Fontana) are R-1 Single-Family Residential and P-UC Public Utility Corridors (Exhibit C). The subject property is generally level with a southerly slope; the elevations at the north and south sides are approximately 1,231 feet and 1,220 feet, respectively. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on each lot of the previously approved subdivision for a total of thirty-two (32) single-family.residences. The houses on Lots 1, 8, 10, 13, 19, 21, 23, and 26 will be one-story, while the houses on the remainder of the lots will be two-story. The mix of one- and two-story homes is consistent with the policy adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that 25 percent (minimum) of the proposed houses must be single-story. All of the houses with 2-car garages will be setback from the front part of the house, i.e. the front of the garages will not dominate the front of the house as seen from the street, in compliance with Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (which only requires that • 50 percent of the garages to be oriented or situated in a manner that minimizes its visual presence). The architecture of each house will be consistent with the general design requirements outlined in Section 5.42.600 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant proposes three types of architectural themes (elevations) — Craftsman, California Ranch, and California Spanish (Exhibit J). Each house will incorporate a variety of materials to varying degrees. A combination of veneer (brick or stone), wood siding, and stucco finish will be applied to the Craftsman and California Ranch themes. Because of the nature of the theme, the California Spanish elevation will be exclusively finished with stucco. Roofing for all houses will be either flat or barrel concrete tile depending on the theme. Each house will have an articulated footprint/floor plan and profile. The applicant proposes three (3) distinct footprints — Plans 1, 2, and 3 — and reverse footprints of each for a total of six (6) footprints. Plan 1 will be one-story, while the others will be two-story. The number of available footprints will comply with Figure 5-4 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Because the footprints and profiles of each house differ, there will be a variety of movement in the wall planes and roof lines. Each house will also have a prominent front entrance with a covered or lattice-covered porch. Depending on the theme, there will also be details such as wood brackets at the roof eaves, decorative trim and shutters around the windows, wrought iron accent features, molding along the top of the stone veneer wainscots, and decorative garage doors. Vertical massing will be interrupted by a decorative belly band. B. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted to gather input and comments • from the owners of the surrounding properties within 660 feet of the project site. This meeting was held at Goldy S. Lewis Community Center (Central Park), Creative Corner Room on March 13, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. (Exhibit K). Aside from staff and the applicant, there was one A-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES May 9, 2012 • Page 3 individual from the surrounding community, Mr. Skot Schuler, in attendance. He did not have any objections to the project. Mr. Schuler's interest was in how the new homes would affect the rear (eastward) view from the second story of his home located at 7865 Fillipi Court at the northwest corner of the intersection of Dolceto Drive and Garcia Drive (south terminus of Fillipi Court). The applicant noted that the lot and proposed home directly east of Mr. Schuler's home are Lot 20 and Plan 2R, respectively. Although Plan 2R is a two-story model, it will be plotted approximately 50 to 60 feet from the front property (the required front building setback is 20 feet). Also, because of the layout of this part of the subdivision, the alignment of the proposed extension of Garcia Drive and the front yards of the homes on either side of the street would lie directly east of Mr. Schuler's home. Therefore, the impact on his view would be limited. He was satisfied with the answers to his questions and had no further comment. C. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The Grading Review Committee (Addington and Miller) and the Technical Review Committee reviewed the application on March 20, 2012. Most of the grading and technical aspects of the overall project were already analyzed previously during the review of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 by the Grading and Technical Review Committees on October 17, 2006, and subsequently approved. The Committee's discussion was generally limited to the details relating to the construction of the houses, e.g. lot drainage, walls, dust control, etc. The Committees accepted the proposal and recommended approval. Their conditions have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. • D. Design Review Committees: The Design Review Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, and Granger) reviewed the application on March 20, 2012 (Exhibit L). The Committee reviewed the proposal and was pleased with the design of the houses. During staffs presentation, it was stated that the applicant earlier in the review process had incorporated many of the design details sought by staff to ensure that each house will have the necessary architectural details. The applicant also indicated that they had revised the architecture of each house to address staffs recommended architectural revisions listed in the comments to ensure that the project will be consistent with the City's design goals and policies for achieving 360-degree architecture. It was generally acknowledged that the architecture of the houses was similar to that of other house product that has been proposed in the past by the applicant and approved for construction elsewhere in the general vicinity of the project site. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommends approval. The Committee's conditions have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration in September 2005 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the • project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Negative Declaration. The previously approved subdivision is for thirty-two (32) single-family lots; the applicant proposes the construction of the same number of single-family residences. All proposed improvements are consistent with A-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES May 9, 2012 Page 4 • single-family residential development. There is no activity proposed beyond the limits of the area of work. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dailv Bulletin newspaper. the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of Development Review DRC2011-01065 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, t Jeffrey . Bloom Interim Planning Director JAB:MS/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map • Exhibit B - Aerial Photo Exhibit C - Site Utilization Map Exhibit D - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 Exhibit E - Site Plan Exhibit F - Landscape Plan Exhibit G - Phasing Plan Exhibit H - Wall Plan Exhibit I - Grading Plan and Sections Exhibit J - Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit K - Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheet and Summary Exhibit L - Design Review Committee Action Comments Exhibit M - Staff Report (without Exhibits) and Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2011-01065 • A-4 v.R [ r ;•u.•�•ra [ 'y=II� .�` N,L6gi A. ` '•F :1 p'°°..e: .... .f�. ,.. h I^. �• `•.o.v °..a. a .W.i'� L �� ' .,"" 5 . bf FIRE STATION qs. 1 t ,. ��, °.'i.• NOB n E ''s M&Kt !:;Nl ```,•'S. i e • [ a � _ as• 1 v. fllMEMMV �rt.^ .� �O�_l•-`-v.£`.. i.si'c1S' ..d � '°'r I1 'v,. �;mxi 9 E ' •...won w[v '• m zire § F° ^fir''^', ...^ tl� •- .e�!� y 6 Lv P r'i,�u'' wuco[w[rua .°•�•�;•..^,i+....�oSf=�Y..'"^^.' °° I •...., b � � mw[xoAxwx,. a�IC�r��� 'b � 1aW� •w� I um �- � �f•'^'p0"�,nJ' _'•Tn fP� `e CHAPFEY-ISLE v ' .•c j.w�...°.q.' .mom j �M�'KCUiE HOUSE {p^ �E [r { DR FIRE STATION R'Bl •I p u,mn Es.sB r•se.n., ) 3 d' So NC]ryr.`�m on a m .L , 1+ err EI. e■ [l[R'O,R. �pc, 'j ^m` °f p{I)j �•,�LHAFFEY�GARLIA H�rW •_....�..�[weiCl p ..FG n.n, HOUSE WE •NG°° ..a..x ■f � ' , .r�{OYq C UNE PN � HISTORIC qb [ ! [ WINERY r � 40=. :asp �•�._ vFITf0R/A:GARDEN • � C[MTEI?' ..�'�_'"^7.'=�.' ( EI[14MMIY�• ^IS RI� ��� Sri-•� •qq ( '�� FBI 7 °° PROJECT SITE ® , o jg p S.AN $Eict`-1.ATe-DIND EXHIBIT A _I A-5 p ._.._.._.._.._.._..1 / 1 to # ` 1�1 W, v y = r L• fa.. ,( � t. �' gyp. ' �t''fil'"'T ' •� a .. .i I.� ^Y.'. Wit' -A '�i' Y �,3 ♦x:+4 , r:' j .y; 4•_. .:r �c. »; �-._-mom,. /✓s�' , iJ w rx r Y ;' � { r+` A ..� y C9� • � d � � � jn+ 2 e •- Y p i ® e @ t r 4 F li I I I I T 3 - ------6P ,-- --,--- ---- P a • ovv I I I ` u ` I d \y m __________________ tj I , I ___ i ------ 1 I i I I N io �u oS VI �q EXHIBIT ]2 LGT6 AND LOT•q- TRACT MAP N 9.B3 gCRE NET O. 18096 SHEET 3OF]SHEETB 6.2E ACRES D NET H6L9pE AND A9&OCATES,INC IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING OCT09FH ap11 CMOOF S,AS RECORDED WB OF LOTS a 8. AG BLOCKY OF THE SAOCINARY YAP OFST AND OF COLONf tANDQ 15 R1-1ASECORDDIN 303Me,PApE)I,RECOSN THROUGH HITS,RANOLOTF AND F OF TRACT 15)11-1 AS RECORDED OF INBWK9e OFYAPS,TE OF kTHROUGH 10],RECORO9 OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAApfp,KATE OF Cq(JFONNIA EASEMENT NOTES C IV SO'S.WSS, ®PMmvrt rP°Yb°lsww mMI yr xws to> CRAPFUC SCALE Im 6wlMlt o w n m o m m too ®�s stow NeMt rAxvwn Naem mr m -_—� 1tc 601611swsMxw}t - - (m Fm 1 I Ixrn- eo rt. ' J \ TnecT Her xo,mTn.Prwl J l _/ Lsem ye.9mm• VIA __-VENETO k I�SVNT NN.t]• DRIVE mr+r�MEioa �wq'e9' �9]�9]�LwosLYE MSDfM mllLym 10 L��- TAT S w asHl )an ' 1M OM1 Ir PAN]w rlY Y tNeewY _—Nlw•—_ _ pnata o 9ermmv emto• 1te urr rc wow mrAU9xor, um 1 �m t]'--am9'- - mm• T mlmYNY--m ero.rtl "mm'�4 r J�9sm•- m' -mm- mar- mm'- 1e6as ,p it v] 1 dtit d n 991757 x ull5 SF. ,Wy e9}69sf. I e L~w liml9J eem 25 * /Y15 Sf.4 ]e61 f ne gg gg c` baQ aztr ea 4-, -es � 4 9n smY mrn Z t° LG t1 mI1E5 Lnm' J 4 19m W(0 n81' CI SUl °y il4H1N) a Tp tl p memb{v tag YeeN.E y un `a tat ss m N 'A'.1 STREET twsl a o tmeMlT Cr eJT zL mM mm 99e) mm L1 W7 R g em w I R 19 C 11 17 12 11 10 )I 1593. T 5 m v.. A mi SF.{R @m ef.gtg m)9 U.';'y 9719 9f. mm lF. 'J65 Sf.p� m41 9f k FI 1! I' g ✓'� ) 9S &M mm• NORFU,T mdY FAw1MM 1114,R am• Wm' mw mar 33 vm .)2 s 24 25 26 R. 21 v. e u 4 Gmn sT. em ss, ee9 v. 20 )9m u IN[>RMK m A TAXF q A UI 1.0 I'm LLV ;�• .�a NfF S u CIS LI ,(,w( (m OYn14nfWle x (FI� ai YA¢ DY SVmdlr �t" O X/S ISm tmm L�)o-g]{if° tmae namm' mm Ip1gn�/,A Ctl to ai / u afire I5m1Y• Isaw. � ,�`r�pTVE � r9 m N>Imy / m lelm namsu' xim nGA� GP�1cvi Y]t V °L!r Uy � // m MI9 um9w rmm QµNE 2B iG / c> =IV vvrsr• rmm a 4 k ItAn sr. i' / m ]9e llm- rmm 'd / m am ayss• mm Hm1325S. SIM 3)e13r' mm 4 29 1 12 >ea ea]a5s' mm �' a > avi sr 1 Ner LerNfe(rr o}.nyyD,;m xmn,(Fi) nz Szn WSCE- mm C q �-° / 11 css ss]s ene'n• mm cu am aY 16112 - �, to'isW Fm .m>e a,]9'b• Hflm n` nI seal ermxr' mm t�lss xq- / Gl) IaJJ rz15'N' eflm n! JaSp }l91>aa' mm t / u axat xllaewT qs A'� / cre xin am]I• oam u n.n nzeve• mm ne m.m .wm'zv' xim iV mss, / LL ll.5l S73m'mT LI9 1860 ]:VRw zxw tle 57M N]IY'WT CTO JAflS 4-MM' Ibm pWl �a / m S]5] N]SIITm'N C1I nim ISSI'N' NS,6z ss smv'w•x ca zass nn]• wm yA9, / u zl.at sux•wv a) 61.,S 10 MOO w}U$i4 C4 s6m Inrm' =00 l].el S"2r4YN L$6 iflm 71-- it // LlI ♦W NU•']I)BY C10 Mal � I / LI1 aG.W $1)IYiT ml JE 6} sdvr ]nm 716 J16J N21..JY'J]T Lt] I6s xuv)ev LJI SSJe mF'IT S0.m EXHIBIT D nvfsrwrnirre..uummmurw�n A-8 i6 EE Ei t 1l1 . • l L L 2 \ "^ EE .. .. , I '..iF i:ii:i 6•:1::2:55 "vF:.oG-u 'q • � � � "'�F 2 6a:v{::LE IL 1i 4 vV (� 0 �f_;�, ��� � lliilt111i llilli9i11 !111111111 11 Y :! FE6EE6EFH ----- E--- ---------- EE Q r yMtg e ! ! �p41 tl` I{ a r����p Y Y9 Ai !� Y � j EL P60E61AE EAB18669 Bi Ri0'se6W®0F! Fji IBFi ( a F' k34l3 gF y N !, $tlai ��Y�i � 7 ���a�P tY ii i1 FI ! !Y a ........_.... •......... .........x ,. I!'1 38 _t9i4 3rE it �o � p • ,. �.R � .�F'c�-•-`M1f��7�.�%�:��^.�c: 'xf ii1NJ/�Y16YJ. • • Y ...n r ..s R .lies air t ___ Y3Pn a�GL p k:'IrSk�',sa".'S%1S4v�Eru' tY :;11tinRf-a, pmg \ kT ,r I ',6:n i. :n�� �Z Yp _ �•do!�, _�� t 8fe'@� � pr�� '�iyY diR''�—` a wstJOltaTloo� \ b� � u • ; §c g p app 1 33: §3 aH W 3" A3p t � � a gE�papa� sg pype� gpyb 3� ~ °u EXHIBIT E A • �i � Y 9q �� F E 3j jge 3 \ � o E 8pl } rlt @�? YEi @irir @y�i v 92i�a mi�$ ;f Ylx Blx% 9Eex zF ,iEa it �, ® e U w �i SSSS EB p c) � 4$ as 99 t Q3g C. Yf7 gy4yy0 s_a-t $S}r a �zE E$ eY g�4pg3C�P ai � 3a7 e3 e3� 3ye4 € Y i e �8 €�: Y3 In it � Meal 1$10 sg �lE 11�� a: a�, i EEY a.e v9 e.e3ie3 n ! - ± iegegl YgTg? e $ i�rgYgte 56 :201 $E4 � �F$@L� i/1NJ/Y16Vi ° y�q}� antl@ ,,��3a � YE��e�gEpE6� � t i la " rub 3d i� E te\ M[t[ i O 4 }u „ . i �F \ 1 • 2a °3.�v5`��: a *�.� ^\\ _ - - QE1� E � � � � � � t E } :,� w, F Nvs Oy i/JL0011�J900 1 p = e e p '[ z0 #Y gild i Fry) i�� tE9ie ��a}i• Y @� 4 I � U[ �Y�a 8 @ s33s 4 s lii p5 yti 3e�Ae � �y�y$!v sg§1�a 3gtlte�yj i_8885 ��g aE a � i� :Yi :SeE& �c $8}�Y 'YE3 Yi�SFtl � tiq EXHIBIT F A-10 3 J�5 P� p�2 a y� 0 � ewe � � • E6 0 y �g I 9Patl� �N��q�a� tl e� ❑ o ei� � e,74�r,[ o � I I ❑ W I i lYeP7CJClLpiVY9 l� �o A-11 a •\ —�nrsvra-— _E --_ — _—_— -----� I ` 1 C I \ \ I N I � I I I �- I _ N I I , I � ------ Wn U4 • � � C2 N c� EXHIBIT G u� Z A-12 � �'I m ac i � Iii n p •� • � \\ it ��l4 , Ii! � � � ' :'-: o =a. Y gg lei J jilt hlilE;a J!ikiIii ���� %g aY ije oeboaooe o EE,p ,x ."� N8 ggpSYi$}34f 9gyt�1j5p� 4�gpk g � g g 9«g. a m I I I I `CJ ♦ y � u� � I • � �` ---L tS 2 1 ` EXHIBIT H A-13 �E ;!! • % \ $ � / i k § h \ § ( | |/ | §\ k § /M !" ` . § § \j g $ w ._ ! A q � \ It § b \ Oil /� /r \ LA \ | E � 6 , § � 44-1 � / § | K / § ! k )| A-14 • � 3 ,_; ! � �\ ( \ ( o , < «\ e ) ql )� , ; > /\ ~ • ) § A ) ƒ ! § ! | 7 § 2 \ § § \ � § & § / i - r \ / ` [ \ A 5 -11TRACT 276IS6 100 VM=o V. J L —rir \3 15 14 12 RA I- I 1 N 22 1.23 25 -26-jl 1 t�- .1 1 J-1 I--0. 29 ty /sp 00 \+ N oil ik bd OD le N 6 m .L, I co r EXHIBIT I A-16 gp�g3- @i I [[ -- _--- ----- � . W 1 N q�q I � p op i - — a CpCp i if p66y �aa p s�Kal=L--- I p a III ° k III �'z -�1-7- of III a 111 u � ' 11111 1 8 L ° aV p Op \ p3 r, a Sy9595 W i • !.4 _ o I gg5 I t. W o c c e , U N 111111 1 p 6 - � �tl• �� c' E 1, pp vI -- �-- --- Ef Q 1 1 i m � VH • m A-17 NYtl OXI.IIIfl 1IXCY'M LN➢ n a o , i� lt °� ` wod<¢s F e z a U= IT, V ,aE1"Eo Pe pgO �e �a 4 F o <j ir ` a r _ �__-�G_ _.._________________—______�___ E w f– ir Jig -f It I 5y a7'gFq p p gg :J� :�'� i:. � •�✓I p ^ I Il iv VIA+' _ b``, � q � �@€B A�uy LS oil ':�y,-.."•I{i'Y I II y \..sae �M1' ' oO: A-18 ER � �� �.�, NYL aMN1D llA'Ltl'NOII DN1 g ►ezPrsi_ ` [ � _ H�;y� �ff T 999 T\ E� Ti T• —` _,• N �j U Yy 0 z !C 4e I RX gill IV ��d{ � D T O � .. T � • W a L z a o U [ gg D Z P 3 uE _ �,'i Taw.; _=,,� P•.yPP'GG --� - t[. ' , y V •.'�✓'. '`1Iis ;�1 _ r\�•6 ry t'F".__ i �-�_; ,�'._6� '�\111`P4',ti*�1•¢;i� E..'�.. •'.. pC'' ry ; '-r!'\\ � g e QQ� 5 � A-19 f ( _—e�Y6 NVW03A o a ,• �k a 3 SS H i � E 0 n J - Nv-ld 0=0 lu a �- a: B• - LL Nl rcl V 1 N \ � • ea u 70 W. .9 N N 9 ii 7 a m O LL _ U M M I u cq �,L717 Wo a LL Y g 1; . S. p 5 L Y`'e o OW 0 <E � 1• J I in n • EXHIBITJ A-20 N,v.'��'r l3 �J"!y'�r •t �rI�IiJ L"��,<.wx 9 t kJr'�I mill flu v S 3 f e v r +s A, s' G b N i "r 1 Ii , r" 1 ( plhaFrl —[t v an � as lie is ih �a�-a SIMON � 4 grfi,I yI.L•p, _ s# #' lea gr�gr�qr�1'iF. IC— �Iyl �5;47I hIt � 1 a�cisci�a�i � i s�l�i�fii�[5J till lj :7ragri�.7gG' i-,' i 5��r�c :I 111911 �• � ° ��3�g�z nII111J1 13 =M - � 1611 9s4 HIM l 13 �_ U��II I'rall 5�g7sci orBn, a; 'ii nulti '��L � � Linl I��I 1#� — . a RR ar y '—i ir.:759 a.7 ii Ili �Rig! =VA3= )ILV ol_ OlaalX_3 S Cn 9=-dx 3 CF-11 4V NVY63A E:bN, I Fim Iz, 04 EM LL lip- ED it it A-23 -R-4 3a�a . s �g�lgFir3p ��ir°grpfi gr,�,gi II!Illilli iiliii 333 � 'I iii ,, D 561 r�Gil \ _ i.i iil I Awl . ■� ��' n6� 5r hsl � a�ai� 11� 7 � III IIII IIII �� q, It �■ !� _. .- - �:. � III ' �D'p�QiFF�i.7Ni i � ' l l i i9 3 � -S/I uirrl'I I 71 Flid — ,I . 1111111 II 1�11A, 3�0�ili;ila IA ;16 i nE: EM2 ------------- --ix % !2 I A e Jk JIL 0 4d T I ii T SRI I tl!o A-25 xag x SYn NV id 2I001-4 ° 3kg s�NisO3"0,� 2I3M0I °s - u 0 U Z __ 6 T P) A :) to: �✓ :�r m a 11.% li a�7.`1 © IIaE k i f s , € `� '�I�> \�;�I ��°�� �9k III •_ c.p o II o II i III Nww LL �.., � ;9 IIVJ• � I�Ii��.Q s� t qg� � Vl "C) � d, C E °��' it [� I I`rl I' 3• ® = I m ILA g o T lei D nIF\ P CCt U ro iz FH � td M cn Yg o � ° N 4€ '& � a m eg 4e IeT ` LJJ 1 ' eo T ,• 9€ J -r i• ® �p n6, GI:I � —'1 F � �-- il9 S Q° ;n5` 44� tf ® I ® 6 I TIM i €p iE= lEEE °=°��E2A a i`=c'€E @I E €1 ug q € Yga 9 i:1 Eat. 2.0 16t @4.Ee €€;e n€lie i-r {8322=31193 x1371 s©oom�mmm mra® a 'mmo. A-26 L"100 "Caml mew a t n n � a I LIZ , Il t I `tU • tit i __ 5 J x5 •I m cd tti n es A 1 a 1 m Ct O v i r- 1 7-7 u3 V rn I 3 °• I I � � ~• w, � I 2 i m C \ I ee 1 T. y� aa t S�3PYY � t� a!F P 4 4(P P�EV tP3S9 Ep Y�i�° t Sfk�FP E���! P P to P�iR91§t�B4 3 I��si��(!Et$�as �IKR oeoa�a o00®o . . A-27 r ;�SytNc^.�rJ' �g•,d � o : bs t ro r,* 1 y Mill' RH b! h ` y� �3•.. S ♦ Y J 0 - z 1 g r E � :47w r i vd s r/P z.N, z lz IH- yL 1 G S 3111 l 1 41,y✓. RL - �J t 7 SNOLI,dA3"I3 oa . ` s�d� e a ONICFIMO 210Ida_LX� 4 c =a o LL 0: Q u y �- \ y � C \ O O UZI = o00 = o j y m m !p F F `ilk o Q y = i § R — _ FM' W O f 0 arc ETD�����pp��p_�pp�--�pp Q1bJ11.tlLL.p%..Y _ ��1TJl9®®® W W El _ a ®Ilinm s s A-29 SNOLLVA313 e a r—• O (I•� ^EE `' 1NI 9 m ✓N�ll 1Llla QOl(13.1.X3 4 0 • n_ a o n 0 y a Q 0 0 'a J m m \ W W J 1 a \ � N J 5 n LL a o00 � W W Z �9 j 2 �I LL Q !� • P � la O 4 � q � - Y 2 EO 2 n n {I T Q .LLy W O m m - a a 2�6 N N SC 2 = 11 pp LL I E ❑ O O ,� ❑ q pp �® 3 a a A-30 - ju 111 11 111 ii� CAI � �, SL I �� !IlTlil' ��; ��9gq•� I �, 1 �Il iII IIII �Ai isA. III III IIIP � � G �■7I � �'Isr■ _ � 111111 II IIP ?.3 �;��I .III ,��"�"' • �IUIITiIn Illu�un s sA As L'��Irl� sgr3.96_5 ' � 111111 II IIh. IIIIIIIIA sgsgs I II. ., iililiiRq �jliluii�M -s sqs gip ,•yyy' � .'J .� nlnuul- �, sq LEI�� AglJeG F■ II I.o[.' A�AsA� ■■� r3q qs- g+ � .. �- gAg .■ gA s � r A!liiiRll > a Ran@{1JIF s� ol�ossv 0 I IV"Id 30021 t g $ n NVW03A t . a S PF;P�II e `�I II A ISJ i 4?sll m II ^ I I IICI ® � F� l I I u�o I I Oro U Sage N N I D 1 a • M — ( 1 Im � I _ -IL_ ^I @ A !@ — iE il_ — r I r 4 II I I - — � � + III o III a P` III u G m I I � p1 :@ Y @@ @ s q • � � [ 7 � � P4��q��9q¢�k _ b 4 ' egP 7 p@1pe e b e. i�F,F t nq- 1?!9B€F�@€tiv:@ e6 @3Yg4IiA� A32 _ p p N�`-ITd�!�f�������1Q�`.3 2 2 r n s 33 n2 c Q3/11Q 1 as xx D S ! C I � LL <4' ;5 - •� �o ,C°lip 3� 9V 1` PV a' m i• O'E 1 • 1 it :: ^ �i 6 2 LL ppM •. ... C—F�ry na• t� b ? m •� �` W co �i �• i ^ .q{i 48 a's I{Ii I , U !{SR 5W ' .�.�....aa N a m • `V N t N G � C yg I 1 1s ! IS . + � e j � ' W 4A J I � 9 e Y tl e?`i! 11i �26�ta ? EI�Qg 4�e��i€ ee' !. ?loll?x € ap��� r:{ e: ,�lQili R,.P? ,?t!:[? .:I.a.v�3�1°?e9 t?s8e: epm A33 NVId 'd3ddn 6s gg �Ssv S�vl at 09 9, 4 qj ®_ WO LA . cz 41 Ct --------- OW pc in wo 4Av z 0 --,Tr 2 LFAA It tseooe j!K 5 11 1 till a lu I M- A-34 —l—-. e,Ij —°8 S31VI�OSSV NV ICI Q`'OO 1^� i o • 4 "o n (U Y VJ 3 " of 0 � Y Y •rl _ H 4 ® ® !9c p W .,... 0 S m r Z _ ra ° �� o - O LL O 77'.oti7 o A-35 AIH I r'ku- .. j Ir� r l ;i klL, Al r � 4 f ^s" A f f > f 1 I Y A/1 TT W :./{fff1 � 1 MI �✓ IIi. .i n �!T ` + '4 t,A4'a 4C �.t _ a SNOI.LHA3"I3 '> a 3 s�vioossv I1CIfl a . P g Hvwoa ,. rJI IICI d0IIIUX3 _ g q - P O H H / YJ rIc J H _ q Z /_ O p ? s "A J = W W O O _ z _ J J 7 C J L .FgI o G p S R - t � a Q L ' NA u u ° [US- fflEM a j J �F' _ ❑®© a� r _ - F ILL E � ❑lam® w - W E J LL p p S pFF 1E� [�P � W lull o P,E A37 SNOLLVA3"I3 ONIQZIng NOIE ,LX3 '-s: s R - > ° + •r 63 ° 0�"� g ' a 4�-'�8�8py NOW03A ¢ ae 4 n a: J^tlY ,• `F ? a m � n f®- / a a I� B} 4_ tOL 4 J / 6 Q u v 0OO m m F J J 6 y ❑ 0 7 B 7 W W Z Z O j 0 m O H � e J ® > !a x ,a !4 ii 16 �u x z »_ n m n �� a a LJ'�.J�J p o FE x g ° u e u u m a O W W I / lT cl a I. @s a a a > > W W W u u • J J A38 : :Ir -•8 k catvioossv Q e E' o . .� rj ° ����•e�w NtlWO3A ,. ✓1V 1 LL 1I11 Q CIoT U:I�I.Xg L;{ 9e q rc � o u y 00o W W �s ZM Ls In LL y- 6 c _ e a ` W _ � J j m _ ' _ _ m 8 S E LL - - B - - (9 • Y h t • - 4 � x LL LL 9pp9 Q J V f4 W G @� -- ❑®® 6 -� 6 e6 LL ❑®� � LLL���JJJ � F e J J ® W W m m � 1 II1 A-39 f Nrv7j 300 Z 0 4-(B --A III L L4 jai II lot =F z GO -ED -- --------- 41: 00 'lld -1 Jill M-1 t D I fit 's Pi1jStPt ""It - A-40 NV-1d 230013 3 _° 'E 531VIOOSSV (13tI1O1 m e z4 y Yi R ii O � • U ` a P=" •� esIi o c u I tc 9 G= O bA ➢:� +f fi ltf U 5� N � a m M • O u U � � a a EJ J Oil Is j s ? $ � s 0 �a t:i t i i�E€�{{P l:�g:siiina€f€if t�e'j 2 6 i`F!tP°i t➢i 1ii fs:tE°tti1 ifa°!-��j iEfi B elf �;•i.€�€t,p i i�i g€S i tS 1�{'jt�f i`i3((i ys i€!ci��45 fPt 9€`°S.°ets imsyj� t a3i,a f{i t b i ! :E i IN T, III d IMP I[j i1i v - ii! E� aEa�rs ®may WKV A-41 NV-1d NOOIJ Haddf) to is� Ec VD r Fw- n Z iz It F�4 11 A It it j I JIB 1 4 HN I I[N it MIK 41�" A-42 \ )! s ono ) \ - _ ! / y� _ ? w�a o f a ( ! ; , \ � ( . . � •! � , E ri - � . ) r pE a • 3 2a 7 § 7 § -- ; # - aa | - WO rid — \ � % } _} \ ` ~ _ _ _ ^ I ° m � _ - ;+ ju r •ll sLF S C� ; gr v r � f "'7 1 y.. _ 4 w, SNOUVA3I3 o m - sazvi�oscv0 OKI IIClg 2I0I2I3 LX3 s > pp 9®9® 6y77 4 �•tlY� NVW03A . e � e - 4 E f n Inn x E3 _ z _ a z z J � J W yl _ - u z J J m 0 c_ eL nl C if e L ft / J 4 f . O - R R 6 - S y r I p J Ed a ti u O ® " _ J W ❑®® r P ap W f f m 7 - � W S Q R • Ott a � pl[ssplEeB:ri�� A-45 �i� DMI a = a a QZM9 1101'da—LX3 Ei Y q • r _ 4 N N 0 N m O Z �i a LL / a u u 0 m m 0000 0 Q F N J % E % / X J j 6 y Z Z O � p Q H > j W w W n p z = � m J_ J Q m m f LL ® '� n ❑ �� J m EE �� PF " €S •• Y 4 Re� m x n . L1LJ.J""I.J LL 6 m y a a � o 0 c LL LL p OP. LII�L.L'1J O 64 @3e m m _ oI^IL..IIWLLJII IL...Pipl H � €§g W 1 FED] M P W W n z A-46 ` ' e SNOUVA3"I� � 5 � � -;.s�� e0 €� . ..��� ❑ e 6 6 = x 4 o _ x tl � c it o0o W m 02 J J a LL 6 � tl W W J J W W _ � O J — J � 7 H I��JI r - - r Bp Ipp ;� sL aL i( i 4 4 x 3 "tl i � 2 J W @Q o LL tl , LL _ J EE u u r6 tl 4y it � � a h III W _ I z z a � a eiee p3P W O �1 k C �L Q p •;�l i�i1{11iEi� d` W LL � 5 it Itlr� C Fiq A-47 =49i s�Ni�orvs Q,. 11d Id 30021 a e r n gg 9 eS 0 4 • p . 0 h n u n m vg LL m J � � I ^, N 4J � � ¢ m rl � I? g x - 01 a o I m e I IE{P z 14 a L _J rCh 3 9@ 9 Bege�•�ri P @P S l • 6 }sF E e @ �•IFeBe@ Et_Pp���ae��e�ypE4SpP'SgF;?itEt 2E2�@E4 ?f9Fi3 @�e9�Fetl351S19R A-48 Rancho Victoria Meadows - Tract 18096 Community Meeting March 13, 2012 Name/Address Name/Address SY�r4'ACA 0 Qf-2- 'I F P Gt DQAI�+�ID r�GAN11C1^ � RI'1� EXHIBIT K A-49 Crestwood Communities � BUILDERS - LAND DEVELOPERS April 23,2012 Mike Smith,Project Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga PlanningDepartment 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Tract 18096,DRC 2011-01065 —neighbor hood meeting Mr. Smith, A neighborhood meeting was held on March 13,2012 in the Creative Comer Room at the Central Park facility located on the northwest corner of Milliken and Baseline Road in Rancho Cucamonga. All residents and private property owners within 660' of the site were invited to the meeting. Included with the invitation letter was a site plan and vicinity map of the proposed project along with a brief description of the floor plans and architectural style of the homes. Prior to the meeting we had received one phone call from a Mr. Fong, who is an owner of the parcel on the northwest comer of Foothill Blvd. and Fast Avenue. Mr. Fong is in favor of the • project and inquired about the proposed residential home sizes, architectural style,pricing and construction schedule. He stated that he would not be attending the meeting nor would any of the adjacent neighbors. Of the 183 residents and owners invited to the meeting, only 1 individual attended. Mr. Scott Schuler who lives at 7865 Fillipi Court,his residence is located at the northwest comer of Dolcetto Place and Garcia Drive. Mr. Shuler is also in favor of the project and had only one concern. He wanted to know if the view from his second story bedroom would be affected by the proposed project. Upon review of the site plan,during the meeting, it was determined that his view would not be affected in anyway. Mr Shuler had discussed the project prior to the meeting with his neighbors and he states that there are no concerns and that they are also in favor of the project moving forward as proposed. There were no other concerns or questions generated from the meeting. Since the meeting, we have not received any additional phone calls from the neighbors regarding the project. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions regarding this report. Respe Sub�itt�ed,/ to restwood Communities • 510 West Citrus Edge Street, Glendora, California 91740 off: (626) 914-1943 Fax: (626) 335-9320 www.crestwoodcommunities.com A-50 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith March 20, 2012 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES - A review of a proposal for 32 single-family residences of approximately 2,600 and 3,300 square feet in conjunction with a previously approved 32-lot subdivision of 9.08 acres in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive - APN: 1100-191-05. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. Site Characteristics: The project area is a triangular parcel of approximately 396,000 square feet (9.08 acres). A subdivision of the parcel into 32 lots was approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2006, (Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096). The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 700 feet (east to west) by approximately 750 feet (north to south). The site is vacant. There are several trees at the southwest corner and north perimeter of the project site, low vegetation otherwise dominates the site. To the north are single-family residences, and to the west are single-family residences and Garcia Park. To the east is a parking lot in the City of Fontana. Aligned diagonally from near the northeast to the southwest corners of the site is a Southern California Edison (SCE) utility corridor. The zoning of the property and the properties to the north and west is Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay). The zoning of the utility corridor is • Open Space (OS) District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay). The subject property is generally level with a southerly slope; the elevations at the north and south sides are approximately 1,231 feet and 1,220 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on each lot for a total of thirty-two (32) single-family residences. The houses on Lots 1, 8, 10, 13, 19, 21, 23, and 26 will be one-story, while the houses on the remainder of the lots will be two-story. The mix of one- and two-story homes is consistent with the policy adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that 25 percent (minimum) of the proposed houses must be single-story. The garages of all of the houses will be setback from the front part of the house, i.e. the front of the garages will not dominate the front of the house as seen from the street, in compliance with Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (which only requires that 50 percent of the garages to be oriented or situated in a manner that minimizes its visual presence). All of the houses will have 2-car garages. The architecture of each house will be consistent with the general design requirements outlined in Section 5.42.600 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant proposes three types of architectural themes (elevations) — Craftsman, California Ranch, and California Spanish. Each house will incorporate a variety of materials to varying degrees. A combination of veneer (brick or stone), wood siding, and stucco finish will be applied to the Craftsman and California Ranch themes. Because of the nature of the theme, the California Spanish elevation will be exclusively finished with stucco. Roofing will be either flat or barrel concrete tile. Each house will have an articulated footprint/floor plan and profile. The applicant proposes three (3) distinct footprints — Plans 1, 2, and 3 — and reverse footprints of each for a total of six (6) footprints. Plan • 1 will be one-story, while the others will be two-story. The number of available footprints will comply with Figure 5-4 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Because the footprints and profiles of each house differ, there will be a variety of movement in the wall planes and roof lines. Each house will also have a prominent EXHIBIT L A-51 DRC ACTON AGENDA • DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES March 20, 2012 Page 2 front entrance with a covered or lattice-covered porch. Depending on the theme, there will also be details such as wood brackets at the roof eaves, decorative trim, and shutters around the windows, wrought iron accent features, molding along the top of the stone veneer wainscots, and decorative garage doors. Vertical massing will be interrupted by a decorative `belly band'. Chimneys are not proposed. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. To ensure that the architecture of each house will be consistent with the design goals and policies of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission including "360-degree architecture," the following shall be provided: a. For the Craftsman and California Ranch themes, a decorative stone/brick veneer wainscot shall be applied to the rear elevation of each house. At the corner of each house, where the side elevation intersects with the rear elevation, the veneer shall wrap around the corner and terminate at a logical point along the side elevation. This wainscot shall also be applied to the • entire side elevation of Plan 3 where the sliding doors are located. b. For the Craftsman and California Ranch themes, the belly band shall have a darker shade of color to contrast with the surrounding wall plane. C. For the California Spanish theme, a build-out wainscot (Detail F on Sheets x.7) shall be applied to the rear elevation of each house. At the corner of each house where the side elevation intersects with the rear elevation, the wainscot shall wrap around the corner and terminate at a logical point along the side elevation. This wainscot shall also be applied to the entire side elevation of Plan 3 where the sliding doors are located. d. For the California Spanish theme - Plan 1, provide a decorative wrought iron accent feature at some of the windows of all elevations. e. For the California Spanish theme - Plan 2, provide a decorative wrought iron accent feature at one of the windows of each of the side elevations. f. For all themes, at the porch area, wainscots shall be provided on the building wall plane to match the columns that are located immediately in front of it. 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 molding along the top of the stone or brick veneer wainscots shall also be stone or brick and • not foam. A-52 • DRC ACTON AGENDA DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES March 20, 2012 Page 3 2. Walls along interior property lines that exceed 6 feet in height (but are less than 8 feet in height) shall require the submittal of a Minor Exception application for review and action by the Planning Director. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee approved the project as presented subject to the Major and Secondary Issues identified by staff. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Mike Smith • • A-53 T H E C I T Y O F R A N C II O C U C A M O N C A Staff Report DATE: December 13, 2006 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Emily Cameron, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide 6.92 acres of land into 32 lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Etiwanda South Overlay District, located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Via Veneto Drive - APN: 1100-191-05. Related File DRC2006-00696. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. •PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 4.62 dwelling units per acre. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-Family Residential; Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Southern California Edison Corridor East - Single-Family Residential; Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West - Southern California Edison Corridor C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Single-Family Residential North - Single-Family Residential South - Southern California Edison Corridor East - Single-Family Residential West - Southern California Edison Corridor D. Site Characteristics: The project is situated at the southwest corner of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive. A total of 9 trees exist on-site. There is a Southern California Edison Corridor that runs diagonally along the south easterly property line. The site has been previously cleared of shrubs and debris. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing 32 single-family lots with no housing product at this time. The • site will be developed under the Low-Medium Residential Development Standards. The 32 lots are similar in size to the developed properties surrounding the site, averaging approximately 7,100 square feet per lot. The layout provided is similar to the master planned layout which was presented when Tract 15711 was approved. The applicant is proposing to extend Garcia Drive into EXHIBIT M A-54 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT18096— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 • Page 2 a cul-de-sac and create Street A and B off of Via Veneto Drive. Street "A" includes two cul-de-sacs at each end of the street, and Street "B" is the main entry to the north. The applicant has agreed to build a property line wall abutting the Southern California Edison Corridor, which is in concert with the East Avenue theme wall that will also match the entry of the tract located adjacent to this project. B. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Committee (McPhail, Stewart, Coleman) on October 17, 2006. The Committee recommended approval with no further revisions. C. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 19, 2006. A total of three neighbors attended. The applicant responded to questions pertaining to the housing product (not known at this time), construction timing, and the development of the Southern California Edison Corridor. The neighbors were generally accepting of the project. D. Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00741: A total of 8 Eucalyptus trees and 1 Elderberry tree are proposed to be removed per the Arborist Report (Steve F. Anderson, April 9, 2006). According to the arborist, none of the trees are recommended to be preserved. The trees surveyed have not been maintained and are of poor quality for landscape use. All of the trees are proposed to be removed and replaced at a 1 to 1 ratio. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to dust mitigations and water quality, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. • Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted„ L2114�4 R. ' . tiY'✓L James R. Troyer, AICP of Planning Director JRT:EW/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization/ Location Map Exhibit B - Grading Plan Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18034 Exhibit D - Design Review Comments dated October 17, 2006 • Exhibit E - Initial Study I and II Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 A-55 • RESOLUTION NO. 06-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBT718096 ON 6.92 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, SOUTH OF VIA VENETO DRIVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-191-05. A. Recitals. 1 . Charles Joseph Associates filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of December 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 13, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Via Veneto Drive with a street frontage of approximately 80 feet and lot depth of approximately 928 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter on Via Veneto; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is single-family residential;the property to the south consists of the Southern California Edison Corridor; the property to the east is single-family residential; and the property to the west is the Southern California Edison Corridor; and C. The subject property is zoned Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Etiwanda South Overlay District; and wall: and d. The project proposes 32 single-family lots with a proposed East Avenue theme • and e. The project proposes the construction of Dolcetto Place as a fully improved street; Exhibit M-1 A-56 PLANNING COMMISSION .RESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 Page 2 • 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b.. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission furtherfinds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public • Resources Code Section 21081 .6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. A-57 PLANNING COMMISS1O1•, . ,ESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 • Page 3 d. Pursuant to the requirements of California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5,the Planning Commission finds, based on the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and considering the record as a whole, that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. The site has been previously disced and weed abated. Based on substantial evidence, the Planning Commission hereby makes a declaration rebutting the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in California Department of Fish and Game Regulation 753.5 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Code, Section 753.5.) e. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 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. Planning Department • 1) A new wall along the Southern California Edision Corridor shall be coordinated with the surrounding theme wall and include river rock detail, pilasters, and other similar decorative features in keeping with the Etiwanda South Overlay District. 2) The East Avenue theme wall shall be provided along East Avenue in accordance with the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Senior Engineer. 3) The related Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00741 is hereby approved, subject to replacement planting as listed under Biological Mitigation Measure No. 1 below. Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00741 shall be valid fora period of 90 days starting from the date of final map recordation or Grading Permit issuance, whichever comes first. 4) The developer shall plant a total of 9 trees, 15-gallon in size to replace the 9 trees on-site. The developer shall disclose, in writing, to buyers that said trees are to be preserved in place, and maintained properly, per the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Tree Preservation Ordinance. Enaineering Department • 1) The site is located within Area 8 (modified) of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy. Development within the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Area is responsible for the City's adopted Drainage Fee (Master Plan and Regional) as well as A-58 PLANNING COMMISSIOI. ,-iESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13. 2006 Page 4 • reimbursement to other developers, or the City, for over sizing of the local drainage facilities as determined by the City Engineer. a) The City fees shall be paid prior to final map approval. b) Tract 15711 has provided land for an area-wide detention basin. Part of the proposed tract is tributary to said basin so that the owner of the land, where the basin is located, is eligible for reimbursement to recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.). The fair share amount has been determined to be $5,000 per tributary acre, which shall be paid prior to final map approval. 2) A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. a) In the approved drainage study for Tract 15711, a third of this site is tabled to drain to East Avenue. The drainage report shall demonstrate that the runoff from the dozen lots and "C" Street, flowing to the west, can be accommodated by the Tract 15711 interim basin and the ultimate Master Plan Storm Drain system. b) Determine Q,00 flows on East Avenue from Via Veneto Drive to • Foothill Boulevard, and identify areas where the following criteria are not met: Q,00 within the right-of-way, Q25 within top of curb,or 20-foot dry lane in Q,o. Propose mitigation measures wherever increased flows as a result of development will impact private property downstream. Determine whether frontage improvements on East Avenue need to include Qioo flood protection measures. c) Size both the interim and ultimate local public drainage facilities needed. Also, size the private storm drain connection for combined flows from Lots 29, 30, and 31. 3) Install a 01c)0 catch basin and storm drain lateral from "A" Street to East Avenue across Lot 6, with plugs on both ends to be removed when the East Avenue Master Plan Storm Drain is constructed. Interim surface facility shall be designed to eventually function as a 0100overflow in the event of catch basin blockage. 4) Revise the storm drain plans for South Etiwanda Park to show the proposed private storm drain connection. The connection point shall be accessible for maintenance. 5) Construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Interim Master Basin No. 5-D as • follows, justified by a final drainage report approved by the City Engineer: A-59 PLANNING COMMISSION ,iESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 • Page 5 a) Provide an ultimate design for the basin to mitigate for the entire developed tributary area. from the site north to Base Line Road. b) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate to 90 percent of undeveloped flows for 2 acres, the increased runoff from this development, with an outlet system capable of handling the ultimate basin design (entire tributary area) with a minimum amount of modification as incremental development occurs. c) Provide for maintenance access and a spillaway. d) Provide an easement to the City for the portion of Lot 7 containing the initial basin and an irrevocable offer of dedication for the remainder of the ultimate basin design. e) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the detention basin or a maintenance agreement shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the facility but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer. Said agreement shall include a cash • deposit as security for any maintenance costs the City may incur. Said agreement shall be recorded to run with the property. f) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the basin. If the developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City. all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 6) Deposit funds for the removal of all interim facilities including, but not limited to: a) Remove plugs on both ends of the lateral to East Avenue. b) Remove unnecessary catch basins and lateral within "A" Street. c) Remove inlets to and outlet from the interim detention basin. d) Install private cross-lot facility from yard drain on Lot 27 to a public facility. 7) The proposed interim facility on Lot 6 shall be an open channel with closed conduit within the street rights-of-way and sidewalk easements. • 8) All proposed private cross-lot drainage facilities shall be contained in a concrete or rock lined swale or reinforced concrete pipe (12-inch minimum diameter). A-60 PLANNING COMMISSIOI . r1ESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 Page 6 • 9) East Avenue frontage shall be improved in accordance with City "Secondary Arterial" Standards. Frontage improvements shall be installed as follows: a) Widen the west half of the street. This will include curb and gutter at 32 feet from centerline, AC pavement, sidewalk, access ramps, and 9500 Lumen HPSV streetlights. Join to the existing pavement and curb return at the north project boundary (per Drawing No. 1693) and transition to the existing edge of the pavement south of the south tract boundary. b) Provide additional traffic striping, signage, and school related signs and legends to the satisfaction of the City Engineer including R-26(s) "NO STOPPING" signs. 10) East Avenue wall setbacks and landscape maintenance easement on Lot 6 should be per Figure 5-28A of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, with a low rock wall at the back of a 5-foot sidewalk. Theme walls should match the existing ones on the northwest corner of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive ( Tract 15711-1). 11) Dolcetto Place and Via Veneto Drive frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Local Residential Street' standards as required • and including: a) Protect the existing or provide curb and gutter, property line adjacent sidewalk, access ramps, street trees, and asphalt pavement as required. b) No driveways to Dolcetto Place. c) Protect or provide streetlights as required. d) Protect or provide traffic signing and striping as required. 12) The proposed internal streets shall be improved to City "Local Residential Street' standards (36 feet curb-to-curb): a) Provide curb and gutter, property line adjacent sidewalk, access ramps, street trees, and asphalt pavement as required. b) Provide 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights as required. c) Provide traffic signing and striping as required. 13) Prepare Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) plans for the East Avenue, Via Veneto Drive, and Dolcetto Place frontages including Lot A, consistent with Tract 15711-1 improvements • (Drawing No. 1693-L). A-61 PLANNING COMM ISSIO . ,RESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 • Page 7 14) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete. ,signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer prior to Building Permit issuance. 15) Complete the submitted Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) per the requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to, signing and recording the Memorandum of Agreement. 16) Portions of the future screen wall on top of the proposed 6-foot retaining wall shall be view fencing with gates if pedestrian connections to a future Community Trail are approved. 17) Process quitclaims of Lots D and E of Tract 15711-1, currently owned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to or concurrent with final map approval. 18) Process a rough grading plan through Building and Safety prior to final map approval. Install private cross-lot drainage facilities and interim detention basin. • Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits. the developer shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, orthat their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed bythe South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. • 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: A-62 PLANNING COMMISSIOI\, , iESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 Page 8 • • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent • (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RW QCBj)dailyto reduce Fine Particulate Matter(PM,o)emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,p emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. Biological 1) The 8 Eucalyptus trees as well as 1 Elderberrry, shall be replaced at a • 1 to 1 ratio, minimum 15-gallon sized trees on-site. A-63 PLANNING COMMISSIO1_1ESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 • Page 9 Cultural Resources 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments. using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage. • Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important. and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. • • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to. the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e.. San Bernardino County Museum). A-64 PLANNING COMMISSIOI\ ,;ESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 Page 10 • • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing' agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. • Hydrology and Water Ouality 1) Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in grading plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the • site when there is rainfall or other runoff. A-65 PLANNING COMMISSIOi. .iESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 • Page 11 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. Post-Construction Operational, 5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by L.E.H. Associates May 10, 2006, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. 7) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan • (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 8) Prior to issuance of Grading or Paving Permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number)shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Noise Exterior. 65dBA 1) Provide a block wall, minimum 5 feet, constructed of masonry block, or other approved material and include no openings, cut-outs. or gaps. This is required specifically for Lots 6 and 7. • Interior,: 45dBA 2) Provide a closed air system (air conditioning units) within all single-family homes proposed for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. A-66 PLANNING COMMISSION , iESOLUTION NO. 06-103 SUBTT18096 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 13, 2006 Page 12 • 3) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 4) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 5) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase. 6) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the • construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006. PLANNING O MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam S16v✓ t, Chairman ATTEST: 1 Ja s R. Troyer, AICP, S retary I, James R.Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December 2006 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A-67 • RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065, A REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL FOR 32 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES RANGING FROM APPROXIMATELY 2,600 AND 3,300 SQUARE FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 32-LOT SUBDIVISION OF 9.08 ACRES IN THE LOW-MEDIUM (LM) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN (SOUTH OVERLAY), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST AVENUE AND VIA VENETO DRIVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 1100-191-05. A. Recitals. 1. Crestwood Communities filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2011-01065, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of May 2012,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. • B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a vacant parcel located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive; and b. The project area is a triangular parcel of approximately 396,000 square feet (9.08 acres). The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 700 feet (east to west) by approximately 750 feet(north to south); and C. To the north are single-family residences, and to the west are single-family residences and Garcia Park. To the east are single-family residences and a parking lot in the City of Fontana. Aligned diagonally near the northeast to the southwest corners of the site is a Southern California Edison (SCE) utility corridor; and • d. The zoning of the property and the properties to the north and west is Low-Medium (LM)Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan(South Overlay). The zoning of the utility corridor is Open Space (OS)District, Etiwanda Specific Plan(South Overlay). The zoning of the properties to A-68 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES • May 9, 2012 Page 2 the east (within the City of Fontana) is R-1 Single-Family Residential and P-UC Public Utility Corridors; and e. The proposal is to construct a single-family residence on each lot of a 32-lot subdivision(Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096), that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2006, for a total of thirty-two(32)single-family residences; and f. The proposed houses will comply with the development standards applicable to this zoning district as described in Figure 5-2 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The architecture of each house will be consistent with the general design requirements outlined in Section 5.42.600 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and g. The houses on Lots 1, 8, 10, 13, 19, 21, 23, and 26 will be one-story, while the houses on the remainder of the lots will be two-story. The mix of one- and two-story homes is consistent with the policy adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that25 percent(minimum) of the proposed houses must be single-story; and h. The 2-car garages of all of the houses will be setback from the front part of the house, i.e. the front of the garages will not dominate the front of the of the house as seen from the street, in compliance with Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and • i. There will be three(3)distinct footprints—Plans 1,2,and 3—and reverse footprints of each for a total of six (6)footprints. Plan 1 will be one-story, while the others will be two-story. The number of available footprints will comply with Figure 5-4 of the Etiwanda 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: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan,the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to construct a single-family residence on each lot of a 32-lot subdivision (Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096), that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2006,for a total of thirty-two(32)single-family residences. The underlying General Plan designation is Low-Medium Residential. b. The proposed development,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. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and the properties to the north and west is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay). The zoning of the utility corridor is Open Space (OS) District, Etiwanda Specific Plan(South Overlay). The zoning of the properties to the east(within the City of Fontana) is R-1 Single-Family Residential and P-UC Public Utility Corridors. • C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. A-69 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES • May 9, 2012 Page 3 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines,the City adopted a Negative Declaration in September 2005 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances underwhich the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Negative Declaration. The previously approved subdivision is for thirty-two (32)single-family lots; the applicant proposes the construction of the same number of single-family residences. All proposed improvements are consistent with single-family residential development. There is no activity proposed beyond the limits of the area of work. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. • 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. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the development of 32 single-family residences of between approximately 2,600 and 3,300 square feet in conjunction with a previously approved 32-lot subdivision of 9.08 acres in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Avenue and Via Veneto Drive -APN: 1100-191-05. 2) Development of all lots shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements applicable to the Low-Medium (LM) Residential District (South Overlay) as described in Figure 5-2 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 3) The molding along the top of the stone or brick veneerwainscots shall also be stone or brick and not foam. 4) Walls along interior property lines that exceed 6 feet in height(but are less than 8 feet in height) shall require the submittal of a Minor Exception application for review and action by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check and construction. • 5) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, Etiwanda Specific Plan,State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. A-70 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES • May 9, 2012 Page 4 6) Model homes shall require the review of a separate Temporary Use Permit(Model Home)and fee prior to submittal of documents for plan check and construction. Note: Parking in the street will not be permitted for this purpose. A temporary off-street parking area that complies with all applicable parking requirements will be required and must be shown on the plans for this permit. 7) All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 shall apply. Building and Safety (Grading) Department 1) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2) A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at Grading and Drainage Plan submittal for review. Plans shall • implement design recommendations per said report. 3) A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4) The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5) A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 6) The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 7) If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. • 8) A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage A-71 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES May 9, 2012 Page 5 prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 9) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 10) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage acceptance letter(s) from the adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 11) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s)to construct a wall on the property line or provide detail(s)showing the perimeter wall(s)to be constructed off-set from the property line. 12) The Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right-of-way and the accessibility parking stalls to the • building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions, and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 13) The Grading and Drainage Plan shall Implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 14) All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot off-set from the public right-of-way or adjacent private property. 15) Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 16) The final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100 feet beyond project boundary. 17) The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. 18) This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. • 19) The precise Grading and Drainage Plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit." A-72 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065 — CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES • May 9, 2012 Page 6 20) Grading Inspections: a. Prior to the start of grading operations, the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor, and the Building Inspector to discuss the grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the Grading Permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b. The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i. The bottom of the over-excavation; ii. Completion of rough grading, prior to issuance of the Building Permit; iii. At the completion of rough grading,the grading contractor • or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians(Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv. The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 21) Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Best Management Practices (BMP) devices. 22) The applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form 7520-16(Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number assigned to the Building and Safety Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit for any underground WQMP BMPs that are greater than 10 feet below the surface of the finished ground. 23) Prior to removing fences or walls along common lot lines, and prior to constructing walls along common lot lines,the applicant shall provide a • letter from the adjacent property owner(s) allowing work on the adjacent property. A-73 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065— CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES • May 9, 2012 Page 7 24) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide the Building and Safety Services Director with a copy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan for review prior to recordation of the document. The Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. Engineering Department 1) Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees or LMD areas: "All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 2) Install private landscaping and irrigation systems in the parkways of corner Lots 1 and 19 along Street "B" prior to public improvements being accepted by the City. 3) This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained • landscape and irrigation area. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the condition of the existing area shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: • Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner A-74 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01065—CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES May 9, 2012 • Page 8 I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • A-75 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2011-01065 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: CRESTWOOD COMMUNITIES LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE AND VIA VENETO DRIVE -APN: 1100-191-05 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents, officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 12-19, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors, landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the • Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 1 A-76 Project No.ORC2011-01065 - Completion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all _/_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/_/_ including proper illumination. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners'association,or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Construct block walls between homes(i.e.,along interior side and rear property lines),rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 11. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 12. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 13. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for Planning Director and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2 A-77 Project No. DRC2011-01065 Completion Date • Landscaping 1. All private slopes of 5 feet 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 prior to occupancy. 2. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft.of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size 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. 3. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 4. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 5. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in _/_/_ the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. • 6. 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. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 8. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping as defined in Ordinance 823 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) G. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: • a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; 3 A-78 Project No DRC2011-01065 Completion Date C. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; • e. Electrical Plans(2 sets, detached)including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams,water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., DRC2011-01065) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can contact the Building and Safety Department staff for information and submittal requirements. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number(i.e., DRC2011-01065). The applicant shall complywith the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in • effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include,but are not limited to: Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. The applicant shall provide a copy of the School Fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 4. All structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. • 4 A-79 Project No DRC2011-01065 Completion Date • Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. • 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. L. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED • 5 A-80 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS December 21, 2011 Crestwood Communities SFR Tract Non-VHFHSZ SWC Via Veneto & East Ave. SUBTT18096 & DRC2011-01065 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply 1. The private water supply and fire hydrants shall be design in accordance with RCFPD Standard 5-10 and the 2010 California Fire Code. 2. Public water supply and fire hydrants shall be design in accordance with the RCFPD • Standard 5-10, the 2010 California Fire Code and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. FSC-2 Fire Flow 1. The required fire flow for this project 1500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. 2. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. 3. Fire protection water plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until fire protection water plans are approved. 4. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-9 Single-family Residential Sales Model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction. FCS-10 Fire Sprinklers All living facilities must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13D • A-81 FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate • method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment-of the $92 review fee. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 or#88-1 is required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS — Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: 1. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and CCWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Standard #10-5. 2. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a water supply clearance before lumber is dropped on site (except form lumber). • 3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #14-1. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION — Please complete the following: 1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Public Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. 3. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, • additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property,entry. 2 A-82 STAFF REPORT _ • PUNNING DEPARTMENT DATE: May 9, 2012 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director BY: Donald Granger, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2. of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related Files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. HISTORY. BACKGROUND OPERATIONAL LEVELS AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING A. History: Ontario International Airport traces its roots back to the agricultural period of the Inland Empire when it functioned as a dirt landing strip serving the agricultural areas in the valley in the early 1920s. In 1929, the City of Ontario purchased land for the airport and it became known as the Ontario Municipal Airport. During the World War 11 era, two concrete runways, an air traffic control tower and an instrument landing system was installed. In 1946, in recognition of the transpacific cargo flights originating from the airport, Ontario Municipal Airport was renamed Ontario International Airport (ONT). In 1967, the Los Angeles City Department of Airports assumed management of the airport and co-signed a joint powers agreement with the City of Ontario, and in 1985 the City of Los Angeles became the official title holder for the 1,741 acre airport property. In 1998, service at the new terminal complex began, and in 1999 the new ground transportation center opened, including several in-airport car rental companies. Presently, the airport is owned by the City of Los Angeles and managed by Los Angeles World Airways (LAWA) and is primarily classified as a commercial service airport. The current airport runway system consists of two parallel east-west runways, is served by a multitude of airlines and includes several dedicated cargo airlines. The airport sees activity from all sizes of aircraft from general aviation aircraft to 747-400s. B. Background and Regional Significance: Commercial aviation plays a significant role in California and the Inland Empire on many different levels—transportation (personal and • business), economic synergy with other businesses (hospitality, car rentals and restaurants), travel opportunities and parcel service. Communities in close proximity to airports benefit economically but also face airport impacts. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans are documents that address airport impacts and provide implementation techniques to ensure the development of compatible land uses around airports. Airport land use compatibility planning Items B & C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 pad IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 2 is concerned with four types of interactions and potential impacts from airports and their environs: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight notification. C. Historical Operational Levels and Projected Operational Levels: In 2008, over 6 million passengers departed from and arrived at the airport on over 124,000 commercial and general aviation flights. Although air traffic for ONT has diminished during the recent economic downturn, forecasts for ONT in the year 2030 proposed by LAWA airport master plan efforts, coupled with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), assumed that current airport activity would more than triple by 2030. The approved Airport Layout, which includes shifting both runways south and east of their present positions, could accommodate up to 465,000 annual aircraft operations, 33.4 million passengers and 3.26 million tons of cargo. Although ONT is located entirely within the City of Ontario, these forecasts would result in off-airport impacts affecting neighboring jurisdictions. These impacts fall into four categories: noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight notification. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will be affected by two of these impact categories: airspace protection and overflight notification. Impacts and mitigation for airspace protection and overflight notification is discussed in detail under the Staff Report section labeled Airport Impacts. D. Airport Influence Area and Geographic Location: In accordance with State law, the geographic scope of the LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or overflight factors may affect or impose restrictions on land uses. The AIA also includes land uses that could negatively affect ONT's airport operations. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Chino, Claremont, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Counties of Riverside and Los Angeles and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino County, as shown in Map 2-1 (Exhibit A). AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN ANALYSIS AND PROCEDURES A. Master Plan Status: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) and Airport Master Plans (AMP) are closely intertwined. Section 21675(a) of the California Public Utilities Code requires that ALUCPs be based upon a long-range AMP adopted by the airport owner. If an AMP does not exist, an airport layout plan (ALP) may be used with the approval of the California Division of Aeronautics. Compatibility planning must take into account the anticipated growth of the airport for a 20 year horizon. In 2002, LAWA initiated a master planning effort for ONT. The Master Plan includes reconfiguring the existing runway system, shifting both runways south and east of their present positions. This reconfiguration is necessary to permit the runway system to accommodate the volume of aircraft operations associated with the aviation forecasts for passenger and air cargo loads for 2030. Since ONT is located in the geographic center of the City of Ontario, the City of Ontario is presently the only affected municipality by operations at ONT; however, with the Master Plan proposal of reconfiguring the runways to meet 2030 projections, neighboring municipalities that were previously outside the affected area of ONT • would now be affected by aircraft operations (noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight notification). B & C- 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 and IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • May 9, 2012 Page 3 With the nationwide economic downturn and subsequent decline in activity at ONT, the urgency for completion of the AMP was removed, and LAWA suspended work on the plan in early 2009. This situation leaves the compatibility planning project without a clearly defined Master Plan to use as its basis. One possible scenario is to base the Compatibility Plan on the existing runway configuration, given that the modified configuration is not part of any official airport plan. However, both LAWA and the City of Ontario expect the new Master Plan to eventually move forward and show a modification of the runway system as shown on the Draft Plan or similar to it. Not considering the modified runways in the Compatibility Plan could potentially enable new development to occur in a manner that would be in conflict with the future configuration. Additionally, the existing runways need to be protected until such time as they are no longer in use. Accounting for dual sets of runways in the Compatibility Plan makes the plan more complicated, but it is the best approach that provides compatibility between the airport and new land use development for both the near and long term. Therefore, an ALP was prepared showing the existing and potential future runway alignments that served as the basis for the ALUCP for ONT; accordingly, the ALP drawing was reviewed and approved by the California Division of Aeronautics in July of 2009 (Exhibit C). B. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans: The creation of Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) and the preparation of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) are requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et. seq.) Typically, counties establish an Airport Land Use Commission to prepare an ALUCP • and establish Airport Influence Areas for each airport. The fundamental purpose of an ALUC is to promote land use compatibility around airports. The compatibility plans the ALUCs adopt are the basic tools they use to achieve this purpose. With limited exceptions, an ALUC is required in every county in the state and a compatibility plan is required for each public-use and military airport. Cities and agencies that fall within the Airport Influence Area, within the County of San Bernardino, are required by State law to adopt the LA/ONT ALUCP. State law also requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Compatibility Plans. The Compatibility Plan is separate and distinct from an affected jurisdiction's land use policy documents (General Plans, Development Code, Specific Plan, etc.), yet all of the documents are expected to be vertically consistent with each other through the incorporation of compatibility policies into the respective land use policy documents. Cities and agencies that fall within an Airport Influence Area are required to forward all Development Projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency review, thus adding an additional level of review to the land use entitlement process. In the mid 1990s California State law was amended to streamline new development within the Airport Influence Areas and allow cities and agencies to conduct their own airport consistency reviews through the Alternative Process; specifically, Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) provides for what is generally referred to as an "Alternative Process" for a county to conduct airport land use compatibility planning. It eliminates the need for formation of an ALUC, but not for preparation of compatibility plans. San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process after this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (AB 2831). Following the passage of SB 443, which made the establishment of ALUCs permissive rather than mandatory, and in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), the County of San Bernardino and each city in the county, including the City of Ontario, withdrew from the B & C- 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 4 Joint Powers Agreement, which had established individual ALUCs for the East, West and Mountain/Desert planning areas of the County of San Bernardino. The City of Ontario adopted Resolution 93-120 in November of 1993 withdrawing from the West Valley ALUC. The Alternative Process within San Bernardino was established in 1995 by resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and city councils of cities affected by airports. Ontario City Council adopted the Alternative Process through Resolution No. 95-34. At the time of withdrawing from the West Valley ALUC, the City of Ontario was the only jurisdiction within the AIA for ONT and the Airport Environs Section of the 1992 General Plan was used as the basis for airport land use compatibility planning. The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Ontario as the local jurisdiction responsible for airport land use compatibility planning for ONT. The policies in the LA/ONT ALUCP amend the previously established process by City of Ontario's Resolution 95-34 to include participation by other agencies within San Bernardino County having jurisdiction over the portions of the AIA established by the LA/ONT ALUCP. C. Initiation of Alternative Process Update for ONT: Since addressing future airport impacts affected areas outside of the City of Ontario limits, the City of Ontario recognized that a proper ALUCP should be prepared that would modify the existing Alternative Process to include all jurisdictions affected by the future projected growth at ONT. In December of 2008, the City of Ontario initiated an update to the ALUCP for ONT. The City of Ontario desired a collective • and collaborative approach to compatibility planning around ONT from all affected agencies. The City of Ontario invited neighboring jurisdictions which may be affected by operations at ONT to participate and contribute to the development of the ALUCP. One of the principal goals of the ALUCP is to determine how the City of Ontario and other affected jurisdictions can mutually work together to accomplish airport land use compatibility around ONT in the most streamlined manner. Since the summer of 2009, LAWA and the other affected jurisdictions have participated in the development of the ALUCP through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC included representatives from the following agencies: • FAA • Caltrans Division of Aeronautics • LAWA • Planning and management staff from City of Ontario (lead agency) • Planning staff from Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland • Planning staff from Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino Ultimately, the City of Ontario is responsible for preparing the ALUCP, the environmental assessment and presenting the ALUCP to the City of Ontario City Council for adoption. The City of Ontario Planning Commission recommended approval of the ALUCP on March 22, 2011, and the City Council adopted the ALUCP on April 19, 2011. Implementation of the alternative process requires completion of several steps, which are summarized as follows: (a) Preparation and adoption of an ALUCP by City of Ontario. (b) Adoption of the ALUCP by each affected agency. B & C- 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND [ASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • May 9, 2012 Page 5 (c) Amending General Plans and Specific Plans by each affected agency to be consistent with the ALUCP. (d) California Division of Aeronautics Approval by City of Ontario. D. ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: The purpose of the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process is to ensure a coordinated approach to compatibility planning around ONT and implement the LA/ONT ALUCP. The City Manager of each Affected Agency shall designate a department responsible for participating in the ONT Inter-Agency Notification process. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Planning Department is the designated participating department. The ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process includes the following steps: (a) For each project or land use action subject to the Alternative Process, the Submitting Agency shall complete a Project Comment Worksheet and forward it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies. The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the Compatibility Plan for ONT. (b) Commenting Agencies will have 20 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet. Agencies that do not • respond within the 15-day period would be considered to have no comments and subsequently agree with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. Commenting Agencies shall limit their comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the LA/ONT Compatibility Plan and forward their comments electronically to the City of Ontario. (c) If the Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments received on the Worksheet, staff of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the commenting agency and/or commenting agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with the Compatibility Plan. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Worksheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consistency remain, the Submitting Agency or any Commenting Agency may request a Mediation Board hearing to mediate the dispute. (d) If no comments are submitted on the Project Comment Worksheet as provided in subdivision (b), or if comments are resolved as provided in subdivision (c), the Submitting Agency shall indicate in its own public notices that the project is within the ONT AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluation and found to be consistent with this Compatibility Plan. As the City of Ontario would continue to be the principal jurisdiction impacted by operations at • ONT, the City of Ontario would take the lead role in preparing updates to the ALUCP and coordinating compatibility reviews of certain projects with stakeholders and the public. Additionally, the City of Ontario would have the following responsibilities: B & C- 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 6 (a) Develop, maintain and distribute the Project Comment Worksheet, when necessary; (b) Provide affected agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; (c) Serve as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the AIA and proposed on-site development; (d) Review proposed major airport and land use actions for consistency with the policies set forth in the LA/ONT ALUCP and preparing written consistency evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; and (e) Solicit input and comments from the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies regarding compatibly planning matters, when necessary. The types of projects within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that would be subject to ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process would be Major Land Use Actions (Exhibit H; Table 2-1). Examples include, but are not limited to: General Plan or Specific Plan Amendments; any proposed or alteration to a structure greater than 200 feet in height; any structure or object that would penetrate the allowable air space protection area as defined by Map 2-4 (Exhibit D). For Rancho Cucamonga, buildings that are greater than 70 feet in height in some areas of • the Airport Influence Area (High Terrain Zone) require Inter-Agency Notification. E. Mediation Board: The ALUCP process provides for a Mediation Board (voting body) in the event an affected agency wishes to appeal a decision. The Mediation Board would be comprised of seven members appointed as follows: (a) Two members from the City of Ontario—appointed by the City Council. (b) One member from LAWA—the LA/Ontario International Airport Manager. (c) Two members representing the agency with the disputed project, appointed by the agency's governing body. Members shall have land use planning or public hearing experience (i.e., Planning Commissioner or City Council member). (d) Two members from the public (one requiring aviation experience) appointed by the Ontario City Council with recommendations from the other Affected Agencies. When acting upon a disputed action (e.g., consistency evaluation or preparation, adoption or amendment of the 2010 Compatibility Plan), the Mediation Board shall adhere to the following procedure: (a) Hold a public hearing on the action under consideration. • (b) Provide the opportunity for public input. B & C- 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • May 9, 2012 Page 7 (c) Issue formal findings on the disputed action. (d) Make decisions by a majority vote. F. Overruling the Mediation Board: The ALUCP process provides the governing body of each Submitting Agency the opportunity to overrule the Mediation Board's decision. The overruling process for the Submitting Agency to overrule the Mediation Board is the following: 1. Make formal findings to support a conclusion that the proposed action would not: (a) Impair the orderly expansion of ONT; or (b) Adversely impact the utility or capacity of the airport (such as by reducing the instrument approach procedure minimums); or (c) Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. 2. The Notification and Voting Requirements to overrule the Mediation Boards are the following: • (aj The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date, to the City of Ontario and California Division of Aeronautics, as required by State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676). (b) The governing body of the Submitting Agency must hold a public hearing on the matter. The public hearing shall be noticed consistent with the Submitting Agency's established procedures. (c) A decision by the governing body to overrule the Mediation Board must be made by a vote of at least two-thirds of the body's members. (d) The Submitting Agency must include any comments received from any Affected Agency, Mediation Board, Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the public record of any final decision to overrule the Mediation Board. AIRPORT IMPACTS TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: AIRSPACE PROTECTION AND OVERFLIGHT NOTIFICATION A. Airspace Protection: Airspace protection is concerned with the potential consequences that certain land use characteristics may have on the airport and aircraft operations. Significant airspace hazards can reduce the utility of the airport and effect instrument approach procedures. The main goal of airspace protection is to avoid the creation of land use features • that can create physical, visual or electronic hazards to flight or cause a loss in airport utility. Because the FAA has no authority over local land use, limiting the height of structures falls upon the state and local land use jurisdictions, as well as an ALUC, where one exists. B & C- 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 8 The ALUCP basis its height restrictions on Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which affects the built environment at a slope of 100 to 1 within 20,000 feet (3.78 miles) from the nearest point of the runway. Building heights are calculated based upon the following formula: conical surface area minus the existing grade elevation. However, because of the rising terrain within the City of Rancho Cucamonga north of ONT, allowable building heights for future buildings within Rancho Cucamonga could be adversely impacted. To address this issue, the ALUCP has identified a High Terrain Zone within the Industrial Districts (Exhibit D) that permits building heights up to 70 feet, which is consistent with the City's Development Code. Although the 70 foot height limit penetrates the Airspace Obstruction Surface, there are several existing features in the existing built environment (power poles, buildings) that are 70 feet in height or are slightly greater, thereby justifying the 70 foot. height in the ALUCP. Dedication of an avigation easement is required for all new development within the High Terrain Zone. Proposed buildings that exceed the 70 foot height limitation would be required to obtain an exception from the FAA. If the height of an object exceeds the FAR Part 77 surfaces, thereby constituting an obstruction to navigable airspace, the project could be approved if all of the following are met: (a) The FAA and the California Division of Aeronautics determine that the object would not constitute a hazard to air navigation; and (b) The obstruction is marked or lighted; and • (c) An avigation easement is dedicated to the airport owner as a condition of approval. B. Overflight Notification: Since noise from aircraft operations can be intrusive and annoying beyond the noise impact zones, overflight notification focuses on buyer awareness, not on land use restrictions. The overarching purpose of overflight notification and overflight compatibility policies is to facilitate awareness of the presence of overflights near airports so prospective buyers or tenants are able to make more informed decisions regarding the purchase or lease of real property or buildings within the affected area, particularly residential land uses. Buyer awareness is an umbrella category for several types of implementation documents, all of which have the objective of ensuring that prospective buyers of airport area property are informed of the airport's impact on the property. Buyer awareness is accomplished through the following three mechanisms: Avigation Easement Dedication: As a condition of approval of a new development near the airport, a developer can be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the airport. An avigation easement is the most certain means of ensuring buyer awareness by conveying certain property rights from the property owner to the party owning the easement. The advantage of an avigation easement is that it not only provides for buyer awareness but ensures airspace protection by limiting the heights of objects on the property. In sum, avigation easements are best suited to locations where height limits are substantial or where significant constraints on the development of a property are necessary for noise or safety purposes. An avigation • easement is required for all property within the High Terrain Zone within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Refer to Maps 2-4 and 2-5 to indicate the High Terrain Zone and Overflight Notification Zones (Exhibits D and E). B & C- 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • May 9, 2012 Page 9 Recorded Overflight Notification: Where buyer awareness is the only objective, a Recorded Deed Notice should be considered. The primary purpose behind a Recorded Deed Notice is that information about the airport's proximity is recorded on the property deed, but a conveyance of property rights does not occur. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is not within an area affected by Recorded Overflight Notification since the City is not impacted by noise levels of 60dB or greater from aircraft operations from ONT. Overflight Disclosure in Real Estate Transactions: Requirements for disclosure of airport proximity information as part of some residential real estate transactions are set forth in state law (new subdivisions and common interest developments [condominiums]). Disclosure in real estate transactions is required for properties within an Airport Influence Area. The overall boundary for disclosure is the Airport Influence Area for ONT. See Map 2-5 (Exhibit E) for areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which are affected by disclosure requirements of the ALUCP. SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • A. Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685: State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, this involves three documents: The General Plan, the IASP Subarea 18 and the Industrial Districts Section of the Development Code (Section 17.30). Planning staff was able to work with the City of Ontario Planning staff during 2009-2010 and incorporate discussion, policies and implementation actions for the LA/ONT ALUCP into the 2010 General Plan; therefore, no modification to the General Plan is necessary. The forthcoming Development Code update includes text in Article III requiring compliance with the LA/ONT ALUCP; therefore, no action is required at this time to amend the current Development Code. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide this Specific Plan with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP. Specifically, the IASP Subarea 18 Plan will be amended to be consistent with the height limitations for buildings within the Airport Influence Area within the ALUCP. The height limit will be 70 feet in the High Terrain Zone as identified in the ALUCP, unless an exception is granted from the FAA. With an exception from the FAA, the IASP Subarea 18 will permit office and hotel buildings up to 90 feet or 8 stories. The standard 70 foot height in the High Terrain Zone limit will permit up to 6 story buildings, which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2010 General Plan and the Development Code. The 70 foot height limit will not preclude the development potential or.diminish the economic potential of properties in the Industrial Districts. • B. General Plan: The City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan includes an Aviation Hazard Section that addresses Airspace Protection and Overflight Notification in the Public Safety Element that was reviewed by the City of Ontario's Planning staff. Additionally, the B & C- 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 10 General Plan contains four policies and implementation actions (P.S. 9.1-9.4) that will ensure that the City of Rancho Cucamonga and future development within the AIA is compliant with the LA/ ONT ALUCP. Adoption and participation by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the LA/ONT ALUCP will fulfill the following Polices and Implementation Actions of the 2010 General Plan: Policy PS-9.1: Participate in the Technical Advisory Committee for LA/Ontario International Airport to protect Rancho Cucamonga interests regarding land use and safety. Finding/Action: The adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP will provide the formal means for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to participate in the Technical Advisory Committee in order to ensure that the City retains the greatest possible local control over property and land uses within the ONT AIA. Policy PS-9.2: Balance the need to protect LA/Ontario International Airport aircraft from physical, visual, or electronic hazards without minimizing use restrictions on Rancho Cucamonga properties that would diminish full economic use of those properties. Finding/Action: The adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP is compatible with the goals and objectives of the 2010 General Plan and the Development Code since it will not encumber the economic development of parcels within the LA/ONT AIA. The height limits and land use policies within the LA/ONT ALUCP are consistent and compatible with the City's land use • goals and height limits. Policy PS-9.3: Create an appropriate strategy to address proposed development where heights exceed FAR Part 77 standards. Finding/Action: The LA/ONT ALUCP includes a High Terrain Zone within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that accounts for existing features in the built environment that are at or exceed the height limits in the LA/ONT ALUCP. This High Terrain Zone will permit building heights up to 70 feet, which is consistent with Development Code. Further, the ALUCP outlines a process to notify the FAA and apply for an exemption should a development proposal exceed the height limits prescribed in the ALUCP. Policy PS-9.4: Create policies or procedures that provide flexibility regarding how prospective buyers and tenants of properties within the LA/Ontario International Airport Influence Area are informed of potential aircraft overflight impacts. Finding/Action: The LA/ONT ALUCP outlines the means (avigation easements and real estate disclosures) that will alert prospective buyers and tenants of properties within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are within the AIA that are subject to impacts from aircraft operations from ONT. The ALUCP contains Maps indicating which type of notification document is required and contains sample documents to assist property owners in fulfilling this requirement. C. Environmental Analysis: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and • the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project (adoption of the ALUCP, Subarea 18 text amendment and Development Code Amendment). Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City B & C- 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND IASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • May 9, 2012 Page 11 staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. CORRESPONDENCE: Since this item is the recommendation to adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the related Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment, this item was advertised as a public hearing (1/8 page ad) in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. SUMMARY: Planning staff has been working with the City of Ontario Planning staff since the Spring of 2009 on the development, language and technical processes outlined in the LA/ONT ALUCP. The ALUCP provides a process whereby impacted municipalities and agencies from aircraft operations at ONT are able to participate in a review process that permits local agencies to retain control of the land uses within the Airport Influence Area of ONT and address compatibility factors. Planning staff finds that the proposed ALUCP will not encumber the goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan and Development Code, or impede future development. Since the ALUCP was being drafted during the recent General Plan update, the 2010 General Plan includes policies (PS 9.1 through 9.4) that ensure that the General Plan is in compliance with the ALUCP. On January 11, 2012, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning staff recommended that that the • Planning Commission, through minute action, direct staff to initiate Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, thereby enabling staff to craft language and continue to collaborate with the City of Ontario Planning staff to ensure that this document provides consistent land use policies and regulations that are consistent with the LA/ONT ALUCP. The Commission approved the initiation of both text amendments. On March 28, 2012, Planning staff from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario conducted a workshop with the Planning Commission to present the ALUCP, elicit feedback and answer questions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions of Approval recommending that the City Council 1) adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP; 2) approve LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and enter into the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative; and 3) approve Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, all items will be brought to the City Council for final consideration and action. Respectfully submitted, U, ffr y . B Interim Planning Director • JAB:DG/dl Attachments: Exhibit A - Airport Influence Area (Map 2-1) Exhibit B - Exhibit 2A Affected Jurisdictions B & C- 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LA/ONT ALUCP DRC2010-00157 AND [ASP SUBAREA 18 DRC2010-00685 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • May 9, 2012 Page 12 Exhibit C - Simplified Airport Diagram (Exhibit 1-6) Exhibit D - Airspace Protection Zones (Map 2-4) Exhibit E - Overflight Notification Zones (Map 2-5) Exhibit F - Flight Track Altitude: All Operations — Composite (Exhibit 1-14) Exhibit G - City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit H - IASP Subarea 18 Exhibits (Planning Areas) Exhibit I - Major Land Use Actions Subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process(Table 2-1) Exhibit J - Planning Commission Workshop Minutes dated March 28, 2012 Exhibit K - LA/ONT ALUCP (complete text with exhibits) available at: http://ontario.org/index.cfm/33710 Exhibit L - LA/ONT ALUCP hard copy (previously presented at the March 28, 2012 Planning Commission Workshop) Exhibit M - Initial Study Part II Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of adoption of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, dated May 9, 2012 Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of the Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative, dated • May 9, 2012 Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of Industrial Area Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, dated May 9, 2012 • B & C- 12 a m n U°F E= V U 0 sell e k p�� n — r CL W ., lypg u 1y I n i I rim • 1'If v p 1{ r I TAI I�Si \ •_ i 1 I r ' �1 ��r �, { •� r e ref kb Aw, ♦ EXHIBIT A Bg- 13 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES On • (c) Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) is a department of the City of Los Angeles and is the owner and operator of ONT. (d) Special entities including school districts, community college districts, and special districts whose boundaries include lands within the San Bernardino County portion of the AIA. 1.2.3 Jurisdictions of Los of Los�eles and Riverside Counties:Riverside Counties: The ONT AIA extends beyond the San Bernardino County borders and into parts of adjacent Los Angeles and Riverside Counties. For the jurisdictions of Los Angeles and Riverside Counties, the Compatibik'ty Plan is informational only. These jurisdictions are not subject to the requirements of this Compatibility Plan. The County of Riverside has jurisdictional control over unincorporated lands within the noise-impacted areas of ONT and has elected to participate in the Alternative Process on a discretionary basis. Exhibit 2A: Affected Jurisdictions Agency Safety Noise Airspace Overflight comnlent� Protection City of Ontario X X X X All policies apply City of Chino X X X City of Fontana X X X • City of Montclair X X X City of Rancho X X Cucamonga City of Upland X X County of San % X X Bernardino Policies are informational; County of Riverside X X X Participating in Alternative Process h on discretionary basis (see Section 123) City of Pomona, X Policies are informational Los Angeles County (see Section 1.2.3) City of Claremont X Policies are informational Los Angeles County (see Section 1.2.3) 1.3 Limitations of the Compatibility Plan 1.3.1 Airport Operations: State law explicitly precludes airport land use commissions from having jurisdiction over the operation of any airport (Public Utilities Code Section 21674(e)). The same limitation also applies under the Alternative Process. (a) The City of Ontario, affected local jurisdictions, and the Mediation Board have no authority over the operation of ONT. This authority rests with LAWA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (b) The only actions of LAWA subject to the Alternative Process and the policies of • this Compatibi4'ty Plan are the adoption or amendment of the airport master plan or airport layout plan, or approval of certain facility development plans that LA/Ontario international Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) EXHIBIT B 8fC - (y ? E a_ low CIL o E I e. nor ne I �4 k III IC+ m ¢ i jy ' 1 ie�e I 18° P 5 E F b a I >a > a'§ I I I a b gill e� s _ a i 11M - @ mLL R a 5 E ! EkN6G e i f j E m i I a dP 'W u uSPmE udwi WEE F !$�8 agge @ y € y a y$ $$gg gg L • _ _� n ���m v I ' � I I , EXHIBIT C au coo gf In 7 O Ed E $$$§ \b m (L tg 10 � z11 cl ' � d W ! III iV Hip O A a V\ � J-III' TE 2 r 1 IrI w r \ ol ,c rl .l' All rj CN IM Ta z 3aa �✓� � L p � ."jW y I�. I $ .1 ' �- wz —r 721--j y y ' EXHIBIT D �¢ W ggA ggg ii Cc '< Ft, N leg to W g g$frfr g$¢ P ppg 3 Q a a p ° g5 g eg $ Si b z d am 1I F ER pR o 1 L F � a a J cM ��i✓`` UN V SY A � , .r i a- ti Ln I .I' J v EXHIBIT E ��-�� s d = CL r E I i r I a gg iS Zi6 $ $ 51H z�psm /h .�� y1�t,Il ,J;fi t i i I •C; 1 � Y r I I III }Y L i +41�.��4 r r, F�I ���3T= '.. ✓ � I�i` �: � ♦ 1. I-I� 'ir k 191 Y - , r a .� :. - I a J r I _ I } t -S_I r^ IiT Y•� cis t .1 i 'i�� _� rf �'.tl -`T •ice (�-�� 3 � f EXHIBI - $>°93i3�z6� Y_guPx pEg PP EEj 'iI a@ III 111�lg !� !I alll � � � , • r a LL= All -_ m= a IL I < - - - - `r -t °� t l .r,aow U = m 3 a w � I r. tiny � so 11 � - I QQQQ " �w • � w�' U_'J m O a � J _ a ° EXHIBIT G g -`� Metro unlc Station '— Planning �•1/ \Area .. t23�lac. f`7 Planning I r Area 1S 7 91 ac f I r \�u Planning Planning Area X1 Are, IX ^� 18 ac 19 ac. Jj_S_iXtlt Street, Planning 1 Planning ' + Planning Area.III II Area VIII ` Area II 19 ac- 21 ac 28 ac. Planning II Area 1A Planning 64 ac A1r6aac IV, f i Planning yArea � ning s� � Planning Q '(per 1 Area Vi] I' a V1 28 ac. 24 ac. N 4 Fourth Street f I Note:This figure represents the current proposed Land Use Plan for Sub- Area IS and may be subject to future refinements and/or modifications. Refer to Section 4.2 Land Use Plan, Table 5.1 Summary Land Use by Planning Area and Table 5.2 Land Use Type Definitions for types of land uses permitted in planning areas. Boo. 600• a 80a • figure / "G Conceptual Land Use Plan XHIBIT H B & C- 20 ONTARIE- aasoerw.nniac PROCEDURAL AND COMPATIBILITY POLICIES CHAPTER 2 Table 2-1 • Major Land Use Actions ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process if located anywhere within the Airport Influence Area (Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): • Expansion or creation of the sphere of influence of a city or district(e.g.,annexation or incorporation) • General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning Amendments • Major capital improvements (e.g.,water,sewer, roads)that would promote urban development in undeveloped or agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not reflected in a previously reviewed general plan or specific plan. • Any proposal for acquisition of a new site or expansion of an existing site by a special district,school district, or community college district. • Any proposal for construction or alteration of a structure(including antennae)taller than 200 feet above the ground. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within a safety zone(Applies solely to the City of Ontario): + Any proposed land use within Safety Zone 1 that is not an aviation-related use. ->'4 Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses including,hospitals,schools,jails or prisons. • Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater unless only ministerial approval(e.g.,a building permit)is required. • Proposed development of airport property if such development is not an aviation-related use or has not previously been included in an airport master plan or community general plan reviewed under the Alternative Process. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process • only if they are located within a noise impact zone of 65+dB CNEL (Applies to the City of Ontario, City of Fontana and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County): + Residential development, including land divisions,consisting of five or more dwelling units or individual parcels. + Any nonresidential use having outdoor dining or gathering functions. + Public agency acquisition of sites intended for institutional uses including hospitals,schools,jails or prisons. The following types of Major Land Use Actions are subject to the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process only if they are located within an airspace protection zone(Applies to all Affected Jurisdictions): • Any proposed object(including buildings,antennas, and other structures)having a height that requires review by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77,Subpart B. • Any proposed object(including buildings, antennas, and other structures)that would penetrate the allowable height as defined by Map 2-4 or conflict with the Airspace Protection policies. • Any project having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, including: • Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational signals. • Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting. • Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the airport. • Impaired visibility near the airport. • Any project(e.g.,water treatment facilities,waste transfer or disposal facilities, parks with open water areas), plan (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plan)or proposal to acquire sites intended for lakes, ponds,wetlands, or sewer treatment ponds whicn would have the potential to cause an Increase in the attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in the vicinity of an airport. • EXHIBIT ' Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted April 19,2011) 2-39 B & C- 21 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 28, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Munoz then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director;Tabe Van der Zwaag,Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager ♦rtrw ♦ NEW BUSINESS • A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND CITY OF ONTARIO-A joint workshop from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff and the City of Ontario Planning Staff to present the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. Donald Granger, Senior Planner, gave a brief introduction regarding the purpose of the workshop. He noted that the airport is an asset and creates business synergy and the plan promotes land use compatibility. He said two main components are airspace protection and air flight notification. He then turned the meeting over to the City of Ontario team consisting of Jerry Blum, Planning Director and Lorena Mejia, Associate Planner. Mr. Blum gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the process of adopting the plan and explained that the airport creates 55,000 jobs totaling$5.4 billion (1.5 billion devoted to aviation and 3.5 billion which is spent in the local economy). He noted that the airport greatly increases the need for Class A office space. He said the plan has a 20-year horizon and this is why the impacts would extend to Rancho Cucamonga and the other neighboring cities. He said the plan is in conformance with Ontario's new General Plan. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, Mr. Blum noted that it is not likely the capacity cap of 30 million passengers will be exceeded and if it did, it would not occur for many years and at 24 billion, would require additional runways at a huge cost. • EXHIBIT J B & C- 22 In response to Vice Chairman Howdyshell, Mr. Blum said the Natural Hazard Disclosure that realtors provide to their buyers will now include Air flight notifications. He said following adoption, we must • meet the policies of the plan. He noted that the plan only affects new development within the area of the plan. He said some projects will have to go through a notification process and be submitted for review by the collaborative group such as: General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, annexations, structures that exceed the allowable height, and those that have the potential to create electrical or visual hazards. He said that if other jurisdictions are in a dispute regarding a specific project that does not affect our jurisdiction we would not be brought into the dispute; disputes are dealt with by the mediation board. Mr. Blum emphasized that they critically analyzed time,effort and cost in the development of this process. In response to Commissioner Fletcher, he said all plan amendments would be submitted for review even if they have "no effect" - it would merely be submitted as a general notification of the project. He said their response time is 20 days. He said it is their hope that sending the notification will be part of Rancho's existing process. Mr. Blum added that the committee would only be aware if a specific project was not compliant. He said unlike county commissions,our mediation group will be staffed by people that represent the cities that are most affected. James Troyer, Planning Director, noted that this is already outlined and represented in our 2010 General Plan Update. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, asked if they are looking for a specific finding. Mr. Blum said that it need only be found to be in conformance with our General Plan and policies. He said the next step is to move forward with the review of the agreement and then it would proceed to the Commission and for final approval by the City Council. Discussion of this item ended at 8:30 p.m. • w ♦ ♦ w ♦ B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2012-00021 -ZION ENTERPRISES LLC: equest for a Planning Commission Workshop review of a mixed use project comprised o senior assisted living and dementia care facility, a medical office building, retail and re aurant pads, and a hotel on two parcels of about 301,000 square feet (6.9 acres) in the axed Use (MU) District (Subarea 19) located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue Civic Center Drive that is part of a retail and residential development generally located he west side of Haven Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard;APN: 05-331-40 and-47. Related files: Development Review DRCDR00-79 and Tentative T t Map SUBTT16179 James Troyer, Planning Director gave a brief intro ction of the project. He introduced the design team from Zion Enterprises LLC: Brian Hunt Managing Partner), Charlie Zhang (Owner) and Greg Irwin (Architect). He stated that mos the project is consistent with City policy but that the main policy question for the Commis 'on is about the proposed Senior Assisted Living and Dementia care facility located on t western portion of the site. He said that the applicant has already been notified that a Us etermination would have to be processed to determine if the Senior Assisted Living and D entia care facility use is similar to a "convalescent facility"which is currently allowed in the H an Overlay. He said if the applicant was not successful in the Use Determination proces , then the applicant would have to file and successfully process a Development Code endment for it to be allowed. Linda Daniels ssistant City Manager, said thatthe use described as"Convalescent Facility" will be removed/w' of be permitted in the Haven Overlay in the proposed Development Code Update that is curre in process and nearing completion. • PC djourned Minutes -2- March 28, 2012 B & C- 23 LA/ONT ALUCP (complete text with exhibits) available at: http://ontario.org/index.cfm/33710 EXHIBIT K B & C- 24 LA/ONT ALUCP hard copy (previously presented at the March 28, 2012 Planning Commission Workshop) EXHIBIT L B & C- 25 City of Rancho Cucamonga rl ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685. 2. Related Files: None. See below for complete description of project. 3. Location of Project: LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the City of Ontario (Figure H-1; LA/ONT ALUCP. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airways (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or over flight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Pomona, Claremont, and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties (Figure H-2; LA/ONT ALUCP). Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the affected project area for the AIA (Airspace Protection Areas Figure PS-7 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan) is generally located south of • Church Street to the City limits. 4 Description of Project: The function of the LA/Ontario (ONT) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is to promote compatibility between ONT and surrounding land uses as provided in the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code [Section 21670 et seq.]). The ALUCP provides specific limitations and conditions for developing future residential, commercial, and other noise and risk sensitive uses surrounding ONT. The ALUCP consists of several components, including airport and land use information, compatibility policies and criteria, compatibility zone maps, and procedural policies for the City of Ontario and the surrounding areas and jurisdictions within the Airport Influence Area (AIA). The preparation of the ALUCP was guided by the California Department of Transportation California Airport Lane Use Planning Handbook (January 2002). It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA; it does not regulate existing uses. Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to ONT, nor does it have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). LAWA began the master planning process for ONT, but efforts were suspended in 2008 because of the economic downturn and subsequent drop in aircraft operations. Before the planning process was suspended, LAWA developed a tentative proposal for reconfiguration of the existing runway system that would accommodate potential future passenger and air cargo volume projections for the year 2030. The State Aeronautics Act requires that an ALUCP "be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years' (Public Utilities Code, g 21675(a)). Therefore, while the ALUCP includes an airport layout plan that shifts runways of ONT to the east and south for airport land use planning purposes, the City of Ontario has no approval authority over that layout, nor does inclusion of that is layout in the ALUCP facilitate expansion of the operations of ONT. Any future expansion would have to be approved by LAWA as part of an Airport Master Plan. The ALUCP takes into consideration the airport layout plan that shifts runways of ONT to the east and south for airport EXHIBIT M B & C- 26 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Paget • land use planning purposes in order to properly address and mitigate potential impacts from future aircraft operations and the re-configuring of the existing runways. All affected jurisdictions with the AIA within the County of San Bernardino are required to adopt the ALUCP through participation agreements, implement its policies, and amend all affected land use documents with the AIA to achieve vertical land use policy consistency. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the following three actions constitute the scope of the project and will achieve vertical consistency among its land use documents 1. Adopt the LA/ONT ALUCP and enter into a participation agreement (Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative Agreement). 2. Amend the Industrial Area Subarea 18 Specific Plan to include language requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. 3. Amend Section 17.30 (Industrial Districts) of the Development to include language requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. Note: The City's 2010 General Plan anticipated the adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP and includes language and policies requiring compliance with the ALUCP; therefore, no text amendments to the 2010 General Plan are required. The City is currently completing a°comprehensive update to the Development Code, which will include updated language to the Industrial Districts (#3 above) requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. For CEQA purposes, the scope of the Initial Study includes the following: 1) adoption of the • ALUCP; 2) amending Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and 3) amending Section 17.30 (Industrial Districts) of the Development to include language requiring compliance with the ALUCP for airspace protection and over flight notification. Case File Descriptions: LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). Related Files: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.30.040-D-5 (Building Height) and Section 17.030.060-J-14 (Architecture and Design) to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Related Files: LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related Files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Development Code • Amendment DRC2010-00984. Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 27 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept. City of Ontario, Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Drive 303 East"B" Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ontario, CA 91764 Contact Donald Granger, Senior Planner Contact: Lorene Mejia, Associate Planner 6. General Plan Designation: General Plan designations vary within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga 7. Zoning: Zoning designations vary within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses vary within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport—related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or over flight notification may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Chino, Claremont, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and unincorporated portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Future impacts from aircraft operations at ONT are projected to affect the City of Rancho Cucamonga; hence, the adoption of the ALUCP and participation in the implementation of its policies is required. • 9. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 10. Contact Person and Phone Number: Donald Granger (909) 477-2750, ext. 4314 11. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The City of Ontario is the lead agency responsible for the drafting and administration of the LA/ONT ALUCP. The City of Ontario approved the LA/ONT ALUCP on April 19, 2011. GLOSSARY—The following abbreviations are used in this report: CVWD—Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR— Environmental Impact Report FEIR—Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR - Final Program Environmental Impact Report NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOx— Nitrogen Oxides ROG —Reactive Organic Gases PM10— Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board • SCAQMD —South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP— Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan URBEMIS7G— Urban Emissions Model 7G Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 28 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or"Less Than-Significant-Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( )Aesthetics ( )Agricultural Resources ( )Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Geology & Soils ( ) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (✓) Hazards & Waste Materials ( ) Hydrology &Water Quality (✓) Land Use & Planning ( ) Mineral Resources ( ) Noise ( ) Population & Housing ( ) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( )Transportation/Traffic ( ) Utilities & Service Systems (✓) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (✓) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared BAc� Date: �41101-201Z- Rev. ' t o 2 �l Z • Reviewed By: Date: • 11/2010 B & C- 29 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Pages EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a-d) The proposed Los Angeles/Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (LA/ONT ALUCP), Development Code Amendment (DCA), and Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment (IASP Sub 18 TA,) do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, • IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not (a) directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista (trees, rock outcroppings); (b, damage scenic resources; (c) degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings; or (d) create a new source of light or glare, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Further, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ( ) ( ) Q (✓) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Williamson Act contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoing of, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))? • d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) land to non-forest use? Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 30 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page • e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a-e) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland or Timberland Production, agriculturally zoned and no Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not (a) directly or indirectly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively "Farmland" to non-agricultural use; (b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning qf, _forest land (as defined in ,Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g); or (d) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use, since there is no forest land within the Airport Influence Area (AIA); or involve other changes in the existing environment that, because of their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA would not • encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) number of people? Comments: a-e) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA„ and DCA do not propose or involve any • new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise Rev. 11/2010 B & C-31 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan and FPEIR analyzed the LA/ONT ALUCP and impacts associated. Therefore, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (b) violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; (c) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard; (d) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or (e) or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not impact the environment or result in impacts to air quality. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: • a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have-a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) • Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 32 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page Comments: a-f) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. It is important to note that the ALUCP only governs future land uses within the AIA; it does not regulate existing uses Further, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to ONT, nor does it have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not directly or indirectly impact biological resources or their habitat, or conflict with applicable policies protecting biological resources or an adopted or approved habitat conservation plan; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to biological resources. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) • significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a-d) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA ALUCP would not (a,b) directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archaeological resource; (c) directly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or (d) disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels • in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Additionally, each project located Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 33 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 9 within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓). iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) or that would become unstable as a result of the • project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a-e) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) expose people or structures to potential, substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides; (b) result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; (c) be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, potentially resulting in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; (d) be located on expansive soil; or (e) have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks; and, as such, would not • directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to geology and soils. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 34 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 10 • impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a-b) Regulations and Significance: The Federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act(92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, former Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas ("GHG") emissions reduction target in Executive Order (EO) 5-3-05. The EO created goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: (1) that GHGs endanger human health; and (2) that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines six key GHGs (carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [NZO], hydroflourocarbons • [HFCs], perflourocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]. The combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to GHG pollution. The western states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, already experience hotter, drier climates. California is a substantial contributor of GHGs and is expected to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (OF) over the next century. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of COZ equivalent) to be achieved by 2020 and prepare a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline. Significant progress can be made toward the 2020 goal through existing technologies and improving the efficiency of energy use. Other solutions would include improving the State's infrastructure and transitioning to cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The ARB estimates that 38 percent of the State's GHG emissions in 2004 was from transportation sources, followed by electricity generation (both in-State and out-of-State) at 28 percent, and industrial at 20 percent. Residential and commercial activities account for 9 percent, agricultural uses at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the • environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, ASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 35 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 11 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant effect on the environment or (b) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gas emissions. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) • acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 114 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) (✓) ( ) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: . a-d) & f-h) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 36 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 12 • permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not (a) involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; (b) the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste; (c) result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; or (d) involve the location of a building, structure, or public facility on a hazardous materials site compiled by the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 or affect any sites included on a list of hazardous material sites. The proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not affect the incidence of hazardous material safety hazards in the area and would not (f) result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of the nearest private airstrip; (g) affect emergency response plans or (f) affect the incidence or probability or wildland fires in the area. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. e) Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes criteria and • Safety Zones by which safety hazards relating to aircraft activity would be evaluated. The criteria are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off-airport accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people within the Safety Zones. The Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario and land uses were designated in the Ontario Plan to be consistent with airport operations. The proposed ALUCP further redudes risks of aircraft accident occurrence by setting policies that, consistent with federal regulations, limit the height of structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airspace of the airport as defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, TERPS and FAA criteria. The proposed ALUCP would also decrease airport-related safety hazards by limiting incompatible development within Safety Zones (City of Ontario). The proposed ALUCP would result in a beneficial impact by reducing the number of people exposed to airport- related safety hazards, including aircraft accidents, consistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the adoption of the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would increase airport safety by amending the City's land use documents to contain policies and procedures that will ensure compliance with the airspace protection and over flight notification sections of the ALUCP. Because of the reasons stated above, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, conversely, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA will limit building heights for new development in areas with the Airport Influence Area. The impact is considered less-than-significant. is Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 37 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 13 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) the capacity of existing or planned stormwater • drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a-j) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, [ASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) violate any water quality standards; (b) affect • groundwater supplies; (c,d) substantially alter drainage patterns; or (e)-(j) cause runoff water which would exceed storm drains, degrade water quality or expose people or structures to significant risk in involving flooding, seiche, tsunami or mudflow; and, as Rev. 11/2010 B & C-38 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 14 • such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to hydrology and water quality. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) (✓) ( ) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a & c) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, • IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT). ONT has operated as an airport since the 1920s, and the City of Ontario has planned for appropriate land uses surrounding ONT. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) physically divide an established community or (b) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to land use planning. Further, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts'were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Additionally, each project located within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts. b) The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures, designed to minimize the public's exposure impacts from aircraft operations at ONT. State law (Gov. Code §653025.3) requires that all agencies within an Airport Influence Area amend their general plans to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP, and other land use documents should be amended as needed to achieve vertical land use policy consistency. The ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by State law, the proposed ALUCP sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City of • Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan already includes land policies that are consistent with the ALUCP; therefore no amendments to the City's General Plan are required. The IASP Sub 18 TA and DCA will make these land use policy documents Rev. 11/2010 B & C-39 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 15 consistent with the ALUCP. In summary, the ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Any potential impacts from the adoption of the ALUCP and text amendments would be less than significant. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a & b) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. No mineral resources are located within the noise and safety zones within the City of Ontario that are potentially affected by the ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed • ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be considered to be of value to the region and residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As such, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to mineral resources. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 40 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 16 • e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a & e) The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures designed to minimize the public's exposure impacts from aircraft operations at ONT. State law (Gov. Code §653025.3) requires that all agencies within an Airport Influence Area amend their general plans to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP, and other land use documents should be amended as needed to achieve vertical land use policy consistency. The ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect the public health, safety and welfare and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by State law, the proposed ALUCP sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2010 General Plan already includes land policies that are consistent with the ALUCP; therefore no amendments to the City's General Plan is required. Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is outside the affected area of noise impacts from aircraft operations at ONT; therefore, there would be no impact. • b-d & f) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, ASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code, The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is outside the affected area of noise impacts or vibration impacts from aircraft operations at ONT; therefore, there would be no impact. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • Rev. 11/2010 B & C-41 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 17 Comments: a-c) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT). Further, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly induce population growth; rather, it would limit the location and distribution of residential and non-residential land uses with the Noise and Safety Zones (located within the City of Ontario) to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. Within the City of Ontario, residential district in the Noise Impact Zones limit new residential development within 65 db CNEL and prohibits new residential land uses within the 70 db CNEL noise contour (City of Ontario). The City of Rancho Cucamonga is not within the Noise Impact Zone and is outside the affected area of noise impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan and FPEIR analyzed the LA/ONT ALUCP and impacts associated. Additionally, each project located within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA, therefore, there would be no impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial • adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) C) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not create a need for any new or physically altered • governmental facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to public services. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 42 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 18 • the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a & b) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, and does not require the • construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to recreation. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 16. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) • either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Rev. 11/2010 B & C-43 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 19 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: a-g) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not (a) conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the • circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit; (b) conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; (c) result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; (d) increase hazards due to a design feature (e g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); (e) result in inadequate emergency access; (f) result in inadequate parking capacity or (g) conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to transportation or traffic. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project. a) Exceed .wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? • Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 44 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 20 • C) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal. State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a-g) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, • IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in the construction of new wastewater or stormwater facilities, and would not require additional water supplies, or wastewater or landfill capacity, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to utilities and service systems. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Additionally, each project located within the AIA area will be analyzed independently under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts. • Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 45 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO • CUCAMNONGA Page 21 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) (✓) ( ) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: • a & c) The proposed LA/ONT ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose physical or operational changes to LA/ONT International Airport (ONT), nor does the City of Ontario have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga above the existing planned levels in the 2010 General Plan, of which the environmental impacts were already adequately analyzed in the FPEIR for the 2010 General Plan. Nothing in the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would result in indirect impacts, such as the construction of housing, development of other types of land uses, or the expansion of any infrastructure, that would require an analysis of potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. In addition, the proposed ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA would not result in • the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial, or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas, which may result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife, Rev. 11/2010 B & C-46 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNONGA Page 22 • their habitats, or important examples of California history or human beings. Therefore, there would be no impacts. b) The proposed ALUCP regulates future incompatible land uses specific to noise, airspace protection, safety and over flight impacts around ONT and affected agencies within the Airport Influence Area of ONT, which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is within. Moreover, because the proposed ALUCP is regulatory in nature and will not result in any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Further, the IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA do not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would they authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the 2010 General Plan and Development Code. The ALUCP, IASP Sub 18 TA, and DCA add additional limitations to those already imposed by the 2010 General Plan, Development Code, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan. In fact, the ALUCP functions primarily as a mitigation plan designed to avoid and mitigate noise, safety, airspace protection, and over flight notification requirements that might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Therefore, any potential impact would be less-than-significant. 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 PEIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately • analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (✓) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (✓) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (✓) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (✓) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (✓) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) (✓) City of Ontario Initial Study for LA ONT ALUCP (City Council Approval on April 19, 2011) (✓) WONT ALUCP (City Council Approval on April 19, 2011) • Rev. 11/2010 B & C- 47 Initial Study for LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 – CITY OF RANCHO . CUCAMNONGA Page 23 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, 1 have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signatu Date: -z— Print Name and Title: �f I Hr 10 w l 1 1 c H H ear • • Rev. 11/2010 B & C-48 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O+axv�xtrunwec accommodate potential future passenger and air cargo volume in 2030. The State Aeronautics Act • requires that the ALUCP "be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." (Pub. Utilities Code, § 21675(a).) Therefore, while the ALUCP includes an airport layout plan that shifts ONT's runways to the east and south for airport land use planning purposes, the City has no approval authority over that layout, nor does inclusion of that layout in the ALUCP facilitate expansion of ONT's operations. Any such expansion would have to be approved by LAWA as part of an Airport Master Plan. General Plan Designation: General Plan Designations vary within ONT's AIA. Zoning: Zoning varies within ONT's AIA. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan requires approval from the California Division of Aeronautics and participation agreements from the affected jurisdictions within the County of San Bernardino. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetic Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards&Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems F­l Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.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. • H-2 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) 9 & C- 50 p�rnxre +mPOAiPUNwrvc ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date:January 26, 2011 Name(print or type): Lorena Meiia Title:Associate Planner • • LA/Ontario international Airport land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-3 B & C- 51 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ,1J+m�oatPUxely • This page was left intentionally blank. • • H-4 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) B & C- 52 • CL i = Z C w E c ° m U LL �Op d 3 a U 0 E x t Q u a N O m u In j W U t E �i o f w p O C q U O C y Yl UL ,00000 ti Im Z J O Z ♦©fl 9R a w ; > Y p Z w C n � U 'C Yf i .8 C a - c � 4 i C • .�E J s a r - e >c> e w o ' � U < « lJ J _ a A _ - C O O i S O B � -53 7CL 2 2 3 E 0 01 ^ � =08 � k 0E 4 /914p ° \ / 0/// //\ { 4E3■1 ƒ cc i | - — �` , - k f | . , # 6#c -53 n m m • 0 = E 7 a a D ci ® LL c J T p C O �Y� d � Z4 U ' 2 c c c J2 e u E U o c Q O e c o o. 0 U U d S K A S O O .- Q r \ a n3.nm• i .. . e`i �'� � awl.' T ` - c alwl ra:.�wr]v, rwl �_ e•�� f .aw. 4 �i � �_ L VMM a � .YtJ Q y F' YN" _ 1 irl'a~Irt `NIXN)n xN(ITN p �� � Inir.l giYen I + C _ 3 n"v xa. � Y e vrs nil `d7 r 4 ♦; j 4 s+u 2 f VN ru ,p'# N L EE N.0 F Mrl.:l.n • ^tYN � r l.x(ar^ ..wu eft Y r� ••� 0 r a { � u � Nr..YN V y N?GY6 jT rx'waa•r C x ^*w a L" ( 4 nw.an. ^Y•x'" i a / ' rryryl!]rl ` s` fa m n.NN!Y! G YMARI�j 1 .V IYT.t y.�M: � I W ]k � 1MNWVi . M1N0 'alv„:� ♦ a\.l1lgJ v.1dr YJYVn t'LM 4`' Lit rrv1 y. C N11xy °A +n•.uns g _ 5 tlr .. K •sar.�� sranrp� :� i x _ .v Qi ppr Iq UtlT'1 =INa1b `A 3111,.! N. . IN mNina,{S{. r g Z yl.r �`Y Fr F c i'O nMawMj lar xt+.e.;.O � Z � ] Ylpil � � r• i 1)AClli MXM IM1✓11 U .�a IaarvJ>a n n i°etu.. � lw IWO- ['.1x1 L MII.Y ♦ �' e }wx sa A xqh• JF $, tr x +` z W l 6 ` t � Ir! • Bic -sy • ON ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS Im act,-,< ± n r�drafed,,•1., „,gc`Im"dct ° .Im dcf4;; (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a X state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general • plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, or create a new source of light or glare, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to aesthetics. Also, the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. • LAiOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-7 B & C- 55 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O• FT!Int�w 2. AGRICULTURAL&FOREST RESOURCES • (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) i r No ncatporag m acK ,a_'cts, (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? x (c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public X Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? • (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in x conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) directly or indirectly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively, "Farmland") to a non-agricultural use; or (b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g); (d) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, since there is no forest land within the Airport Influence Area (AIA); (e) involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural • H-8 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 56 oAm RT runeieG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • use. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the AIA above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. In addition,the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (Appendix 1) evaluated potential general plan inconsistencies with the proposed ALUCP and did not identify any agricultural or forest general plan land use designations within the AIA. Therefore,there would be no impact. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-9 B & C- 57 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOw+r+in� 3. AIR QUALITY • (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) H t •r 1 ni cont7d NI 'o rq,:2. w tC .a. nN/oul��th rd qs @iipr " ,xa. ''".k �vlmpatt;, ,,Incor rated. '. I pact;. /m-r{ct,.,. (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x applicable air quality plan? (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including X releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial x number of people? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new • forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Although the City of Ontario, the City of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino will have to adjust their General Plan policies to account for the additional development restrictions contained in the ALUCP, those adjustments will not authorize development beyond what was assumed in the development of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Therefore, the ALUCP would not directly or indirectly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; and, as such, would not impact the environment or result in any impacts to air quality. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of • H-10 LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 58 OiNG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-11 B & C- 59 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW D. iwern+c 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • - -m, (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife X corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X • preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,regional,or state habitat X conservation plan DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (f): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact biological resources or their habitat, or conflict with applicable policies protecting biological resources or an adopted or approved habitat conservation plan, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to biological resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately • H-12 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) B & C- 60 OxmvDatrurvrvwc ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-13 B & C- 61 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW B+mivoAtvurvHwe S. CULTURAL RESOURCES • 4 1 9n Ca g gbtl Yl n RJ d t ��ta2 J p _ (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X §15064.5 (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to§15064.5? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique x geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (d): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archaeological resource; directly destroy a • unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-14 LAiOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 62 QN?�!i G ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Wma (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, injury or X death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? x (b) Result In substantial soil erosion or the loss of x topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site X landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? • (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (e): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides; result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, potentially resulting in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; be located on expansive soil; or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to geology and soils. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) H-15 B & C- 63 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW O�AND were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental • documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • I • H-16 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 64 .�+svJU.rixc ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS mm,m Iscl tc� " so pom e'dRi (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a X significant Impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X the emission of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION OF EFFECT$ Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of • which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP will not cause any increase in greenhouse gas emissions,and there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • LAiOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) H-17 B & C- 65 �i APPENDIX H DINT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW M"PINNING H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or x disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset x and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste X - within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, x would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people x • residing or working in the project area? (g) Impair Implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving wildfires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where x residences are Intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) — (d) & (f) — (h): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally,the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also, the proposed ALUCP does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste; or the location of a building, structure, or public facility on a hazardous materials site compiled by the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed ALUCP would not affect the incidence of hazardous material safety hazards in the area; • H-18 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 66 _OMmvOnr MNInnG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; affect any sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites; create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; or affect emergency response plans or the incidence of wildland fires in the area. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Threshold (e): Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes criteria and Safety Zones by which safety hazards relating to aircraft activity would be evaluated. The criteria are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off-airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people within the Safety Zones. The Safety Zones are completely contained within the City of Ontario and land uses were designated in the Ontario Plan to be consistent with airport operations. The proposed ALUCP further reduces risks of aircraft accident occurrence by setting policies that, consistent with existing federal regulations, limit the height of structures, trees, and other objects that might penetrate the airport's airspace as defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations,TERPS and FAA criteria. The extent of the areas where regulations apply are illustrated in Appendix I. The proposed ALUCP would also decrease airport-related safety hazards by limiting incompatible • development within the Safety Zones. The proposed ALUCP would result in a beneficial impact by reducing the number of people exposed to airport-related safety hazards, including aircraft accidents, consistent with the objectives of the State Aeronautics Act. Due to the reasons stated above, the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, but could limit development in areas of concern. Therefore,any potential impact would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) H-19 B & C- 67 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 10am> 4 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • - oteRElalf`rP-Ofiitidllydlg`nco'ri[ ,.''� _ ZAP.Ny eyx„ �s,a 3,g can• •, nl Iflgdfroq_ir ` !g 7 o k". ol �5 eetf +J' 1 - "w' rN o ,LmoiYM a .lmoiY (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste x discharge requirements? (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production x rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in x a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or X substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide X • substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect X flood flows? (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0) Expose people or structures to inundation by X seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (j): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not violate any water quality standards; affect • H-20 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted Apnl 19,2011) B & C- 68 oamro0.r vteNew ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX N • groundwater supplies; substantially alter drainage patterns; or expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding, seiche,tsunami or mudflow; and, as such, would not directly impact the environment or result in any direct impacts to hydrology and water quality. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA10ntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-21 B & C- 69 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .]✓*vroR�me 10. LAND USE PLANNING • oul a .ear'pose � r,.oue .,v�,n 'L,y�, jrii n u.�'Ynwt oroE�< .Jm' w� _ (a) Physically divide an established community? (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (c): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. ONT has operated as an airport since the 1920s, and the City has long planned for appropriate land uses surrounding ONT. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community • conservation plan, and would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to land use and planning. Also,the proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. Threshold (b): The proposed ALUCP may require that affected agencies alter their general plans and zoning to reflect the noise and safety restrictions set forth in its policies. The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that establishes land use measures designed to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix I evaluates potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code §65302.3) requires that applicable general plans be revised if necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. It is important to note that the ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq., to protect public health, safety, and welfare, through the adoption of land use measures that • H-22 LAiOntaric International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 70 oAm FPLANNIrvG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-23 B & C- 71 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW �n�NING 11. MINERAL RESOURCES • _ pose :P SI`tent - n ff nt UOdn 1 es'sw. Piol"Mucatt, wmpctm _ (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the x region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather,it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Further, no mineral resources are located within the noise and safety zones potentially affected by.the ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not cause the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. As such,the proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly impact the environment or result in any direct or indirect impacts to mineral resources. The proposed ALUCP would not encourage levels of development in any area located within the • Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-24 LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 72 D.NTABI G ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • 12. NOISE „� s ,,.-•�.,:, g ., r d�nfla7ly 7+oe dntly','Sigiilffia•r. C,ess <'�•.., - --;,�tg��t 4..mpdete w . <_laeorporated",T R-�1mpoPt ;,�n,l'mPoett (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the x local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels x existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity x above levels existing without the project? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport x or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (b) - (d) & (f): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or entail any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, the proposed ALUCP establishes the criteria by which the public's exposure to airport-related noise would be evaluated and reduced by limiting the development of noise sensitive land uses within the 65 + dB CNEL. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the exposure of people to increased noise or vibration levels, and, as such, would not impact their respective environment or result in any impacts related to noise. Thresholds(a) & (e):The proposed ALUCP is a mitigating document that addresses land use measures to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards around the ONT. Appendix I evaluated potential inconsistencies between the proposed ALUCP and the general plan land use designations of affected agencies and did not identify any general plan land use inconsistencies. Moreover, state law (Gov. Code §65302.3) requires that applicable general plans be revised as necessary to be consistent with an adopted ALUCP. • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-25 B & C- 73 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW It is important to note that the ALUCP is intended, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670 et • seq., to protect public health, safety, and welfare, through the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards; and is guided by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As required by state law, the proposed ALUCP for ONT sets policies and criteria consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and within the parameters identified in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. • • H-26 LA10mario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 74 aJ+imvO�iourpix� ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING ��yppp i J i 1 ant 0 ,p I`(;. A' ro"o e s ro - , '"�r „a,. � " " ^•. at.m acf ,. ' �--ncor om"feC.,. g••itin` tt.. m a "I (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, x through extension of road or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement x housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement x housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION OF EFFECrs Thresholds (a) - (c): The proposed ALUCP would not directly or indirectly induce population growth; rather, it would limit the location and distribution of residential and non-residential land uses within the Noise and Safety Zones to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. The Noise Impact Zones limits new residential development within 65 db CNEL and prohibits new • residential land uses within the 70 dB CNEL noise contour. To evaluate the potential population and housing displacement the General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency Analysis (Appendix 1) identified and evaluated potential land use inconsistencies within the Noise Impact Zones. The Noise Analysis identified one jurisdiction, the City of Ontario,to have a Low Density Residential general plan land use designation within the 65 dB CNEL. However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development would not result in displacement of potential housing units since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. The Safety Zones identified within the proposed ALUCP are contained within the City of Ontario and Safety Analysis portion of Appendix I identified Low Density Residential general plan land use designations within the safety zones, However, because the areas identified are already developed, the restriction on additional new development within that zone would not result in displacement of potential housing units, since the proposed ALUCP does not apply to existing development and only addresses future development. Therefore, there is no impact since the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct impacts to population and housing; create the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing,facilities, or infrastructure in other areas. • LA/Ontarto International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-27 B & C- 75 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW fin ,,,111...���+++��R PLANNING 14. PUBLIC SERVICES • u' 131-ca� ( cpIpgoorchatq e�i fgatca e t aim�. ,�r7 ,aTmpact,_ o,Ympn (a) Result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause x significant environmental impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (1) Fire protection? % (ii) Police protection? % (iii) Schools? % (iv) Parks? % (v) Other public facilities? g DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds(a):The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of • development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally,the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not create a need for any new or physically altered governmental facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or indirect impacts related to public services. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-28 LAiOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 76 'puN ANG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • 15. RECREATION �� ,b tl�'LF"te;pro off• ,p°rpl�tf.. ,,,s Im a �. „r ,lnco oYated;�.„�tlmpadt ,>s:�, o:mpdct.wj,.�: (a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that X have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) & (b): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment,nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and does not require the construction or expansion of • recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to recreation. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • LA/Onterio International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-29 B & C- 77 APPENDIX H DINT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW �*mroAT w�nNNG 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC • "'""3eitt'a "157sclaalm,'"/can g psvolatl ,Im n ncdF mtetl �, (a) Conflict with an applicable^plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant X components of the circulation system, including but not limited to Intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion x management agency for designated roads or highways? (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (d) Substantially Increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x (f) Result in Inadequate parking capacity? x • (g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or x safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) • (g): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally, the ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not: (a) conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit; (b) conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; (c) result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; (d) increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm • H-30 LAiOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) B & C- 78 �rt,P�kT VieuwNG ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • equipment); (e) result in inadequate emergency access; (f) result in inadequate parking capacity or;(g) conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the proposed ALUCP would not result in any direct or Indirect impacts related to transportation or traffic. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies' general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore, there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • • LA/Ontano International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) H-31 B & C- 79 APPENDIX H ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAW--- 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS • N IBM ! f rilPact (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the x applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of x existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing x facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?In making this determination,the City shall consider whether the X project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. Seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737(SB 221). (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted • capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and x regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds (a) - (g): The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Therefore, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the construction of new wastewater or stormwater facilities, and would not require additional water supplies, or wastewater or landfill capacity, and, as such, would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to utilities and service systems. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) above those projected within the affected agencies general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately analyzed in their respective certified general plan environmental documentation. Therefore,there would be no impacts. MITIGATION None Required. • H-32 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) B & C- 80 O:,,Rpp� iq� ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE teats 1 r, igaEon lg_ a [ - nP c4 ,, /nc rpo ted,r linpaet, :', . • o;mpod (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the x disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project, and the effects of • probable future projects.) (d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings,either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS Thresholds(a):The proposed ALUCP does not propose or involve any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, nor would it authorize new forms of development that are not otherwise permitted by the relevant jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, it overlays further limitations on top of planned land use designations found in existing general plans. Additionally,the proposed ALUCP does not propose any physical or operational changes to LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) nor does the City have any authority over operations; all authority over ONT rests with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, the proposed ALUCP does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed ALUCP would not increase levels of development in any area located within the AIA above those projected for these areas in the local • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) H-33 B & C- 81 ARI.6 APPENDIX H DINT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW aavurvrvwc agencies respective general plans, of which the environmental effects were already adequately • analyzed in the certified general plan environmental documentation. Nothing in the proposed ALUCP would result in indirect impacts such as the construction of housing, development of other types of land uses,or the expansion of any infrastructure,that would require an analysis of potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. In addition, the proposed ALUCP would not result in the displacement of existing residential dwelling units, commercial, industrial, or public use structures thereby necessitating the construction of replacement housing, facilities, or infrastructure in other areas, which may result In potentially significant impacts to wildlife, their habitats, important examples of California history, or human beings. Therefore,there would be no impacts. Thresholds (b) - (d): The proposed ALUCP regulates future incompatible land uses specific to noise, airspace protection, safety and overflight impacts around ONT. Moreover, because the proposed ALUCP is regulatory in nature and will not result in any new development, construction, or physical changes to existing land uses or the environment, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the proposed ALUCP serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid certain noise and safety impacts that might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Therefore, any potential impact would be less than significant. MITIGATION None Required. • • H-34 LAIOntario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19, 2011) B & C- 82 O�"� riNC ONT ALUCP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX H • REFERENCE MATERIALS The following reference materials are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15150: 1. State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics,California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, (Last updated January 2002) 2. Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport 3. California State Aeronautics Act, Pub. Util. Code, §§ 21001 et seq. 4. Ontario General Plan Final EIR/Master Environmental Assessment 5. City of Ontario General Plan (The Ontario Plan)adopted January 2010 6. General Plan of the following cities: Fontana, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Chino. 7. The General Plan of the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. All documents listed above are on file, and are available for public review, with the City of Ontario Planning Department,200 N. Cherry Avenue,Ontario, California 91764, (909)395-2036. • • LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Adopted April 19,2011) H-35 B & C-83 • - City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code, Project File No.: LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILTY PLAN DRC2010-00157, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984, AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, Public Review Period Closes: May 9, 2012 Project Name: Project Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location (also see attached map): LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the City of Ontario (Figure H-1; LA/ONT ALUCP. ONT is classified as a primary commercial service airport, owned by the City of Los Angeles and operated by Los Angeles World Airways (LAWA). The geographic scope of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection and/or over flight factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA includes portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Pomona, Claremont, and unincorporated portions of • San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties (Figure H-2; LA/ONT ALUCP). Project Description: The review and adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport-Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) and a request to amend Section 17.30.040-D-5 (Building Height) and Section 17.030.060-J-14 (Architecture and Design)to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and a request to amend Section 5.3.2.ofthe Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency,has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive(909)477-2750 or Fax(909)477-2847. • B & C- 84 NOTICE • The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. May 9, 2012 Date of Determination Adopted By • • B & C- 85 • CL i r S c n E O E T J� �o N g • O .Q W � U U � C OFT 1 ( i J 1 � 9 #R a ci o W > � o Z - a C a � _ O � � g Y 3 ! 1 S a y L m S L Q d O O Q N � C4g � 1 C •� ; --.. . ♦tom( o a N 2 W • S C o p r � o ¢ g r o o I�YF m E CQI L. (g �.y�SS' u : C O C O r P^1 N 0 _ c sy EL d m E v o c a p o mD Q 2 C O C G Wa v u u a $ 0 ' a C S _` ` Irvi�e..Nxr{%• n+v !� •' �� �C .mnY �.5 >4 t 3� • V` s YIN •1.�, _ .. _'N:1 �YO'NI• {5 YI/t'xtl ry J £ La�f/ �,Y. � 1t5 Mf.h. .. r 'l pCp• L, ' i:NM•IIJ 4 a � it � Ve.•HtiMf .. N bvMU 14 i? .NI' • _+Nl Yi.11 l.: r:l iry1 _• [ nt .TA`.]n . 4K1 Webb .� INNt. Y 4N. NW N:. 4YC f VYl4 lYN'. I N mm I. q i's:IfW YN t aka% ' al 1 1 tl'mbll.nr > pd y.V%Y.1dNY.� � Ylbr.ci 1 N1rrr {AtM Y 1v\v Nle Nt: W F 31YNtle\'9 I.IAYf{ .%lY�5 • \) . OJDM .4 r/ N5 'S . rs..!c a t � � J 't A. (• ve xlwrl�`.pp y �� •4 •Nr.n Z t f i v '_ A•Y Z � 1% TOYf � f: t@ I• 1n11Y Ywt�.l•F.f .. 1J.. a 1 Ri u .r.Y kl (J � % )]i M1JJV K n iY 1b4 ylN � o J N Q 5 1�� RTY g Cr 41 n :. _ s W 1— CL �3�C-87 RESOLUTION NO.12-20 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF DRC2010-00157, THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157, LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose of the ALUCP is to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. • 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. 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: • B & C- 88 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 2 • 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and • implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. The ALUCP is consistent with State Law and has a 20-year horizon, taking into consideration regional projections and future airport expansion plans that would airport activity and associated impacts. 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. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for development by providing a comprehensive document that will ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and C. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or • improvements in the vicinity. The LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will prescribe building height limits in order to protect airspace protection for aircraft operations; and B & C- 89 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 3 d. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within the Industrial Districts by allowing building heights up to 70 feet, the same as currently permitted in the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of • the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii)that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 as described in the Draft City Council Resolution shown as Attachment A. • 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. B & C- 90 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-20 LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DRC2010-00157- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 4 • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY MAY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • B & C- 91 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING DRC2010-00157, THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157, LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose of the ALUCP is to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. • 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following the hearing, Planning Commission adopted its Resolution 12-20, recommending adoption of the application. 10. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and concluded said hearing on that date. • 11. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Attachment A B & C- 92 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. June 6, 2012 Page 2 B. Resolution. • 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible • land planning; and e. The ALUCP is consistent with State Law and has a 20-year horizon, taking into consideration regional projections and future airport expansion plans that would airport activity and associated impacts. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan by providing a comprehensive document that will ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and b. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and C. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will • prescribe building height limits in order to protect airspace protection for aircraft operations; and B & C- 93 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. June 6, 2012 Page 3 • d. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within the Industrial Districts by allowing building heights up to 70 feet, the same as currently permitted in the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter in paragraph 4,the subject LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is referred to as"the project")will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: . a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines,the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. • b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (1) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above and upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby adopts the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: The LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 shall be • available for public inspection at the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, at the Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. B & C- 94 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. June 6, 2012 Page 4 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6T" DAY OF JUNE 2012 . CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bythe City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of June 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ` COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: • City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga • B & C- 95 RESOLUTION NO.12-21 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE (ONT-IAC) TO ESTABLISH A COOPERATIVE PROCESS AND PARTNERSHIP IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICES OF THE LA/ONT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157,the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP). The ALUCP requires that an associated Cooperative Agreement be adopted in order for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose of the Cooperative Agreement for the ALUCP is to establish a cooperative process and partnership to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP in order to promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within • the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the 2011 LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B & C- 96 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-21 LA/ONT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ONT-IAC (DRC2010-00157) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 2 • B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Cooperative Agreement are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the adoption of the Cooperative Agreement will not have a significant impact on the environment; and C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, • health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative(ONT-IAC); and e. Adopting the Cooperative Agreement for the ONT—IAC will ensure airport safety, promote compatible land planning, establish a cooperative process and partnership to comply with State Law for the Alternative Process, thereby implementing the goals and policies of the ALUCP; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for logical and orderly development of the built environment by providing a document that will establish a cooperative process for agencies within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/ONT Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the (ONT-IAC) does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development with the Airport Influence Area will adhere to an orderly review process. This review process will • ensure that development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and B & C- 97 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-21 LA/ONT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ONT-IAC (DRC2010-00157) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 3 C. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the(ONT-IAC)will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Cooperative Agreement will promote the public, health, safety and welfare by providing a multi-agency partnership that ensures that airspace and aircraft operations at LA/ONT are protected from hazards; and d. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined but orderly process by which local agencies submit project reviews in order to ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement is required for municipalities within the Airport Influence Area to comply with the State Law provisions of the Alternative Process. 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 thatthe adoption of the Cooperative Agreement (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject Cooperative Agreement is referred to as"the project")will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: • a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii)that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) as described in the Draft City Council Resolution shown as Attachment A by adoption of this Resolution. • 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. B & C- 98 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-21 LA/ONT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ONT-IAC (DRC2010-00157) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 4 • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • B & C- 99 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE (ONT-IAC) TO ESTABLISH A COOPERATIVE PROCESS AND PARTNERSHIP IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICES OF THE LA/ONT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for DRC2010-00157,the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP). The ALUCP requires that an associated Cooperative Agreement be adopted in order for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Cooperative Agreement for establishing the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. The primary purpose the Cooperative Agreement for the ALUCP is to establish a cooperative process and partnership to implement the goals and policies of the ALUCP in order to • promote land use compatibility between the LA/ONT International Airport and the land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) from associated impacts from aircraft operations, such as safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight notification. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the AIA that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. On February 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and continued said hearing to March 22, 2011. 6. On March 22, 2011, the City of Ontario Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and concluded said hearing on that date. The City of Ontario Planning Commission adopted its Resolution PC11-018, recommending approval of the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the Ontario City Council. 7. On April 5, 2011, the Ontario City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the ALUCP and introduced Ordinance No. 2935. 8. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT ALUCP by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 9. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following the • hearing, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution 12-21, recommending adoption of the application. Attachment A B & C-100 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. June 6, 2012 Page 2 10. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed • public hearing on LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and associated Cooperative Agreement for the ONT— IAC and concluded said hearing on that date. 11. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts from the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Cooperative Agreement are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the adoption of the Cooperative Agreement will not have a significant impact on the environment; and C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario • International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the associated Cooperative Agreement; and e. Adopting the Cooperative Agreement for the ONT—IAC will ensure airport safety, promote compatible land planning, establish a cooperative process and partnership to comply with State Law for the Alternative Process, thereby implementing the goals and policies of the ALUCP; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for logical and orderly development of the built environment by providing a document that will establish a cooperative process for agencies within the LA/ONT Airport Influence Area to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/ONT Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the (ONT-IAC) does • promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development with the Airport Influence Area will adhere to an orderly review process. This review process will B & C-101 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. June 6, 2012 Page 3 • ensure that development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airportwhen the future runway expansion occurs; and C. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement to establish the(ONT-IAC)will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Cooperative Agreement will promote the public, health, safety and welfare by providing a multi-agency partnership that ensures that airspace and aircraft operations at LA/ONT are protected from hazards; and d. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined but orderly process by which local agencies submit project reviews in order to ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and e. The adoption of the Cooperative Agreement is required for municipalities within the Airport Influence Area to comply with the State Law provisions of the Alternative Process. 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 City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the Cooperative Agreement(hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject Cooperative Agreement is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative • Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter,the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above and upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and • the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby adopts the Cooperative Agreement to establish the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) by adoption of this Resolution. B & C-102 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. June 6, 2012 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the • City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: The Cooperative Agreement for the Ontario International Airport Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC)for the LA/ONTALUCP (DRC2010-00157)shall be available for public inspection at the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, at the Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bythe City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of June 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: • AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga • B & C-103 • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - INTER AGENCY COLLABORATIVE FOR AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING This Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) is entered into by and among the City of Chino, City of Fontana, City of Montclair, City of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Upland and San Bernardino County in order to establish a cooperative process and partnership for Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning for Ontario International Airport (ONT) and comply with State Law provisions of the Alternative Process t(Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)). I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to maintain local jurisdictional control of land use planning for areas within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)'of ONT, amend the existing Alternative Process to include participation of Affected Agencies' and establish the "Ontario International Airport — Inter Agency Collaborative(ONT- AC)". II. BACKGROUND The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et. seq.) requires that • an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) be prepared for all public-use airports with a minimum 20-year horizon taking into consideration regional growth projections and future airport expansion plans. The ALUCP is intended to address future land uses and development and does not place any restrictions on the present and future role, configuration or use of ONT. State law requires local land use plans and individual development proposals to be consistent with the ALUCP. In most counties, an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is established and responsible for preparing an ALUCP for all airports within the county, including those located within the political boundaries of cities. The ALUC also establishes an AIA for each airport and evaluates projects for consistency with an ALUCP. State law allows local jurisdictions within San Bernardino County to be responsible for airport land use compatibility planning under the "Alternative Process" in place of a county administered ALUC. Under the provisions of the Alternative Process the City of Ontario is the designated agency having responsibility for airport compatibility planning for ONT and is required to do the following pursuant to State Law: 1) Adopt processes for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the ONT ALUCP; 'Alternative Process—County Board of supervisors and each affected city must individually determine that proper airport land use compatibility planning in the county can be accomplished without the formation of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUCI, 2 Airport Influence Area —An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses as delineated in Exhibit 1—ONT AIA. • 'Affected Agency—Any county,city,or special district having lands within the ONT AIA. Page 1 B & C-104 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement 2) Adopt processes for the notification of the general public, landowners, interested groups, • and other public agencies regarding the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the ONT ALUCP; 3) Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, implementation and amendment of the ONT ALUCP; and 4) Adopt processes for the amendment of general plans, specific plans and major land use actions to be consistent with the ONT ALUCP. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established for the preparation of the ONT ALUCP. The TAC consisted of representatives from the cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and counties of San Bernardino and Riverside in conjunction with representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics. The ONT ALUCP was adopted by Ontario's City Council on April 19, 2011 (Ordinance No. 2935). The ONT ALUCP contains the ONT-IAC operational framework and identifies three framework components: 1) a technical group (ONT-AC Technical Staff Group) comprised of senior staff members from the Affected Agencies to review projects for consistency with the ALUCP; 2) an appeals body (ONT-IAC Mediation Board) to resolve consistency evaluation disputes; and 3) an administrative function managed by the City of Ontario. Ill. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES • 3.1. ADOPTION OF THE ONT ALUCP: Public Utilities Code section 21670.1(c) mandates that Participating Agencies,° in compliance with all applicable provisions of State Law, adopt the ONT ALUCP or specific policies that apply to their portions of the ONT AIA. Participating Agencies are also required to, in compliance with all applicable provisions of State Law, modify their respective general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances and other land use policy documents to be consistent with the compatibility policies and criteria set forth in the ONT ALUCP. 3.2. ONT-IAC NOTIFICATION PROCESS: Each Participating Agency is required to prepare consistency evaluations for proposed Major Land Use Actions (Table 2-1 of the ONT ALUCP) within their portion of the ONT AIA and submit the evaluations to the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is then responsible for distributing these consistency evaluations to other Participating Agencies for comment in accordance with the timelines and procedures set forth in Section 7 below. °Participating Agency—The agencies participating in this Agreement(San Bernardino County and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland).The County of San Bernardino and Affected cities within the ONT AIA are required to participate in this Agreement to maintain and continue to be an Alternative Process County. Page 2 • B & C-105 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement • 3.3. CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE ONT AIA: Proposed projects that are within the ONT AIA but are not Major Land Use Actions are also subject to the ONT ALUCP. Participating Agencies are required to use the ONT ALUCP to evaluate proposed projects in accordance with the specific safety, noise, airspace protection and overflight policies that apply. Each Participating Agency shall be responsible for including a consistency finding within its staff reports/resolutions for projects within the DINT AIA, stating the following or its equivalent: The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and has been evaluated and is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 3.4. PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENTS: Any proposed project located within the AIA that is discretionary and requires public hearing notification pursuant to state and/or local law shall include the following statement or its equivalent: "The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and has been evaluated and is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan." IV. ONT-IAC TECHNICAL STAFF GROUP • 4.1. MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENT: The City Manager or County Chief Executive Officer of each Participating Agency shall appoint a designee to represent its agency on the ONT- IAC Technical Staff Groups and submit this information to the City of Ontario, Planning Department. Members or their designees, should be middle managers or higher within their respective organization (i.e. Director, Assistant Director, Manager, Principal Planner, or as determined by each jurisdiction). 4.2. MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Members shall consist of one representative from each Participating Agency. Each member shall be responsible for participating in the ONT-IAC Notification Process and make comments on a Submitting Agency's'consistency evaluation within 20 calendar days of the date of notification. s ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group—A middle manager(i.e. Director,Assistant Director, Manager, Principal Planner or the equivalent)staff member from each Participating Agency appointed by the City Manager or Chief Executive Officer who will be responsible for participating in the ONT-IAC Notification Process. 5 Submitting Agency—The Participating Agency that is submitting the Project Comment Worksheet to the City of Ontario Planning Department for distribution to the other agencies. • Page 3 B & C-106 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement V. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD • 5.1. FUNCTION OF ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board is an official voting body established to formally hear disputes that are not resolved at the Technical Staff Group level. The ONT-IAC Mediation Board only reviews matters appealed to it by Affected Agencies. 5.2. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD MEMBERSHIP: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall be comprised of elected or appointed officials of the Participating Agencies as outlined below and two members representing the public. The members representing the Participating Agencies should have land use, planning, and/or public hearing experience. Members of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall be appointed as follows: a. City of Ontario: Two members representing the City of Ontario, appointed by the Ontario City Council. b. LAWA: One member representing LAWA, (the LA/Ontario International Airport Manager(Executive Director or his Designee). c. Public: Two public representatives (at least one having aviation expertise), appointed by the Ontario City Council with recommendations from the other Participating Agencies. d. Other Participating Agency: Two members representing the Participating Agency within whose jurisdiction the disputed project is located, appointed by the • Participating Agency's governing body (City Council or Board of Supervisors). If the disputed project is located within the City of Ontario the ONT-IAC Mediation Board for the disputed project shall consist of a five-member board comprised of individuals identified pursuant to subsections (a)—(c)of this Section 5.2. 5.3. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD DECISIONS: When acting upon a disputed action (e.g., a consistency evaluation or the preparation, adoption or amendment of the ALUCP) the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall follow the City of Ontario procedures for public hearings, and include, at a minimum: a. Holding a noticed public hearing on the action under consideration. b. Providing the opportunity for public input. c. Issuing formal findings on the disputed action. d. Making decisions by majority vote of the quorum. 5.4. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE MEDIATION DISPUTE PROCESS: State law pertaining to the Alternative Process requires that a process be established for"the mediation of disputes arising from the preparation, adoption, and amendment" of an airport land use compatibility plan (Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2)(C)). The mediation process outlined in this Agreement shall also apply to any disputes that may arise in connection with certain land use actions of Participating Agencies—specifically, general Page 4 • B & C-107 Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement • plan amendments, zoning ordinance modifications, airport development plans, or other major land use actions that relate to the AIA. 5.5. CONVENING THE ONTAAC MEDIATION BOARD: The ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall convene on an as needed basis, to resolve disputed matters brought to it by an Affected Agency. Meetings shall be convened within 30 calendar days from the date the Affected Agency requests in writing a ONT-IAC Mediation Board Hearing date to resolve a dispute. Additionally, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall convene once per calendar year to receive an ALUCP Annual Report' from the Ontario Planning Department. All meetings of the Mediation Board will be administered by the City of Ontario and shall be publicly noticed consistent with the City of Ontario's public hearing procedures. The Participating Agency with the dispute may elect to hold the Mediation Board Hearing at their respective jurisdictions facilities but would be responsible for incurring the costs associated with holding a public hearing at that location. 5.6. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD ACTIONS FOR NON-AIRPORT PROJECTS: When deciding whether a proposed project is consistent with the ALUCP, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board has three possible actions: a. Consistent—Find that the proposed project is consistent with the ONT ALUCP. b. Conditionally Consistent—Find that the proposed project is consistent with the ONT • ALUCP subject to specified conditions or modifications. c. Inconsistent—Find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP. 5.7. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD ACTIONS FOR AIRPORT PROPOSALSe: When making consistency determinations on a proposed planning and/or development action pertaining to ONT,the ONT-IAC Mediation Board has four possible actions: a. Consistent—Find that the airport proposal is consistent with the ONT ALUCP. b. Conditionally Consistent—Find that the airport proposal is consistent with the ONT ALUCP subject to specified conditions or limitations on the airport plans or use. c. Inconsistent—Find that the airport proposal is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP. d. Consistent Upon ALUCP Revision—Modify the ONT ALUCP (after duly noticed public hearing by the Ontario City Council) to reflect the assumptions and proposals in the airport plan—thereby making the airport proposal consistent. 5.8. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: The compatibility criteria set forth in the ALUCP are intended to be applicable to all locations within the ONT AIA. However, there may be ALUCP Annual Report–Identifies activity within the DINT AIA over the calendar year providing the following information: number of Project Comment Worksheets,Avigation easements,Consistency Determinations, Disputed Major Land Use Actions and Discretionary Approvals within the ONT AIA. 4 Airport Proposals–Are defined within the DINT ALUCP Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 and fall under three categories Airport Plans(Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan),Aviation Related Development Proposals and Non- Aviation Related Development Proposals. Page S B & C-108 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement specific situations where a normally incompatible use can be considered compatible • because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the site. After due consideration of all the factors involved in such situations, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board may find an otherwise incompatible use to be acceptable. In reaching such a decision, the ONT-IAC Mediation Board shall document the nature of the extraordinary circumstances that warrant the policy exception if it can make the following specific findings: a. That the proposed project will neither create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight nor result in excessive noise exposure for the future occupants of the proposed use. b. That the granting of a policy exception is site specific and shall not be generalized to include other sites. 5.9. OVERRULING ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD DECISIONS: If the ONT-IAC Mediation Board determines that a proposed project is inconsistent with the ONT ALUCP, the Submitting Agency shall be notified and the governing body of that agency has the option under state law to overrule the Mediation Board's decision. The agency must make specific findings that the proposed local action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, as stated in Section 21670. Such findings may not be adopted as a matter of opinion, but must be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the governing body of the Submitting Agency must make specific findings • that the proposed project will not: a. Impair the orderly, planned expansion of ONT; or adversely affect the utility or capacity of ONT(such as by reducing instrument approach procedure minimums). b. Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. 5.10. OVERRULING NOTIFICATION AND VOTING REQUIREMENTS: a. The Submitting Agency must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board 45 days prior to the hearing date, to the Participating Agencies and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as required by State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21676). b. The governing body of the Submitting Agency must hold a public hearing prior to making a decision to overrule the consistency determination of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. The public hearing shall be noticed consistent with the Submitting Agency's established procedures. c. A decision by the governing body of the Submitting Agency to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board must be made by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Submitting Agency's body's members. d. The Submitting Agency must include any comments received from the public, any Affected Agency, ONT-IAC Mediation Board, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and Page 6 • B & C-109 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement • the FAA in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. VI. ONT-IAC ADMINISTRATION 6.1. PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE ONT ALUCP: The City of Ontario is the lead agency responsible for preparing the ONT ALUCP and any amendments that may subsequently be proposed.The City of Ontario shall also be responsible for coordinating these efforts with Affected Agencies. Affected Agencies are responsible for maintaining consistency between the ONT ALUCP and the Affected Agency's General Plan, Specific Plans, Zoning Code and other relevant land use planning documents. 6.2. ONT-IAC MEDIATION BOARD GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: The City of Ontario shall perform general administrative duties for the Mediation Board including, but not limited to: a. Arranging meeting places and schedules, preparing agendas, and recording meeting minutes. b. Issuing required public notices for meetings of the ONT-IAC Mediation Board. c. Providing an annual report to the ONT-IAC Mediation Board and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on the compatibility planning actions reviewed over the course of the • year. 6.3. Administration of the ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process: The City of Ontario shall coordinate with and assist Affected Agencies with implementing the relevant policies of the ONT ALUCP by: a. Developing, maintaining and distributing the Project Comment Worksheet (Exhibit 2 —Sample Project Comment Worksheet),when necessary; b. Providing Affected Agencies with technical information and guidance regarding compatibility planning issues; c. Serving as a clearinghouse for major airport and land use actions within the ONT AIA and proposed on-site airport development; d. Reviewing proposed major airport and land use actions for consistency with the policies set forth in the ONT ALUCP and preparing written consistency evaluations for transmittal to applicable Affected Agencies; e. Soliciting input and comments from the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, pilot groups, and others regarding compatibility planning matters,when necessary; and f. Encouraging Los Angeles and Riverside Counties to adopt compatibility planning policies and criteria for the portions of the ONT AIA located within their respective jurisdictions. • Page 7 B & C-110 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement VII. ONT-IAC PROJECT NOTIFICATION PROCESS • 7.1. PARTICIPANTS: Each Affected Agency and LAWA shall participate in the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process for the purposes of providing technical assistance, information and oversight for the implementation of the ONT ALUCP, Participating Agencies required to participate in the Inter-Agency Notification Process include LAWA and the Cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and the County of San Bernardino. 7.2. PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: The ONT-IAC Project Notification Process includes the steps listed below. a. For each Major Land Use Action (project) located within the AIA, the Submitting Agency shall complete a Project Comment Worksheet9 and forward it to the City of Ontario for forwarding to Affected Agencies, The Worksheet shall contain sufficient project details to enable Affected Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP. b. Commenting Agencies10 will have 20 calendar days to review and comment on the Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet. Agencies that do not respond within the 20-day period would be deemed to have no comments and to be in agreement with the Submitting Agency's consistency evaluation. Commenting • Agencies shall limit their comments to issues related to the project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP and forward their comments electronically to the City of Ontario, Planning Department. c. If the Submitting Agency disagrees with the comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, staff of the Submitting Agency is encouraged to collaborate with staff of the Commenting Agency and/or Commenting Agencies to seek solutions that will bring the project into voluntary compliance with the ONT ALUCP. If the proposed project is revised in response to comments received on the Project Comment Worksheet, the Submitting Agency shall submit a revised Project Comment Worksheet in the manner provided in subdivision (a). If disagreements regarding consistency remain, the Submitting Agency or any Commenting Agency may request an ONT-IAC Mediation Board hearing to mediate the dispute. 9 Project Comment Worksheet—An application that is filled out by the Submitting Agency containing project details that enables Commenting Agencies to comment upon the project's consistency with the ONTALUCP.A sample of the Project Comment Worksheet is included as Exhibit 2 of this Agreement. 10 Commenting Agency—An Agency commenting upon a Submitting Agency's Project Comment Worksheet for a project's consistency with the ONT ALUCP. Page 8 • B & C-111 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement • d. If no comments are submitted on the Project Comment Worksheet as provided in subdivision (b), or if comments are resolved as provided in subdivision (c), the Submitting Agency shall indicate in its own public notices that the project is within the ONT AIA and has undergone a consistency evaluation and was found to be consistent with the ONT ALUCP. VIII. REFERENCING THE ONT ALUCP IN CEQA DOCUMENTS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires Affected Agencies to utilize the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the ONT ALUCP as a technical resource for analyzing the environmental impacts of new projects located within the ONT AIA. Projects situated within the ONT AIA should be evaluated to determine if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels of airport-related noise or to airport-related safety hazards (Public Resources Code Section 21096). IX. DURATION OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is the date of Caltrans Division of Aeronautics approval. This Agreement shall remain in effect unless and until such time as subsequent modifications are requested and approved by each of the Participating Agencies. The Participating Agencies include the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland. • X. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Future amendments to this Agreement shall require approval by each of the Participating Agencies requiring new signatures to the amendment. Amendments to this Agreement would require Caltrans Division of Aeronautics approval for the amendment to be effective. Any of the Participating Agencies can propose changes to this amendment at any time. The City of Ontario is the agency responsible for administrating any changes to this amendment and coordinating with all of the Participating Agencies. Changes made to Exhibit's 1 (ONT AIA) and 2 (Sample Project Comment Worksheet) are not considered amendments of this Agreement and would not require new approvals from Participating Agencies or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. XI. GIS DATA The following GIS Data shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for the purposes of maintaining the ONT ALUCP document: General Plan, Zoning, Specific Plan, City Limits, parcels, streets and building footprints with height information for areas within the ONT AIA. GIS Data may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the above list should be provided if data exists to assist with maintaining accurate maps. GIS Data updates should be provided on an annual basis or when amendments or changes occur such as a general plan amendment. The City of Ontario shall • Page 9 B & C-112 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement provide Participating Agencies with ONT ALUCP shapefiles and basemap shapefiles and provide • annual updates of changes as needed. XII. FEE SCHEDULE A fee schedule may be adopted by the City of Ontario, with the consensus of the members of the ONT-IAC; if adopted, such fees would be reviewed and negotiated annually for Major Land Use Actions requiring public hearing and Mediation. No Fee Schedule has been proposed at the commencement of the Agreement. • Page 10 • B & C-113 Ontario International Airport—Inter Agency Collaborative Cooperative Agreement • SIGNATURES OF AGENCY OFFICIALS City of Chino City of Rancho Cucamonga Print Name: Print Name: Title: Title: Signature: Signature: Date: Date: City of Fontana San Bernardino County Print Name: Print Name: Title: Title: Signature: Signature: • Date: Date: City of Montclair City of Upland Print Name: Print Name: Title: Title: Signature: Signature: Date: Date: City of Ontario Print Name: Title: Signature: Date: • Page 11 B & C-114 9 T C N _ ¢3m MLTrJw-s -9MfmOrOE -- • L m p ..a '" 11A, ` m nLL — � �nrxe p� 0 s Z 1 LLJ i LL N C j 5 j c ca 0 j S N L7 , i U °c_ j -k d U 1 1 W a a`Ci ' � � I _ __-- snrrbwrnoa3 •� ._� Q � fD w � N L._-._..l.' N O ttI Z .� 3 0 -3M 3nE1f3ILT�E __ UO __--_ - - a• - � EMwEMxE- � � a tsanwi3nv Q¢ _ 0 m Q W _ < ' � � T 3m 3nOWJS � --Snr'IAOINS � 3nCw0 - o �• I Y ♦ A R IF ' IL �! • O en"°�/ 3 T a r x N C 3 c a -J-- -� - 34 U C V w r• � - � L 7 � 0 o � r'tir N 1- .J� - - 3nr 3Y dW .�.. N e. UrEw�uw - rrw��vi , Q LL W Q 44 x U Z la ' 3 J _ _ C - r r U- (n C E X t 3nr pvsn I W J Exhibit 2 ig Project Comment Worksheet For Major Land Use Actions within the ONTAirport Influence Area • ALUCP.Pile.No.: " Date Received: Distribution Date: Contact Information for Ontario Citv of Comment Due Date. Name: Submitting Agency: Phone No.: Applicable Compatibly Factors' E-mail: Comments: Mailing Address: Project Inloyination (I'o he title(] (,it(by Submitting Ai,�cncv) Submitting A.-cucy Site Address: Name: Assessor's Parcel No.: Existing Land Use: Phone No.: Project File No.: E-mail: Type of Major Land Use Action: Mailing Address: Major Land Use Action Description(Attach additional sheets if necessary): • The proposed project is impaled by th e following compatibility factors(check all that apply): . ❑ Safety ❑ Noise ❑ Airspace Protection ❑ Overflight ❑ AIA project vicinity Map:A map depicting the project site location in relationship to ❑ Zone 1 ❑ 75+dB CNEL ❑ High Terrain Zone ❑ Avigalion Easement Area ONT. ❑ Zone 2 ❑ Site plan. Site boundaries and size,existing ❑ 70-75 dB CNEL ❑ Pierce Part 77 uses that will remain;location of existing and El Zone 3 Imaginary Surfaces El Recorded Overflight proposed structures,open spaces;ground ❑ 65-70 dB CNEL Notification Area elevations(above mean sea level)and eleva- • Zone 4 ❑ Real Estate Transaction bons of tops of structures and trees,and plot ❑ 60-65 dB CNEL Disclosure Area safety zones and noise contours. • Zone 5 ❑ Residential Uses:Number of dwelling units Fill out the following if applicable(Attach additional sheets if necessary: per acre. 1. List the land uses proposed within each of the respective Safety Zone(s). ❑ Non-residential Uses:Floor area for each . type of proposed use. ❑ Intensity Calculation:Only applies to pro- jects within the Safety Zones. ❑ Environmental Document:(initial study,draft 2. List the land uses proposed within each of the respective Noise Impact Zone(s). environmental impact report,etc)it com- pleted. ❑ Additional information:If necessary addi- tional information requested by the affected agency to enable a comprehensive review of 3. What is the proposed building/structure height(tallest feature)? ft. the proposed project. 4. Describe any project characteristics which could create electrical interference,confusing lights,glare, ❑ City or Area wide Projects:Some projects smoke or other electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight(attach additional sheets if necessary). may not have a specific location and the above mentioned items may not apply and • maybe substituted with a detailed description. Page 1 B & C-116 ALUCP File No.':, Describe any project features,during or following construction that would increase the attraction of birds or cause other wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. Such • features include,but are not limited to the following:open water areas,sediment ponds,retention basins,detention basins that hold water for more than 48 hours or artificial wetlands. ALUCP Consistency Determination (71'o be filled out by the Submitting Agency) State the Consistency Determination for the proposed project(attach additional sheets if necessary). ONT-IAC 1'echnical Staff'Group Conimcnis ('Fo lie filled oot by Participating Agencies) Participating A��encN Is the Major Land Use Action as proposed consistent with the ALUCP? Yes ❑ No❑ Name: If no,can conditions be added to achieve consistency with the ALUCP(list conditions/attach additional Phone No.: pages if needed)? Yes ❑ No❑ E-mail: • Mailing Address: Would you like to meet with the other members of the ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group to discuss issues or concerns with the proposed Major Land Use Action Yes ❑ No❑ Would you like to convene ONT-IAC Mediation Board to make a consistency Determination? Yes❑ No❑ Ontario)Summary if Pat ticipating A,�cncv Coniroenv� and Findings (I'o be filled out I)v the. Citv(if Participating Agency(ies)agree with the Submitting Agency's Consistency Determination. Yes❑ No❑ Participating Agency(ies)disagree with the Submitting Agency's Consistency Determination for the following reasons? Does the proposed Major Land Use Action need to be revised to include changes and re-submit the Project Comment Worksheet reflecting changes? Yes❑ No❑ Does the ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group need to meet and discuss the proposed Major Land Use Action? Yes ❑ No❑ The ONT-IAC Mediation Board is needed to make a consistency Determination? Yes❑ No❑ Additional Comments: • Page 2 B & C-117 RESOLUTION NO.12-22 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (IASP) SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.3.2 OF THE IASP SUBAREA 18 BY ADDING LANGUAGE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, a request to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Subarea 18, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) that will be • affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA must achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. 6. On January 11, 2012, the Planning Commission approved the initiation of IASP Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685. 7. On May 9, 2012,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the • above-referenced public hearing on May 9, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: B & C-118 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 2 • a. The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 text amendment and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. State law also requires land use plans and development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Along with each member agency being required to adopt the ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the Airport Influence Area will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. The proposed text amendment to the [ASP Subarea 18 will provide the IASP Subarea 18 with language ensuring compatibility with the • LA/ONT ALUCP. 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. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan and will provide for development by amending a specific plan within the Airport Influence Area of the LA/Ontario International Airport in order to achieve vertical consistency among land use documents in order to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and b. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and C. The adoption of the [ASP Subarea 18 amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment will provide language ensuring compatibility with the LA/Ontario International ALUCP by prescribing building height limits in order to provide airspace protection for aircraft operations; and d. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the goals and • objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario B & C-119 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 • Page 3 International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment will provide language so that development in Subarea 18 does not adversely impact aircraft operations from LA/Ontario International Airport; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan since the adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within Subarea 18 by allowing building heights up to 70 feet within the High Terrain Zone, which will permit buildings up to 6 stories. Additionally, the proposed text amendment includes a provision to permit building heights up to 90 feet for offices and hotels within Subarea 18, provided an exception is obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. 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 adoption of IASP Subarea 18 text amendment (hereinafter in paragraph 4, the subject IASP Subarea 18 amendment is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no • substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii)that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of the records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of IASP Subarea 18 amendment DRC2010-00685 by adoption of this Resolution to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP SUBAREA 18 by adding language requiring compliance building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as described in this Resolution by adoption of the Draft City Council Ordinance, shown as Attachment A of this Resolution. • 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. B & C-120 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 9, 2012 Page 4 • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of May 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: B & C-121 • ORDINANCE NO. '-"_' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (IASP) SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, AMENDING SECTION 5.3.2 OF THE IASP SUBAREA 18 BY ADDING LANGUAGE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucammga filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, a request to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Subarea 18, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) by adopting • Ordinance No. 2935. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport. 5. State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA must achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. 6. On January 11, 2012, the Planning Commission approved the initiation of IASP Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685. 7. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment DRC2010-00685 and following the conclusion thereof adopted its Resolution No. 12-22 recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt IASP Subarea Text Amendment DRC2010-00685. 8. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. Atachment A B & C-122 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 • Page 2 B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 amendment and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts are either of no impact or less-than-significant impact; therefore, the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and • d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. State law requires land use plans and development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Along with each member agency being required to adopt the ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the Airport Influence Area will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide the IASP Subarea 18 with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP; and f. The [ASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan by amending a specific plan within the Airport Influence Area of the LA/Ontario International Airport in order to achieve vertical consistency among land use documents in order to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and g. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and • B & C-123 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • June 6, 2012 Page 3 h. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The IASP Subarea 18 amendment will provide language ensuring compatibility with the LA/Ontario ALUCP by prescribing building height limits in order to provide airspace protection for aircraft operations; and i. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The IASP Subarea 18 text amendment will provide language so that development in Subarea 18 does not adversely impact aircraft operations from LA/Ontario International Airport; and j. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan since the adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 amendment balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within Subarea 18 by allowing building heights up to 70 feet within the High Terrain Zone, which will permit buildings up to 6 stories. Additionally, the proposed text amendment includes a provision to permit building heights up to 90 feet for offices and hotels within Subarea 18, provided an exception is obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. • SECTION 3: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the IASP Subarea 18 amendment (hereinafter in Section 3, the subject IASP Subarea 18 amendment is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. • C. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are B & C-124 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 6, 2012 • Page 4 available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685 as follows: SECTION 5: SECTION 5.3.2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 5.3.2, Architecture, Building Height/Bulk/Massing: The following text shall be deleted (deleted text in StFikethrough): Bate. ..less appFeved a rendit., Use se oeffnit exsept hetei faGiNtie . hi h a permitted to n maximurn height of eight ste.:es OF 90 feet .d iGhe..e. is gFeateF, d iR PIaRRiRg AFea VII, effiGe buildings are permitted to a maximum height of six steFie6 9F 90 feet, WhiGheyeF is gFeateF. SECTION 6: SECTION 5.3.2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 is hereby • amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 5.3.2, Architecture, Building Height/Bulk/Massing: The following text shall be added (new text in bold) Building height limits within Subarea 18 shall not exceed the height limits prescribed in the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan. For Planning Areas within the High Terrain Zone, the building height limit shall be 70 feet. Buildings or structures greater than 70 feet in height within the High Terrain Zone are subject to the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exception (Obstruction Evaluation - Form 7460). For Planning Areas outside the High Terrain Zone, building height limits shall be governed by the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan. Building or structures greater than LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan limits are subject to the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exception (Obstruction Evaluation - Form 7460). In cases where the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan permits heights greater than 70 feet or the FAA has granted an exception to exceed 70 foot threshold within the High Terrain Zone, the following limits shall be applied: 1) Maximum building or structure height shall not exceed four stories or 75 feet, whichever is greater, unless approved as a Conditional Use Permit, • except hotel facilities which are permitted to a maximum height of eight stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. B & C-125 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • June 6, 2012 Page 5 2) In Planning Area VII, office buildings are permitted to a maximum height of six stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. SECTION 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. • • B & C-126 SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 2012 NAME COMPANY ADDRESS aLN