No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/07/22 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JULY 22, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macins __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 24, 1998 July 8, 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The fo~owing Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 - WEALTH V, LLC: - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441-01 through 11,225-431-01 through 83. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are pubtic 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. B. CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING GRADING REVIEW AND TIME EXTEI',ISIONS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (Continued from June 10, 1998) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15926 - CARNEY - A residential subdivision of 5 single family lots on 1.33 acres offand in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane -APN: 202-041-67. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-11 COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY - A request to establish a bar and micro- brewery in conjunction with a restaurant within an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700 square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard APN: 229-011-39. Related file: Entertainment Permit 98-03. E. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 98-03 COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY - A request to have entertainment consisting of live bands in conjunction with a restaurant and bar within an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700 square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Baulevard - APN: 229-011-39. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 98-11. VI. DIRECTOR'S REEPORTS F. 1998/99 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM SCHEDULE VII. PUBLIC COMI~tlENTS This is the time and p/ace for the genera/pubtic to address the Commission,/tems to be discussed here are those which do not a/rea :ly appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS G, ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS H. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Page 2 I. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an l ~:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 16, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICilItlTY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF P~NCHO CUCANIONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Butler, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 - WEALTH V, LLC - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family tots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441 through 11,225-431-01 through 83. ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The design review for the tract will be considered by the Planning Commission at a later date. The applicant has requested expediency in granting environmental clearance for the site in order to comply with San Bemardino County ordered weed abatement. The applicant is particularly concerned about the threat of fire dangers posed to three existing homes adjacent to the project site due to the significant amount of dry vegetation. B. Environmental Assessment: The project includes only the westerly one-half of Tract 13812. The project was previously rough graded in 1990, and perimeter and retaining walls constructed. The site has since been left undisturbed. The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Although the tract had been previously graded, vegetation has regrown and covers most of the site, The property contains indicator species of sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting biologists permitted by the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the habitat on site is marginally suitable forthe Gnatcatcher and the Kangaroo Rat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were observed on the site during surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 31.4 acre site wilt not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. Impacts relating to drainage, circuiation, and noise have been addressed and mitigated in the environmental assessment for Tract 13812 and are referenced in City Council Resolution 88-699 and a Negative DecIaration dated December 7, 1988. No other potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOR'" DR 97-40 July 22, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 97-40. Brad Bullet City Planner BB:CG:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Initial Study Part II Exhibit "D" Biological Habitat Assessment Survey Exhibit "E" Letter from Mr Wuh dated 6/15/98 ~ ~ City of Rancho Cucarnonga ,- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM , , INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 97-40 2. Related Files: Tract 13812 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812 WEALTH V. LLC - The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-421-15, 16, and 26. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ken Wuh Wealth V, LLC 1028 Westminster Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803 5. General Plan Designation: Etiwanda North Specific Plan 6. Zoning: Low Residential District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north, east and south of the project site is vacant land. The property to the west and norlhwest contains scattered single family residences. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecilia Gailardo, Assistant Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District Etiwanda School District Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District EXHIBIT "C" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below wauld be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Signif cant Impact:," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Sicjnificant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) TranspodaticnlCirculation (X) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposedi project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in ':his case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY '~ave a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described On attached shee~s, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR]' is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed proje st could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Cecilia Gallardo Assistant Planner July 1, 1998 A/D Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant impact," "Potentia y Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction ,, ever the project? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result,in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 0 Erosion, changes in topogra~:hy, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical ~;atures? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: O The topography will be altere;d to accommodate the project. The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the ti-ne of construction. Grading of the site will be done under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or prope~/to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Discharge into su~ace water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)'? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in, any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 5 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) (X) Comments: a) The proposed project will result in an ~ncrease in paved surface areas, which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows. b) An evaluation of flooding impacts were addressed in the environmental assessment for Tract 13812. and as a condition of tract map approval, flood protection facilities are required to be installed as part of the development of the site, Mitigations for flooding hazards are referenced in City Council Resolution 88-699 and Negative Declaration dated December 7. 1998, 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 6 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (X) 0 Conflicts with adopted policie,.~ suppotting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (X) a) The project will not generat{; substantial additional vehicular movement. The proposal is consistent with the. General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be required to provide a primary and secondary access to the site and install street frontage improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in/mpacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not lim;ted to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wet[and habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 7 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. The subject site contains indicator species of sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the fedorally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting, biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the habitat on site is marginally suitable for the gnatcatcher and the kangaroo rat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were observed on the site during the surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol. Based on the this information, the proposed development of the 31.4 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects. There is no knowledge of other unique, rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species potentially living on project site. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ,zar/5' Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 8 b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existin!] sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in area.,; with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) NOISE. Willthepmposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: a) The subject site is bounded an the south by the future Route 30 freeway. An evaluation of noise impacts on the project site have been addressed in the environmental assessment for Tract 13812. Mitigations for sound attenuation are referenced in City Council Resolution 88-699 and Negative Declaration dated December 7, 1998. I t. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 9 Comments: c) The Etiwanda School District submitted correspondence on February 19, 1998, that indicates the existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above capacity and the District will not be able to accommodate all of the students expected to be generated from the project. The District states that mitigation beyond the state statutory fees will be needed, As a condition of approval, the developer shall execute an agreement with the District to provide the additional mitigation or to provide full mitigation. Full mitigation may be accomplished by means of a requirement to form, or to participate in an existing, Mello-Roos Community facilities District for school facilities. The Chaffey Joint Union High School District submitted correspondence dated February 18, 1998, indicating a mitigation agreement was reached with the owners of the property. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 10 Comments: a) The project is adjacent to the! future State Route 30. A sound attenuation wall is required to mitigate noise im.~>acts generated by the freeway A wall plan shall be prepared for City Planner approval which incorporates necessary sound attenuation, a decorative material, and extensive landscaping to minimize negative aesthetic effects. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) .. b) Disturb archaeological resoun:es? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique eth'~ic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the pmposak a) Increase the demand for ,neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page 11 16. I~ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (×) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-40 Page t2 (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified Aiaril 1, 1992) (X) Environmental Assessment for Tract 13812 (Negative Declaration dated December 12, 1988) I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur, Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: 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.: Development Review 97-40 Public Review Period Closes: July 22, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Ken Wuh, Wealth V, LLC Project Location (also see attached map): Located west of Etiwanda Avenue between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441-01 through 11,225-431-01 through 83. Project Description: The review of the detailed site pIan and building elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 22. 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By P p-t ,4n Environtncnta[ PlenztingzResource ,~[~negen;ent Cof:Dor2,t[otl June 3,1998 Ken Wuh Panda Development Corporation 1028 Westminster Avenue Alhambra, California 91803 Subject: Biological Constraints Study for Tract 13812 in Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Wuh: This letter report presents the findings of a biological resources survey and habitat assessment on Tract 13812 in Rancho Cucamonga, Califorria. The purpose of the assessment was to identify whether onsite vegetation provides habitat for sensitive or endangered species on the 66.4 acre site. The site is north of Highland Avenue and west of Etiwanda Avenue on the Cucamonga USGS quad map (see Exhibit 1) METHODS Habitat Assessment BonTerra Consulting conducted a search of the literature to identify special status plants, wildlife, or habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1997), California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 1998), and compendia of special status species published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were reviewed. Attachment 1 lists the special interest plant and wildfire species known to occur in the vicinity of the project with their status and occurrence probability for the site. An initial survey was conducted on Maroh 12, 1998 by Sandra J. Leatherman, Senior Botanist at BonTerra Consulting, to describe the vegetation and evaluate the potential of the habitat to support special interest plant and wildlife species. AI plant and wildlife species observed were recorded in field notes. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for future identification. Plants were identified using keys in Hickman (1993), Vlunz (I 974) and Abrams (1923). Taxonomy follows Hickman (1993)for scientific and common names. Robeds (1998) was used for common names when none were listed in Hickman (1993). The assessment survey determined that there was potential habitat on the site for the federally endangered coastal California gnatcatcher IPolioptila cafifornica californica) and the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merr/ami paNus). Focused surveys following applicable USFWS protocols were conducted for these species, as discussed below. ,. ::'~-~1 ""':;'~1~ ,::~":' ......""'~:~ "'" , , - ,,.~.;~, ,,~-:;~i' ~. ::! · "- ..... :: ~'~: I ' ' .... ~ _: [ ': ' ~ ' '~ / _2~,~a~ : 32 i~=s SOU,~E~,~ ,& · , ,, ~ . _ - "' __ , "~ Z " ' . : ,~ .,. '. NORTH Scale: 1" = 2000' Project Location Map EXHIBIT1' Panda Development Site //l]fl12'rril Co,Lflzltin,~ Ken Wuh June 3, 1998 Page 2 Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys USFWS permitted biologist Mike San Miguel (PMT 831910) conducted the focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN). SJrveys were conducted, as required by the USFWS protocol, on six separate visits to habitat on the sites on the following dates: March 19 and 26, and April 2, 11, 18, and 25, 1998. Attachment 2 is a letter to the USFWS that documents the methods used in compliance with gnatcatcher permit requirements. Focused San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Surveys USFWS and CDFG permitted biologists Karen Kin[land and Phillippe Vergne conducted initial walkover surveys of the site on March I2 an ~ May 5, 1998 to determine suitable locations for the focused trapping surveys for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Trapping was conducted in accordance with applicable USFWS protocols which require five nights of trapping, conducted when the animal is active above-ground at night, and preferably during a new moon phase. Initial trapping began on May 7, 1998, but was suspended due to inclement weather conditions (night- time temperatures in the high forties and occasional rain). The final days of trapping were May 15 through May 19, 1998. A total of 44 traps were placed within the site.' SURVEY RESULTS Vegetation The vegetation on the site has been disturbed by grading approximately seven years ago and contains several din[ roads and brick retaining walls. The dominant species on the site include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with limited numbers of white sage (Salvia apiana), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), ,Jeer weed (Lotus scoparius), California sagebrush (Artern/sia californica). and yerba santa (Eriodictyon tdchocalyx). The vegetation most closely resembles a mixture of Riversidian sage sc-ub and Riversidian altuvial fan sage scrub (Holland 1986) or California buckwheat series (Sawye' and Keeler*Wolf 1995). Exhibit 2 depicts the onsite vegetation. Wildlife Habitat Coastal California Gnatcatcher Both Riversidian sage scrub and Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub habitats provide potentially suitable habitats for the CAGN. However, the habitats on site have been disturbed by past grading activities and are relatively isolated from other open space areas. As a result, the onsite habitats are considered marginally suitable for the CAGN. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat The majority of the site consists of buckwhen: scrub vegetation. Habitat for the SBKR is typically confined to primary and secondary alluvial scrub habita[s, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) processes. Qnsite habitat is marginafiy suitable for the SBKR. IUversidi:nFAlluvial Fal~ Sage Scrub r;: . ,:= ~:', . ..~ p .r:~ , " , . .... :-~: Tract 13812 ............ EXHIBIT2 Vegetative Communities Ken Wuh June 3, 1998 Page 3 Special Interest Plant and Wildlife Species Plants or animals may be considered "spe:ial interest" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. The special interest species known to occur in the vicinity of the project and their potential to occur onsite are listed in Attachment 1. Plant Species Six special interest plant species are knowr to occur in the vicinity of the site. O~e special interest plant species could potentially occur on the project site: the Piummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae). This species generall~ occurs scattered in grassy openings in sage scrub or chaparral. Due to the disturbed condition of the site, the Plummer's marioosa lily is not expected to occur in large numbers. Therefore, the project will not result in any imp'acts on this species that would be considered significant. The remaining five special interest plant species are not expected to occur on the project site because of lack af suitable habitat. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or required. Development of the site would not impact any unique vegetative habitats. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or required. Wildlife Species Coastal California Gnatcatcher The CAGN was not observed on the site during the six weeks of surveys conducted according to USFWS protocol. Based on these survey results, the project will no~ result in any impacts on the CAGN. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or required. San Bernardino Kanqaroo Rat No individuals of SBKR were trapped on the site. Based on these survey results, the project will not result jn any impacts on the SBKR. Mitigation measures are therefore not recommended or required. BonTerra Consulting has appreciated the opportunity to assisl Panda Development on this project. If you have any comments or questions, please call Tom Smith or Ann Johnston at (714)475-9520. Sincerely, BONTERRA CONSULTING Principal Project Manager/Ecologist Attachments Ken Wuh June 3, 1998 Page 4 Attachment i: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species That May Occur in the Vicinity of Tract 13182. Attachment 2: Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Results of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for Tract 13812, Dated June 3, 1998. Attachment 3: Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat for Panda Development Property in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Prepared for BonTerra Consulting by Kirtland Biological Services, May 26, 1998. REFERENCES Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes. 1, II, and Itl. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Rarefind Database. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society 1998. Electronic InventoN of Rare and Endanoered Vascular Plants of California. Sacramento. California. Hickman, J. C. Editor 1993. The Jepson Manual Hiqher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. California. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Non-game Heritage Program, State of California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Roberts, F.M. 1998. A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Oranqe County, California. F, M. Roberts Publications, Encinitas, California. Sawyer, J.O. and Keeler-Wolf, T. 1995. A Manual of California Veqetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 7- ATTACHMENT I SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF TRACT 13182 Spee,es {cNPs I State I Federal ! Potential Onsite 91ummer's mariposa lily 2alochortus plummerae 1B I None SOC Limited Potential Peirson's sprin9 beauty ClaZtonia lanceolata va~: pe~rsonii 1B None SOC No Suitable Habitat slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras 1B CE FE No Suitable Habitat aious daisy ~ri[leron breweft vat. bisanctus 1B None None No Suilab[e Habita~ JohnstoWs buckwheat E~o~onum microthecum ~ar. johnstonii 1B ! None SOC No Suitable Habitat Laguna Mtns, ~ewel-~ower Streptanthus bemardinus t I B None None No Suitable Habitat WtLDLIFE California mastiff bat Eumops perotis califomicus NA SC SOC No Suitable Habita~ San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomfs meMami panvus NA f None FE Marginally Suitable Habitat I Nelson's Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni ~A None I None I No Suitable Habi[a~ San Diego Horned Lizard Ph~nosoma coronaturn blainvillel ~ NA SC I SOC Marginally Suitable Habitat California 9natcatcher Polioptfla califomica califomica NA SC FT Marginally Suitable Habitat LEGEND FEDERAL (USFWS) FE Federalty Listed as Endangered FT Federally Listed as Threatened FPE FederalZy Proposed for Endangered FPT Federally Proposed for Threatened SOC Species of Concern STATE (CDFG) CE State Lis~ed as Endangered CT State Lis~ed as Threatened CNPS 1A Plan~s Presumed E~inct in California 1B Plants Rare. Threatened. or Endangergd in Ca$i~omia and Ersevzhere Plants Rare, Threatened, or EndangerBd in Cal~fornEa But More Common Elsewhere Plants About Which We Need More - t,. Review Lis~ Attachment 2 Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding ResuIts of Coastal California " Gnatcatcher Surveys for Tract 13812, Dated June 3, 1998. June 3,1998 Doug Krofta U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Cadsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Results of Coastal Caiiforni~ Gnatcatcher Survey on Tract No. 13812 and Tract No. 14120-1 in the City of Rancho Cu,:amonga, San Bemardino County, California Dear Mr. Kro~a: This letter report presents the results of focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica californica) on Tract No. 13812 and Tract No. 14120-i (project site) in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The combined area of the two tracts is approximately 80 acres. The purpose of the :survey was to determine the presence or absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) on the project site. The surveys were conducted according to guidelines established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under Permit No. PMT-831910 issued to Consulting Ornithologist Mike San Miguet in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIFTION The project site is a vacant parcel of land adjacent to and north of Highland Avenue. about ¼ mile west of Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Exhibit 1), The site occupies approximately 80 acres and consists of Tract 13812 and Tract 14120-1. , Within Tract 13812, there are two residences on the west, and a Cucamonga Water Company well and pump facility occupies a small portion of the northern sector of the site. All of Tract 13812 was previously graded to establish roads and resi:jentiai pads in late 1991/early 1992; the project did not proceed and vegetation has regrown and now covers all of the site. Concrete block walls were found throughout the northerly portion of Trac': 13812. Otherwise, the properW on the east, north and west is vacan~ undeveloped land, A rough din roadi from Highland Avenue runs north and bisects Tract 13812. Tract No. 14120ol is a vacanl parcel of land bordered to, the south by a rough graded dirt road which is the westerly extension of Summit Aw.mue from Efiwanda Avenue; this dirt road provides access to the site. There is a wood pole electrical line and din road to the west and vacant land to the north and east. This site appears to have been previously graded and a system of grid-like roads traverse the site. Doug Krofia June 3,1998 Page 2 BACKGROUND The CAGN was designated a threatened species by the USFWS on March 25, 1993. A special rule was issued in conjunction with Ihis designation that would allow incidental take of CAGNs under Section 9 of the federal ESA, if the take results from activities conducted in accordance with the state's Naturat Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (USFWS 1993). For those not participating in the state's NCCP, any activity that may result in the take of CAGNs would require formal consultation with the USFWS either under Section 7 or Section 10 of the federal ESA. The CAGN is the northern most of three subspecies currently recognized for species status (Atwood 1991). It is restricted to arid, Iowiand areas and has a range from southwestern California to northwestern Baja California. The remaining two subspecies occur within central and southern Baja California, Mexico. Within the U.S., their current range is generally within San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and western Riverside counties, Habitat for this non-migratory species is generally timited to coastal and inland sage scrub piant communities. The CAGN is typically found at elevations below 820 feet along the coast and below 1,640 feet inland (Atwood and Bolsinger 1992). The USFWS estimates that approximately 2,562 pairs remain in the U.S. (USFWS 1993). SURVEY METHODOLOGY The surveys forthe CAGN were conducted on March 19 and 26, and on April 2, 11, 18, and 25, 1998 according to the guidelines issued by the USFWS on February 28, 1997 and revised on July 28,1997. These guidelines stipulate that the site be surveyed at least six times at intervals of 7 days or more during the breeding season. Field notes and a sketch of the site detailing the dominant plants encountered and other bird species observed were prepared during the survey. The entire habitat was thoroughly covered by Mr. San Miguel during the morning hours when CAGN's are generally most active and when they are most likely to be encountered. Mr. San Migue[ systematically surveyed the entire site by walking slowly while pIaying vocaiizations of the CAGN. The vocalizations were played for brief periods at intervals of 200 feet or less. RouIes were randomly selected during each of the six surveys and no two routes were repeated in order to maximize coverage and increase the chance of encountering CAGN potentially present on the site. Weather conditions during all surveys were generally cool to warm with cloud cover on some of the survey days. Light winds were blowing on most survey days. All days were considered by the observer to be conducive to bird activity. Surveys were started after 7:00 a.m. and were concluded before noon on all days. SURVEY RESULTS No coastal California Gnatcatchers were seen or heard during any of the six days the site was suNeyed. The dominant plant species found on Tract 13812 was California buckwheat which in some locations constituted nearly 100% of the vegetation. Relatively young ceanothus (Eriogonum fasiculatum) and bush mallow (Malcothammus fasciculatus) were sparsely scattered throughout most of the site. A smali stand of white sage (Salvia apiana) and deer weed (Lotus scoparius) were also found. Pockets of hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx ssp. Trichocalyx)and scale broom (Lepidosparfum squamatum) were found on the south portion of the site. A row of mature Doug Krofia June 3,1998 Page 3 eucalyptus borders the northeast portion of the site where a Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperh] and barn owl (Tyro alba) were occupying nests. Tract 14120 has been previously graded, but vegetation has regrown and covers most of the si[e. Some areas of the site are covered with ruderat plant species. The dominant species on most of the site was California buckwheat and white sage; a small stand of coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) was found in the southeast corner o" the site, Other plant species in the more disturbed areas included phace[ia (Phacelia sp.), deer weed, and several varieties of non-native grasses and annuals. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, BONTERRA CONSULTING Literature Cited: Atwood, J. L. 1990, Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila catifornica). Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. Atwood, J. L.. 1991. Subspecies Limits and Geographic Patterns of Morphological Variation in California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica),. Bull, Southern California Acad. Sci. 90(3):118-133. Atwood, J. L., and J. S. Bolsinger. 1992. Eh.=vational Distribution of the California Gnatcatchers in the United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 64(2):159-168. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Coastat California Gnatcatcher; Final Rule and Proposed Special RuIe. Federal Register 50 CFR ParL 17, Vol. 58, No. 59: 16742-16759. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 28, 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica cafifornica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 28, 1997, 3oastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol!. It ' ~ ".. ;~ - . . ,,--.- - ": .... ~,---~ - ~.,'~_',....~' ..... ;~i ":: " :-.,"".. ........" \~ ' "' "' d --.'' ~]--.s~,,o~,, ' ~ .... ' .....~"'~: ~/-" ~:~.":':'::":'::'~ ~ ~ ~';~ . ,, - :_ ,._.-"-.-_ ........./ ~... .' .7 ~. _ ~:'.~,~ :'~ . . ." ' .... : : .... -~ ', ~ ~ · "' ~sr ~,~-~- '" ' ~ ~o~_~ - :'; , a ..I ~ . _ · ....... ~= NORTH Scale: 1" = 2000' Project Location Map EXHIBIT1 Panda Development Site -Tract Nos. 13812 and 14120-1 /,'~l~;rr,~ Attachment 3 Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat for Panda Development Property in Rancho CLcamonga, California. Prepared for BonTerra Consulting bY Kirttand Biological Services. May 26, 1998. Kirtland Biological Se~dces Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Panda Development Rancho Cucamonga, California prepared for: BonTerra Consultir~g 20321 Birch Sireel, Suite 201 Ne~,,'port Beach, CA 92660 May 26, 1998 Project NuInber: BTE98-103 3415 Va[encia Hill Drive Phone/Fax: 909 686 1141 Riverside, CA 92507 E-inail: kkirtland@aol.com Kirtland Biological Services Table of Contents Page ll~roduction ..................................................................................................................................... Project Description ................................................................................................................... Methods ..................................................................................................................................................1 Research ............................................................ Habilat Evaluation Surveys .................................................................................................... Trapping Studies .....................................................................................................................4 Findil~gs ....................................................................................................................................................4 Topography and Soils ..............................................................................................................4 Plant Communities ...........................................................................................................~......4 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................5 San Bernardh~o Kangaroo Ra~ ................................................................................................5 Sun~l~a~ ..................................................................................................................................................9 Refereoces ..........................................................................................., ..................................................10 List of Figures 1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................................2 2 Project Vicinity ..........................................................................................................................3 3 Trap Sites ...................................................................................................................................7 List of Tables 1 Pantin Development Trapping Results - guckwhea Scrub ....................... S 2 Panda Development Trapping Results - White Sage Scrub ............................................... S Appendices Appendix A - Plant Species Observed Appendix B - Animal Species Observed Kirtland Biological Services INTRODUCTION Kirt!and Biological Services (KBS) was conlacled by BonTerra Consulling ~o conduct trapping studies for the proposed 120 acre development project Iocaled in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardtrio County, California (Figure 1). The trapping studies were required due to the potential presence on the property of Ihe San Bernard trio kangaroo rat (Ditlodomys Inerrilulli tlalvlts). Project Description The project is a proposed residential developaltar on 120 acres of privale property in Rancho Cucamonga (Figure 2). TIle property is located norIll of klighland Avenue and ;vesl of Eliwanda Avenue. It is bounded by Highland Avenue on tile souIll and open space/mixed rural residenlial on the east, ;;'est and north. The property occurs in Section 2% Township 1 Nortit, Range 6 West, Cucamonga Peak 7.5 topographic quadrangle, San Bernardtrio base and nteridian. METHODS Research Prior Io beginning tile field surveys and trapping sludies, KBS rcvie:ved tile available literature oil the San Bernardino kangaroo rat Io determine habilat requiremeals and aclivity periods. The documents revie;ved by KBS included Ihe following: · The Statt/s and Knort,n Distribution of lhl' San Ucruatdino Knlzgaroo Rat (DiI~odotuys mcrl'ianti tlatxlns): YiHd sul~wJIs condttclrd bt'ln,ccn 1987 and 1996, McKernan, 1997. · Enter,ql'ttczj RIde to List the San Bcrtmrdino KstHgttt'O0 Ral, Slttt Bet'lutrditto u/td Rivcrside Cottntie5 in Soullwnt Califi,'nht, tts EitdanXcred.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a ·Endangercd and Threatened Wildlife attd Plauts; Prol~oscd R uh' lo List tire San BerntH'ditto Ktutgtuvo Part as Endanga'ed;and Notice of Public Hearin,~. U.S. Fish and Wild life Service, 1998b. · t~'hHnmtds of the Pacific States, tngles, 1965. KBS also reviewed other available technical information on this species, and discussed recent findings with researchers in the field. We used the information to focus our trapping efforts in the field. Habitat Evaluation Suweys Karen Kirtland of KBS and Philippc Vcrgne of Envira conducted a preliminaD, walkover survey of the site on March 12 and May 5, 1998, to determine suitable sites for trapping of the SBKR. During the reconnaissance surveys, KBS recorded the various pbnt communities and condition of the habdats on site. Based on the survey findings, KBS selected two sites for trapping. May 26, 199S BTEg8-103 I Kirkland Biological Services Source: Thomas nn,s. Guld~.. I99S Figure 1 Regional Location Kirdand Biological Services --. '.~ . . -.:<5:.,$~,Q - =========================v. , ~ .... ~/ ~. : g · - -"~g ~ g~,~ · ~-~ .... 5=; 7 =Ta--Z , '. ~{~ ~-~ff~; u= ]E7 ," ' ' "':~ ':'7 .: .s. ~._, F:~{~ ,-~ :LZj :5;Q~C~ , :1 .' 'j ""':~ .... ' .... ~ j2 ~ '1 ....... 3 ' ~ ' :y,,,o/.:: . aC(,,o ~°~t~' d....:z~:~ ~', , Sourot': Cucamonga Peak, 7.5' USeS topographic quddranglc Figure 2 Project VidxMW N Feet Panda Devciopm. cnt Site f '-: ::-'1 [_=:==_,=:_._ ,__~_1 May 2,'%, 1998 BTE98-]{]3 3 Kirtland Biological Services Trapping Studies KB8 concluded traDDi;lg according ~o protocols esLabHshed for the Sr~Kg. '1he protocol calls for five nights of trapping, conducted ;rhea the animal is active above~ground at night and preferably during a new moon phase. Our initial trapping was wa~ begun on ~'lay 7, 1998 during the last quarter o[ the waxing moon. h~clement weather condilions (n ,; ~ ime temperatures in the high forlies and occasional rain), delayed completion of the trapping until the following week. The final days of trapping were conducted May 15 through May 19, 1998. We placed the traps in suitable habitat areas or [l~e project, concernrating on locating traps in areas conlaining burrows suitable for the SBKR. All lrap locations were flagged ~o ensure lhe same trap sites were ~rapped each night. Each trap was baited with a mixture of bird seed, 'oiled oats and peanut butter, placed at the back of the [raps. Due to/be abundance of available native seed, KBS added [i~e peanul butler Io increase the attraction of the bait. The traps were placed at dusk each night and inspeeled at dawn each morning. All animals were identified and released at fi~e point ol capture. KBS took notes on ll~e habitats where Ibe traps were placed, and recorded soil and other relevant charaderislics. We also noted the weather condibons at the time o[ the trapping stud ies. FINDINGS Topography and Soils Tile site is located on tile floodplain of tile coastal side of file San Gabriel i'.lountains. Slope angles did not exceed five percent over tile entire site. Tile soils are a uniform nlix of cobbles and loamy coarse sand, Tilere are two soil types on site (Soil Conservation Service 1980). Soboba stony loamy sand, an excessively drained soil forming on alluvial fans in granitic alluvium, is found primarily in thn extreme western'section of tile property. Tujunga gravelly loamy sand is a somewhat excessively drained soil lhat forms oil alluvial fails in granitic alluvium. Tujunga gravelly loamy sand forms tile maiortty of Ihe soil on site, extending throughout tile northern and eastern sections. Plant Communities TIle site contains three separate plant communifics. 'File nlajority o[ tile western half of the siLe is occupied by buckwheat scrub. Annual grassland occupies tile eastern half, intermixed with eucalyptus rows. White sage scrub is found in tile northern section of tl~e parcel, above the extension of Sumndt A;'enue. BttcL~'uhcat Scrtlb Buckwheat scrub is dominated by flat-topped buck;., heat (Eriogouuu .fi sclcuflttmu). Other less donlinant scrub species in this plant community include yelba santa (Eriodi:tyo tli'hoc ly.,:) deerv.'eed (Loins Kirtland Biological Services scoparius) and occasional individuals of California sagebrush (Artl'utisia cahfornicll). Annual species include popcorn flower (Cryptmttizd iHtrrmed~:), fiddleneck (A,'ttsilwkilt intl'rnzl!ditt), suncup (Olmissonis~ DistortiT), filago (gihzgogallic:z) and borehound (,% //~,,'z idlitiih, V,'I/SlZF/'). Non native annual grasses include red brome (BFotltlls ,t~zdrik'usis ), slender :vild oats ( AVelt.'t batbala) and foxtail (VtdpismlnJttro$). Artmud Crasslatzd The armual grassland community is dominated by dense stands of slender wild oats and red brome, as well as stands of short-podded mustard (Hirsch~,idia htcaua) and abu-mashi (Schismus barbarns). A dominanl visual feature of this community is tile blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Slobuhls) stands that form rows running east Io ,,vest in this section o( the property. ~Vhitt, SitRe &:rub White sage scrub is dominated by white sage (Salvia tip[nun), but includes flat-topped buck;vhcaL and California sagebrush. Other species include deerweed and desert brittlebush (Enceh'a]u-iltosa) . Red brome and slender wild oats are the dominant grasses in this habitat. A complete list ofplanl species observed in included in Appendix A. Wildlife Wild[ire was moderate on site, dominated by mammals and birds. Sign observed included scat, tracks, burrows, calls, remains and actual slghtings. Species observed included mourning dove, California quail, bushtit, California thrasher, northern mockingbird, ;vhite-cro,.:'ncd sparrow, scrub jay, black-tailed iackrabbit, Audubon's cottontail, and coyote. A conlplete list of wildlife species observed in included in Appendix g. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat St,rcies Description The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is one of three kangaroo rat species in its range. Both tile Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo ral (Dipodomys stl'phcltsi) occur in areas occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, but these other two species have a wider habitat range. The habitat of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is described as being confined to primary and secondary alluvial fan scrub habitats, ;vith sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind) processes. Like all kangaroo rats, the Sail BernardiIio kangaroo rat is primarily a seed eater, feeding on the seeds of both annual and shrub species. It also feeds on green vegetation and insects when these are available. Being primarily a desert species (like all kangaroo rats), the San Bcrnardino kangaroo rat obtains nearly all of its water from the food it eals, and can subsist indefinitely on water extracted from dry seeds. It forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Burrows are dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath shrubs. May 26, I998BTE98-I(13 A d [ 5 Kirtland Biological Services Tbe breeding season extends primarily from Jar. uary through late No,.'enlber, with peak reproduction occurring in late June. Uskla[j},, ouly one litter is produced pc,~ )'ear with an average of only two to three young. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dil~odom~/s merriamit~unms) iS one of tl~ree subspecies of the Merriam's kangaroo ral. The Merriam's kangaroo rat is a ,~idespread s:pecies IbM can be found from (he inland velleys to the deserls. The subspecies known ~s the San Bernardino kangaroo, bowever, is confined to inland valley scrub communities, and more particularly, to scrub communities occurring along rivers, streams and drainages. Most or these drainages have been l~islorically altered as a result of flood control efforts and the resulting increased use of river resources, including mining, of Groad vehicle use ~nd road and housing development. This increased use of river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of h=bitat ~vailable for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The past bobira/losses and potential Euture losses prompted lbe recent emergency listing of the San Bernardb~o kangaroo rat as an codangered species (U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service 1998a). The estimated historical distribution of Ibis species included all of tiffs part of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest recent locality to the project sile is in Lytic Creek to the norlheast (McKernan, 1997). Two sites were selected by KBS as suitable for tra,~ping (Figure 3). The first site (Site A) was located in lbe eastern potlion of ~he buckwheat scrub pbn~ ccmmunity, away from adjacenl housing and roads. We placed ~ traps in this area. Site g is located in the northern section of the property, in the white sage scrub community. This site bas undergone some significant disturbance in the past. The routes o( old roads were visibie as areas of less dense scrub cover. We placed 17 traps in tiffs area. Weulher Condilbu s Weather conditioos changed little during tile course of tile/rapp~ng studies. Early morning temperatures :',,'ere in lhe low sixlies throughout ~he survey. Liglq fog occurred on May 7, when the lraps were pulled. No rain or fog occurred during ~he remainder of the survey. The lrapping on May 7 (ook place four days before the full moon. The remaining Irapping studies were conducled when the moon was in a waning pi~ase, starting four days past the full moon on May t I. Trt~l, gestdl> KSS did nol Ira~ any individuals of San Bernardino kat~garoo raL Trapping success was Ifigh over the entire trappiog period. Tables ] and 2 provide informntion on the species trapped per site and per nigbL M,~v 26 998 DTEuS-1 ( 3 Kitfiend BioLogical Services - :f! ' , - , ii .- -- - -'?,: """~' ' ,oo~·  !~ . - ' ' ';, r - ' .-- ' ':-===- ' .........'ii'='T-''' ........*. :'-:5;" := ~:;~:~ ....7.' .........~ . . _ - .~ · : _- .~::! '- : /L ' ~--- ' ~ -'.so.o~ v,t ~ r~ ' ':L :' :~-" ............ ~::::::::::.:.~ ......7~'='"' "r~' '_:-::'~'~'-'> ...... - '::~ ~," A, ~..-..~ ,.'.vv='..,,- --'Y ' ' ' =: ~j ',~ ~ .. C~ -. ~ Kliz;.' :. :: ~5 :' ' ~' , :~. ' ....~ ......, u'r' ~'~: ~': .......'~ ' ....... -..~. ::~o~ J_ :-: ~ >~'~~ s,,~: c~,,~s~ .~.~k 7.s' Figure 3 San Bcrnardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Loca~ons A -- TrapIh~e location N .~ Fee[ I"::" :' 7: I I:--: ........ :':-'::1 { /i luull 2u{:t/ .'uuu Panda Development Site Kirfiand Biological Services Table 1. Panda Development Trapping Results - Buckwheat Scrub 44 Traps Trap Nights ~P~Fits ...................... 517-_8....5115-L6 5/.ls-jT.s/ l__7:lLsL1,8.:!LT_o.!~[s' gt'rognttthus longhut'ntbris brt'vt'nasus 3 1 2 3 9 Los Angeles pocket mouse Chaelodipptts~dhtx 3 9 6 5 5 28 San Diego pocket mouse Dipodomtls agt'li< 3 3 2 2 3 13 Pacific kangaroo rat Pt'routyscnsntanicnhtttts 2D 1S 24 27 29 118 Deer mouse Perontyscns boylii 4 5 3 2 t 4 - Brush mouse Nt'otonut h'pida 1 1 Desert woodrat Totals 30 33 39 40 39 183 Trapping success 68% 80`;;, 89');, 91% 89% 83% Table 2. Panda Development Trapping Results - White Sage Scrub 17 Traps Trap Nights S_p, ecies ~,/7-8 5/I5-16 5/16-17 5/17-18 5/18-19 Totals Pc,'o.qnathus lo,tg ', . b ' 's ~ 'cvi. s s 3 4 2 1 I l 1 Los Angeles pocket mouse Dipodomys uyilis 4 4 4 1 13 Pacific kangaroo rat Pcyotnysctts c~dtfornictts ] ] 1 3 California mouse Perontysctt5 tnmticnhllns g 3 4 3 5 23 Deer mouse Perontyscu5 boyh'i 3 1 3 7 Brush mouse Ncololna lt'pida 1 I Desert :vood rat Totals ii"'f4 ..... 72 .....3' ....ii 5S Trapping success 71% 82% 71',',/, 53% 65';;, 68% May 26, Igus BTE98-IU3 Kirfiand Biological Services SUMNIARY Based on the available infornla~ion and site conditions, tilere ~,,as a [o,,v probability that ~he SBKR may occur on the projecl site. The site was flapped according to slandard protocols developed for tile SBKR No SBKR were caught durii~g tile trapping studies, and therefore Illis species is not present on site. Kirtland Biological Services References Burr, W. H., 19S6. ,4 Field C,.,i [c to: th:' ,%.i:z,,.,zll::tls ill ~',Zo~Zh A,zcl'i,.'tllz i',,dt'th of ,~.ir,r/co. I{oughton MiB'Hn ii Company/, Boston Massachusetts. Hall, E.R., 1981. The Mtm,l.ds ofNorzh A,tl'riclt, Volumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Ne;v York. Hickman, J.C.. ed. 1993. The Ii'pso,t Mlmtt, d: Hi,qhee Phmts oJ'Gfll)brlzhL University of California Press. lngles, L.G., 1965. Mlintltstfls of the Pttcific St~ttes. Stanford Uzfix'ersity Press, Stanford, California. Laudenslayer, Jr.. W.F., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner, 1991. A Ch,'ck-list of fin' Amt~hibians, Rt'ptilcs. Birds tutd A, lttntt~azl5 ofGdifornitt, California Fish and Game 77:109-14 I. McKernan, R.L., 1997. The Slttltt5 tltld Ktta~t,lt Distrilmtio. o]' the S,m BiTtrill'dittO ~Iltgtll'O0 Rill (Dipodottty5 merritmti l~m'otts ): Field stt~-~t'J/s c'ottdt~clcd J~e~t,c't'n 7987 trod 1996. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen, ice, Carlshad F~eld Of rite. Munz, P.A., 1974. A Florr~ of~tttlter~ Gtlijbr~ti~t. IJnive~i{y of California Press. Berkeley, California. Soil Conservation Service, I980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a. EmeFgc~l{'ji R.le to List the Stm Bermtrdhro Ktm,~ttFoo Rtit. Sitn Be~'ltal'ditto arid Riwrside Con.ties h~ Sonthertl Gdt)rorttfd. ~ls ~ldtorge~ ed.. Vol. 63, No. I7, pp. 3835 - ~43. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Emllm,Cct .d t.td Thrcettl'm.d Wdtlh)~' mid Pht.ts; Proposed Rtlle to List the Sml Bermtrdilto KtmSltroo Rllt Its E~ldltt,Sl,I rd; mtd Nc~tice oJ' P.blic Hl'ltrilt,%. Vol. 63, No. I7, pp. 3877- 3878. May 26, 19VS BTEgB-103 i(1 KErrland Biological Services Appendix A - Plant Species Observed ANG[OSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Asteraceae Su nfl ower fam i ly ,4rlemisilt califorlzica California sagebrush Bal 'chu Hs sahi'ifolilt M u l e fat Cettlasu'ett utdih'usis Tocalote Encdhz~triuosa Deserl brittlebush ERaS° Sallica Fi la go HitcH'alia sqtatrrosa Saw-toothed goldenbush Boraginaceae 8orage fanfily Aresluck/el iuh'rtucditt ]:idd[eneck Cr~Ftmttlta intcru.'d~t Popcorn flower Brassicaceae M us tard ram i ly HirschA'ldht iucatta Short-podded mustard Euphorbiaceae Spurge family Crotou c'ahforuiot Croton Fabaccae Pea family Ash'ttgti[tt5 pottiottettst5 Locoweed ~ltt$ scol~aritt5 Deer weed Lttpiutt5 bicolor M in ia t u re l u pine Geraniaceae Geranium family Erodiu,t cfi:uhH ittm Red-stemmed filaree Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf family Eriodict~ou trichocalyx Yerba santa Pltttcclht rumosissimtt Branching phacelia Lamiaceae Mint family A'lm'rtd~imu vttlgarc Horehound Salvht ,tphz.a White sage Malvaccae Mallow family tVltlhlcolhttttttttts~lscictt[altts Chaparral mallow Malva Intmtflortt Cheeseweed Myrtaceae Myrtle family E.cui~/ptu> Slob.his Blue gum Kirtland Biological Services Onagraceae Evening primrose family Gi~z:issoleirt biseo,l'ltt Califo~ ~ia suncup Polygonaceae Buckwheat family Er/oXoutttllfilst'/c'tdttltttlt California buckwheat Solanaceae Nightshade family So~llttttll .~,zli Deadly nightshade ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCO'I~'LEDONAE MONOCOT FLO~.VERING PLANTS Poaceae Grass fa cnily A~t'~ltl [Itlr[llthl Slender wild oats Brolilus t~uldrih'ttsis Red brome SCIIiSIIIIIS I;arbtllt~S Abu-mashi Vll[;lia IllyltrOS Foxtail Taxonomy and nomenclaIure follow Hickn~an 1993 and Munz 1974. May 26, 199S fiTEgg-103 ~ ~,/{~ A- 2 Kirtland Biological Services Appendix B - Animal Species Observed REFFILIA, REPTILES Iguanidae Iguanas and their allies Uta stansbnrt~nta Side-blotched lizard AVES BIRDS Accipitrldae Kites, hawks and eagles ButeojamahTnsis Red-tailed ha,.vk Phasianidae Quails and pheasaots Callilll'tda cttlifo rzth 'n Ca {i fo rn i a q u a i[ Columbidae Pigeons and doves Z{'IIlli(?I~ IIItlCFOIII'tl N[OU rning dove Troehlidae Hummingbirds Czdljllt¢'tultttl Anoa's hununingbird Corvidae Crows and ravens AFhrloconitt cocl'tlh'st't,lts Scrub jay COITHIS [n'ttchyrhynchas An~erican cro~v Aegithalidae Bushtits Psaltriluzrlts ntinitntts Bushtit Mimidae Mimic thrushes A'linuts tlalyglotlos Northern mockingbird Toxoslotna redi?,iznnn California thrasl~er Emberizidae Warblers, sparrows, blackbirds and relatives Pipilo cHssulis California towhee A'hrlosfli,at Itlt'[odia SOIlg sparro',v Zonolrichitt lcncollhtjl: White-crowned sparrow MAMN1ALIA MAMMALS Leporidae Rabbits and bares Sylvi!agztsattdttbonii Audubon's cottontail LiThIs cahfornh'tts Black-tailed iackrabbit May 26, 1998 BTEg~- )3 A 4q Kirttand Biological Services Heteromy/dae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats ]~l'lOglZtltJltlS .iOitgilll('lltbl iS [llC~'illtlBIl5 LOS Al~ge~es pocket mouse Chat'todippusfidbtx San Diego pocket mouse Dipodomys agilis Pacific kangaroo rat Cricetidae Cricctine m~ce and rats Pt'romyscus adqbrnh'us California mouse PelD~llySc'tl5 boyfii Brush mouse Ntvtouta h'phht Desert woodrat Canidac Foxes, wolves and relatives Cmtis ~ttmns Coyote Nomenclature follo;vs Carlh & Tilden 1986, Hall i981, Laudensla),er el al. 199I, and gtebbins 1966. t~I E O E i V E D WEALTH V, LLC du,,4 7ass 1028 WESTNIINSTER AVENUE, ALHAN1Bt~A,, CALI-~aORNq'A~9tS0-3 ~ TEL. (626) 300-8898 FAX. (626) 300-9364 Pianning Division Ms. Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant PlaEer J~e 15, 1998 Pla~g Depa~ment Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga I0500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 E: Tract 13812 - F~e Depa~ment Weed Abatement Des Ms. Gallardo: As a follow-up to our conversation last week, we are concerned about the ongo~g potential liabili~ due to the exist~g vegative cover on ~e site. Since March this year, we have received ~o notices ~om the San Bemard~o Co~Zke Hazard Abatement to perfoE weed abatement for the site, and there are t~ee e~st~g s~gle family residential homes adjacent to our site (on the westerly side of o~ site). We have been told by the CiU that we can not clear the site until we receive enviromental clearance ~om the City. We want to clear the site as soon as possible to ~I~Ii the requirements of the San Bemardino CoEty~ke Hazard Abatement, but are ~able to do that due to the enviromental concerns. We requested in writing from the City what we have been told; we have not yet to receive this from the City. As we discussed last week, we are caught between the need to perform weed abatement for the site against the environmental regulations and requirements for clearances prior to clearing the site. We would prefer to clear the whole site at this time, but would be willing to perform minimal clearing meeting the Fire Hazard Abatement's requirements at this time and complete the balance of the clearing upon receiving environmental clearance. ,t tt As we currently understand the process, we anticipate receiving environmental clearances from ihe City on Jub" 22, 1998 through the Planning Cormmission ce~ification of the Negative Declaration for the s.te. Please call me if you have any question regarding these items. Ken Wuh cc: William Nichols, County of San. Bernardino/Fire Hazard Abatement Dan Coleman, Planning Department, City ofRancho Cucamonga Brad Bul,ler, City Planner, City ofRancho Cucamonga AsP, CI'FY OF P, ANCHO CUCA~'IONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 ~ TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING GRADING REVIEW AND TIME EXTENSIONS BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga takes various actions in the review of development applications. The activities include subdivision review, review of grading plans, design review, issuance of permits, and the granting of time extensions for project approvals. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, these actions are divided into two categories: ministerial and discretionary. CEQA environmental review requirements apply to discretionary projects approved by the City (e.g., approval of subdivision map), but do not apply to ministerial projects (e.g., issuance of a building permit), The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that certain actions are ministerial activities. ANALYSIS: A. Gradinq Ordinance: California courts in certain jurisdictions have reasoned that issuance of grading permits can be considered discretionary approval subject to CEQA. The current language in our Grading Ordinance could be interpreted that review of grading plans and issuance of grading permits was a discretionary act which triggers CEQA review at the grading stage because it allows for discretion to apply conditions. Obviously, this was not the intent when the Grading Ordinance was adopted. The attached amendment to the Grading Ordinance clarifies the intent that a normal grading application and the issuance of a grading permit does not involve discretion on the part of the City. The exception to this is the Hillside Grading Ordinance. There, the general grading guidelines and specific type of grading which will occur must be considered discretionary. B. Subdivision Map Extensions: Case law does not answer the question of whether there is due process right or fundamental property right in a person near a project to receive notice and the opportunity to be heard at a hearing for an extension of Subdivision Maps. The Map Act does not specify a hearing for extensions of Tentative Maps. The City Attorney has advised staff that a public hearing process should be required for a time extension, The City's Subdivision Ordinance currently gives the City Planner authority to grant time extensions of Tentative Maps. Currently, Tentative Maps are approved for an initial two- year period, subiect to extensions in 12-month increments upon request of the applicant. To be consistent with the Map Act, it is recommended that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to provide for a three-year approval period with time extensions up to two years consistent with the Map Act. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOR'F GRADING REVIEW & TIME EXTENSIONS July 22, 1998 Page 2 C. Conditional Use Permits. Developrnent Reviews, Variances and Minor Exceptions: Currently, the City grants approval for two years. Extensions may be granted by the city Planner, without a public hearing, in 12-month increments for up to five years from the original approval date. It is recommended that the Development Code be amended to provide for a five-year approval period without time extensions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, :Section 15061 (b)(3). CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinan:e, and Development Code Amendment. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:Is Attachments: Resolution Recommending Approval of Grading Ordinance Amendment Resolution Recomending Approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Code Amendment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. I. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the Amendment described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of " Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct, 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 10 and July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 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. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code; and c, The proposed amendment will not be detrimentaI to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC July 22, 1998 Page 2 d. The subject application is consistent .with the objectives of the Development Code; and e. The proposed amendm,mt is in conformance with The General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmantal Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guideline:s, Section 15061 (b)(3). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set: forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends of IVlunicipal Code Amendment No. 98-01 shown in the Ordinance attached hereto. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E, David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranaho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd ,Jay of July, 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. A, Recitals. 1. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Municipal Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. , recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamogna adopt said amendment. 2. Qn ,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development Code. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Section 15.12.220 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 15.12.220 Appendix Section 3309 Amended - Plans and Specifications. Section 3309 (a) Plans and Specifications, When required by the Building Official, each application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by three sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and engineering geology report. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a Civil Engineer when required by the Building Official. (b) A grading permit may be issued based upon a preliminary grading plan where insufficient precise detail of site improvement exists at the time of grading permit CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO, GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC Page 2 issuance. Where grading is accomplished based upon a preliminary grading plan, the submittal and approval of a final grading plan shall be required, prior to the issuance of any building pe 'mit for the site. Preliminary grading plans sqall include sufficient detail to assure that at the time of final Grading Plan submi:tal, all standards and specifications of this code and other City grading regulations will be met. (c) Information on Plans and ir Specifications. Plans shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth an :~ shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and all relevanl laws, ordinances. rules and regulations. The first sheet of each set of plans shall give the location of the work and name and address of the owners and the person by whom they were prepared. The plans shall include the following information: - 1. General vicinity of the proposed site. 2. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. 3. Limiting dimensions, elevations and finish contours to be achieved by the grading. 4. Quantities of excavation and fills. 5. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work, together with a map showing the drainage area and the estimated run off of the area served by any drains. 6. Location of any buildincjs or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within 15 feet of the project site or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. 7. Size, type and condition of vegetation that is to remain. 8, Legal restrictions such as property lines, easements. setbacks, etc. 9. Utility structures, catch basins, manholes, culverts, etc, 10. Drainage, sewer, water gas, electric or other utility lines. 11. Any unusual site conditions. 12. Contours, both existing and proposed, shall be shown in accordance with the following schedule: CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. GRADING ORD. REV. - CI~( OF RC Page 3 "' Natural Slopes Maximum Interval 2 percent or less 2 feet Over 2 percent to and including percent 5 feet Over 9 percent 10 feet 13. Specifications containing information covering construction and material requirements: (d) Soils Engineering Report. The soils engineering report required by subsection (c) shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for .- corrective measures including buttress fills, when necessary, and opinions and recommendations covering adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes. Recommendations included in the soils engineering reportand , pl ,~,p ...... ~ ...........~ ........ shall be incorporated into the grading an or specifications. (e) Engineering Geology Report. The engineering geology report required by Subsection (a) shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by geological factors. Recommendations included in the reportand ........ .~ ....._ n..:,.~;__ Official shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. (O Issuance. The provisions of Section 303 Uniform Administrative Code are applicable to grading permits. The Building Official may also require submittal of the following additional information with the permit application. 1. Extent and manner of cutting of trees and clear ng of vegetation, disposal of same, and measures for protection of undisturbed trees and/or vegetation. 2. A schedule defining staging and timing of construction and estimated extent of disturbance at strategic points during construction. 3, Equipment, methods, and location of spoils disposal. 4. A plan defining the schedule, equipment, materials, and personnel that will be used to maintain all protective devices and drainage facilities shown on the approved grading plan. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC Page 4 5. Designation of routes upon which materials may be transported and means of access to the site 6. The location and manner to be used for disposal of excavated materials and control of erosion from such materials· 7. Recommendations as to the mitigation of fugitive dust and dirt which may be offensive or injurious to the neighborhood, the general public or any portion thereof, including due consideration, care, and respect for the property rights, and protection of said neighborhood or any portion thereof. 8. Limitations on the area. extent and duration of time of exposure of unprotected soil surfaces. 9. Phasing of operations to minimize water run off or other environmental concerns. 10. Such additional applicable information as the Building Official may require to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. (g) Compliance with Plans and [;ode. The permittee or his agent, shall carry out the proposed work in accordanoa with the approved plans and specifications and in compliance with all the requi 'ements of this Code. (h) Protection of Adjacent Property. During grading operations, the perm ttee shall be responsible for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and no person shall excavate on land sufficiently close to the property line to endanger any adjoining public street, sidewalk, alley, ar other public or private property without supporting and protecting such property from settling, cracking or other damage which might result· (i) Temporary Erosion Control. The permittee shall put into effect and maintain all precautionary measures necessary to protect adjacent water courses and public or private property from damage by erosion, flooding, and deposition of mud or debris originating from the site. SECTION 4: Section 15.12.250 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 15.12.250 Appendix Section 3313 Amended - Fills. Section 3313, the Appendix of the Uniform Building Code is amendec to read as follows: Section 3313 (a) Fills. Unless otherwise recornmended in the approved soils engineering report ~^., ........ .~ ~.....^ D, .,.~_~ Office4 fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section and to Figure A, Typisal Lot Cross-Section for Fills. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC Page 5 EXCEPTION: The provisions of this section may be waived by the Building Official for minor fills not intended to support structures. (b) Fill Locations. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1). Fill slopes shall be located so as to toe out not closer than 12 feet horizontally from the top of a lower natural or cut slope nor closer than 12 feet from a 2:1 slope influence line projected from lower natural or cut slope where that slope equals or is less than two horizontal to one vertical (2:1), (c) Preparation of Ground. The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, non-complying fill, top-soil and other unsuitable materials, scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill, and, where slopes are steeper than five to one, and the height greater than 5 feet, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five to one shall be at least 10 feet wide. The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or a paved drain shall be provided. Where fill is to be placed over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least 10 feet wide but the cut must be made before placing fill and approved by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist as a suitable foundation for fill. (d) Fill Material. Detrimental amount of organic material shall not be permitted in fills. No rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches shall be buried or placed in fills. EXCEPTION: The Building Official may permit placement of larger rock when the soils engineer properly devises a method of placement, continuously inspects its placement and approves the fill stability. The following conditions shall also apply: 1. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, potential rock disposal areas shall be -delineated on the grading plan. 2. Rock sizes greater than 24 inches in maximum dimension shall be 10 feet or more below grade measured vertically. 3. Rocks shall be placed so as to assure filling of all voids with well graded soil. (e) Compaction. All fills, including backfill in utility trenches, shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Fills exempted elsewhere in this ordinance and where the Building Official determines that compaction is not a necessary safety measure to aid in preventing saturation, settlement, slipping, or erosion of the fill. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO, GRADING ORD. REV. - CITY OF RC Page 6 2. Where lower density and expansive types of soil exist, permission for lesser compaction may ibe granted by the Building Official upon showing of good "' cause under the conditions provided herein. 3. Alternate methods of filling and compaction may be utilized on utility trenches or other specific .projects when recommended by the soils engineer and ........ '~ ~"' the Building O~cial (f) Slope. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. (g) Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the area above fill slopes and the sL~daces of terraces shall be graded and paved as required by Section 3315. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION MAPS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. '1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the Amendment described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 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. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the De,/elopment Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC July 22, 1998 Page 2 d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with The General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. and fLrther, specifically finds that based upon substanlial evidence, it can be seen with certainty ,that ':here is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore. the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State C EQA Guidelines. Section 15061 (b)(3). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above. -. this Commission hereby recommends ,of Mjnicipal Code Amendment No. 98-01 shown in the Ordinance attached hereto. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet. Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutior 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 22nd clay of July, 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO GUGAMONGA, GALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE RANGHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION MAPS. A. Recitals. 1. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Municipal Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof. adopted ils Resolution No. , recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamogna adopt said amendment. 2. Qn ,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development Code. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, SECTION 3: Section 16.16.160 is hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 16.16.160 Expiration. A. The approval or conditional approval of a tentative subdivision map shall expire threeyearstwcnty four months from the date of the adoption of the Resolution by the Planning Commission approving or conditionally approving the map. An extension to the expiration date may be approved as provided in Section 16.16.170(-b). B. Expiration of an approved or conditionally approved Tentative Map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel of all or any portion of the real property included within such Tentative Map shall be filed without first processing a new CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC Page 2 Tentative Map. (Ordinance 28-C, Section 4, 1989; Ordinance 28-B, Section 1.401.11,t, t981). SECTION 4: Section 16.16.170 is hereby amended to read in words and figures, as follows and all subsequent Sections renumbered accordingly. 16.16.170 Extensions. A. Request by Subdivider. The Subdivider or his represe. ntative may request an extension of the expiratior date of the approved or conditionally approved Tentative Subdivision Map by written application to the Community Development Department. The application shall be filed not less than sixty days before the map is to expire, and shall state the reasons for requesting the extension. B. C~ty "" ..... ^ ^"~" ~'~'~ City Planner ....... or ourrcnt ..... ::g polZCy or past prsct[cc t,hst wou:d causc t,hc spprovcd ,map Plsnn;ng Ccmmbs~cn for cc%Zdcrst~on. B. Planning Commission Action. All time extension requests shall be processed in the same manner as original tentative subdivision map in accordance with Cha~ter C. Time Limit of Extension. Ex':ensions may be granted for a period or periods not exceeding a total of three two years, D. Conditions of Approval. As a condition of the extension of a Tentative Tract Map, after conducting a public hearing, the CZty P',anncr or Planning Commission may impose new conditions or revise existing conditions on the approved Tentative Map as they find necessa~. All public hearing notice requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act shall apply. E. Appeal of Extension. The subdivider may appeal in writing any action of theCZty n, ........ .~ n,~_,~_ n~;~; ........... :"" afthe Planning Commission to the City Council, within fifteen days of such action in conformance to Section 16.16.130. F. Fee. The fee for processing an extension shall be pursuant to the City's Master Fee Resolution. G. Findings. The granting of an extension shall require the Planning Commission to make all of the findings ~'n accordance with Section ~6.16400. I. T,hc prc' 'Zo:sly spprovcd Tcntst:,ve Map js ~n substantial co, ,mp',Zancs "'~th tha CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC Page 3 · ,,,,, .,,. ~..,,..,,~ w ..... a, an, 3-pacific ,,,,~,,o, ,~,,~,,,~,,~.,..~, aria, o ""' ........ :^' "'~" "'~*~*:"~ "'^: .... Hkely to causc ""'-':^ hcalth and · bad)', "'~ --qucsted SECTION 5: Section 16.20.090 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 16.20.090 Expiration. The approval or conditional approval of the Tentative Parcel Map shall expire three years * ........ ' ........ '-^ from the date of adoption of the Resolution by the Planning Commission approving orconditionally approving the map. The expiration ofthe approved or conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map shall terminate all proceedings and no Parcel Map of all or any portion of the real property included within such Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed without first processing a new Tentative Parcel Map. (Ordinance 28-C, Section 8, 1989; Ordinance 28-B, Section 1.501.8; 1981). SECTION 6: Section 16.20.100 is hereby rcpcalcd and all aubsaqucnt Scctians rcnumbcrcd-~ccardin*I". amended to read in words and figures, as follows and all subsequent sections ranumbered accordingly· A. Request by Subdivider. The Subdivider or his representative may request an extension of the expiration date of the approved or conditionally approved Tentative Map by written application to the Community Development Director. The application shall be filed not less than sixty days prior to the expiration date and shall state the reasons for requesting the extension. Plan Land Usc Elc, mcnt, dcvcbp, ,merit coda or or,her applicablc specific/ca, m.munity cansMaration. B. Planning Commission Action. All time extension requests shall be processed in the same manner as original tentative parcel map in accordance with Chapter 16.20. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. MAP EXT. - CITY OF RC Page 4 C. Time Limit of Extension. Extensions may be granted for a period or periods not exceeding a total ofe~-ae~ two years. D. Conditions of Approval. As a condition Of the extension of a Tentative Parcel Map, after conducting a public he aring, the City :ng',naer or Planning Commission may impose new conditions or 'evise existing conditions on the approved Tentative Parcel Map as they find necessary. All public hearing notice requirements of the State Subdivision May Act shall apply. E. Appeal of Extension. The Subdivider may appeal in writing any action of theCity ~_,,~,,,~.~, ,,., l,,,.. , ,~,,,,,,,~ ,-,-,,,,,,,...o,u,, ,~, .,,y ~ , fthaPlannlng Commission to the City Council, within ffteen days of such action in conformance to Section 16.16.130. F. Fee. The fee for processin!] an extension shall be pursuant to the City's Master Fee Resolution. (Ordinance; 534, § 8--10, 1994; Ord. 28-C §9, 1989; Ord. 28-B § 1.501.8.2, 1981). G. Findings. The granting of an extension shall require The Planning Commission to make all of the findings in accordance with Section 16.20.060. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CGMM[SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-01 PERTAINING TO THE LAPSE OF APPROVAL AND EXTENSIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS iN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. I. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the Amendment described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the June 1 O, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pubIic 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 10, and July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 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 lotlows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use PoIicies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 98-01 - CITY OF RC July 22, 1998 Page 2 d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and e. The proposed amendmant is in conformance with The General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds ':hat the projlect has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California EnvironrTental Quali~y Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the envircnment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelinez~, Section 15061(b)(3). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above. this Commission hereby recommends Of Development Code Amendment No. 98-01 shown in the Ordinance attached hereto. 6. The Secretary to this Commissicn shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A~'EST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancbo Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July, 1998 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-01, AMENDING SECTION 17.02.100 OF THE RANCHQ CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING LAPSE OF APPROVALS AND EXTENSIONS. A. Recitals. 1. On June 10, and continued to July 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Development Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 98-__, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamogna adopt said amendment. 2. On , 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development Code. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in _ RecitaIs, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct, SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Section 17.02.100 hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: A. Lapse of Approvals. Approvals for Development Review, Conditional Use Permits. Variances, and Minor dcvistions Exceptions shall lapse and become void24 months five years from the approval date, unless a different expiration date is specifically established as a condition of approval and unless one of the following actions occur: 1. A building permit is issued in accordance with the approved entitlement and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or, 2. A Certificate of Occupancy is issued. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA 98-01 - CITY OF RC Page 2 D ~"'~:^~ ^ .... '~-~:^~may bc .... '~'~""ha C'ty PI ..... '=^"~p3" f ........ '~ ' ...... :4) ..... '~'"': ........ d,.,~t,ocxcas~atstalc, 'c~s;rom:hacrr:n~,~-det OTappr%'al ,,,:,k ,k~ ~:,,, n, ...... , ~ .... on ~ ....... : ..... . .... p:,ration datc ~ O;t}' P~,aRRC; may ~'~":" ~' ...... ';~ *' ~"'~"~" *"~"'" ~' ~ "~"=-~"'~' '~ the oafcry CITY OF I-L=XNCHO CUCA~IONGA -- ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15926 - CARNEY - A residential subdivision of five single family lots on 1.33 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-67. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 3.7 dwelling units per acre B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Single family residential Low Residential District South - Single family residential Low Residential District East - Single family residential Low Residential District West Single family residential, flood control channel; Low Residential District C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East Low Residential West Low Residential D. Site Characteristics: The eastern portion of the project site is developed with a single family residence. The remainder of the parcel is vacant. The site is surrounded on the north, east, and south sides by single family residences, and on the west side by a flood control channel. Significant slopes exist on the south side of the property on what would be the rear yard area of the new parcels. The slope is from north to south, and the grade difference between the subject property and the homes to the south varies from 7 to 11 feet. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property and sell the lots. There is no development application associated with the tentative tract map application; therefore, lots will be developed on an individual basis as custom homes ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15926 - CARNEY July 22, 1998 Page 2 B. Desiqn Review Committee: The proj~;ct was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Madas, Fong) on a Consent Calendar basis on June 30, 1998 and was approved as presented. C. Technical Review/Gradinq Committees: The Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. the Environmental Checklist. Significant slopes exist at the southern portion of the project site. In order to mitigate any potential changes in drainage patterns and absorption rates, the project has been designed to direct water flow to the appropriate drainage facilities. Staff feels the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. If the Plannin_c Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. 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 the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 15926 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:Ijs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tracl Map Exhibit "C" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval SITE UTILJZATION MAP TRACT 15026 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15926 LOT 1 ~ ~ PARCEL ~ PARCEL , City of Rancho Cucamonga ' ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND I. Project File: Tentative Tract 15926 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15926 - CARNEY - A residential subdivision of 5 single family tots on 1.33 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwellin~l units per acre), located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-67. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cecil Carhey 2080 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite A Santa Ana, CA 98705 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by single family residential development and a flood control channel. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho CucaC0onga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecilia Gallardo (909) 477-2750 EXH/ IT" "D Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( )Culturai Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eartier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or !'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Cecilia Gallargo Assistant Planner June 30, 1998 Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP.~,CTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant IraFact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WouM the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Be incompatible with existing and use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposaL' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce ~ubstantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., ,throt.'gh projects in an undeveloped area or extensior, of major infrastructure)? ) ( ) ( (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the .oroposal result in ' or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X) O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (X) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) (×) h) Expansive soils? ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: O The site appears to have had some dumping of soil over the years which has changed the original topography of the site. A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety division prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. WTIItheproposalresultin: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rote and amount of surface water runoff? ( (X) ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 5 O Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or w.thdrawals, er through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ( ( ) (X) · ' Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorpti'on rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of su~ace water Funoff due to the amount of new hard scape resulting from subsequent developmert on the vacant site. Significant slope features exist at the southern potion of the subdivision. With required mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. Installation of a concrete drainage ditch at the toe of the slopes for Lots 1 through 4 to direct cross lot flow to appropriate drainage facilities will be required. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ) ( ) (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in,' Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 6 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in.' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (×) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative trans :ortation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic ~mpacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insectS,· animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy :onservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents cf the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush. grass. or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) '10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing no se ~eve s? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) · ' ( (X) Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 8 '1.1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) · ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) · 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) -. ,, ,, ,4: ~3. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 9 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would ~he proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique efi-lnic cultural values? ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or ether recrea::ional facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wil'dlife population to drop below selfishstaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict t~e range of a rare or endangered alant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histon/or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 10 b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) Initial Study for jity of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15926 Page 11 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the proiect described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposad mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would Occur, Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: 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 2~091 and 2~092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15926 Public Review Period Closes: July 22, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Cecil Carney Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane - APN: 202-041-67. Project Description: A residential subdivision of 5 single family lots on 1.33 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environmenL [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 22. 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV1NG TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15926, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 1.33 ACRES OF LAND INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED QN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND PEPPERIDGE LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 202-041-67. A. Recitals. 1. Cecil Camey has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15926, 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 22nd day of July 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B, Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane with a street frontage of 331 feet and lot depth of approximately 130 feet and is presently improved with a single family residence, street, curb and gutter; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is a flood control channel; and c. The project involves the subdivision of a single parcel into 5 lots. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15926 - CARNEY July 22, 1998 Page 2 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 oftheir habitat; and e. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the Tentative Tract 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 Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of lc~70, as amended. and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of th~ Plarning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information cortained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration fo' the project. there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and ~xhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of th a California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) Upon development of the fi'st lot, the following improvements shall be made: a) Slope planting in compliance with Development Code Section 17.08.040,J. b) Construction of a 6-foot high block and wrought iron perimeter wall at the southern properly line for Lots 1 through 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15926 - CARNEY July 22, 1998 Page 3 EnRineerina Division 1) The westerly property line of proposed parcel No. 1 shall be at the easterly edge of an existing 40 foot wide storm channel easement. Said 40- foot easement shall be shown as Lot "A" and shall be dedicated in fee to the City on the tract map. 2) Public right-of-way improvements adjacent to and fronting the project site shall be protected in place and revised, repaired, orreptaced as required. All required improvements constructed, including but not limited to, drive approaches, curb and gutter, sidewalk, traffic striping, and signage shall be per City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) Revise drawing No. 1364 to add new drive approaches. document existing street trees as well as any new ones. " 4) Street Improvement Plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public rights-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers office. 5) Rear lot drainage should be minimized by locating flowline high points as far to the rear of lots as is practical. The private cross lot drainage facility at the toe of slope on Lots 1 through 4 shall be concrete. Its design wilf be reviewed during plan check of Grading PIan for grading permit. 6) On-site grading and drainage improvements per the conceptual grading plan, including but not limited to, rough lot grading, improved swale, and perimeter wall, are required of this development. If the required grading. drainage, and perimeter wall improvements are not completed prior to app~-bval of the final map. an improvement certificate shall be placed on the final map stating that they will be completed upon development of any Buildinq and Safety Division 1) Upon development of the first lot, a concrete drainage ditch shall be installed at the toe of slope on Lots 1 through 4 consistent with the conceptual Grading Plan approved in conjunction with Tentative Tract 15926. 6. TheSecretarytothisCommissionshallcertifytotheadoptionofthisResolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~ 15926 - CARNEY July22, 1998 Page 4 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regular y ntroduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT 15926 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CECIL CARNEY LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AND PEPPERIDGE LANE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THA T APPL Y TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (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. Prior to recordafion' Of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shah be submitted to the so. >>*.~ 1 Compledon~Date DepartmentofCommunityDevelopment. Suchlettermusthavebeenissuedbythewaterdistrict within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential pr~]ects. B. Time Limits I. Approval shall expire, unless extended by th _= Planning Commission, if building permits are not / issued or approved use has not commence( within 24 months from the date of approval. C. Site Development 1. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfa:tion of the City Planner. 2. 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. 3. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, / including proper illumination. 4. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan for s'opes shall be prepared by a licensed landscape / / architect and submitted for City Planner review and approva~ prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case! of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical he ight 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 sectior shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less ':han 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 grea~er slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq, fit. of slop~= 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, 4. For single family residential development~ all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously __/ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition hy the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING, AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanical / Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and aH other appi[cable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/__ existing unit(s), the applicant shad pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees, 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and __/__ __ prior to issuance of building permits. F. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /__ perform such work. PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for aH interior public streets. __ __/__ community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc,) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Private drainage easements for cross-tot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or / noted on the final map. H. Street Improvements 1. All p~jblic improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped __ __/ areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shalI be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches. sidewalks. street lights, and street trees. 2, Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / Curb & A.C Side- Drive Stree~ S~ree~ Comm Hedian Bike Other S~reet Name GuRer Pvmt walk Appr. LighZs Trees Trail Island Trail Pepperidge Ct. X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landszaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavemen~ reconstruction and overlays wil~ be determired during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 3, Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees , street fights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to anti approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of life public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance cf building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed i'~ public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and :' interconnecl conduit shall be installed ta the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall. be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at interse ctions and No. 5 along streets. a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise spec'~ed by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2dnch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City.~:oads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with '/ adequate detours during construction. Sireel or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the co st of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the constructi'on to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g.Concentrated drainage flows shall not c'oss sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / installed to City Standards, exceptffor single family residential bts. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in I accordance with the City's street tree program. I. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting I Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pror to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. J. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, electric power, telephone. and cable TV (art underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shah be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsibte for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San BernardinD. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. K. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: City of Rancho Cucamonga (BerTI/Hellman Channel Connection). ~,PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello RoDs Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1000 gallons per minute. / A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department / personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be __/__ conducted by the builde~developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed / and operabte prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i,e,, lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire deparlment personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. AIItreesandshrubsplantedinanymedianshallbekepttrimmedaminimumof14'6"fromground / / up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 6, S 132.00 Fire district fee(s), and a S1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho / / Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. 7. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. JUL 20 ~98 05:~PM OSF INTERNqTIOMAL P.2/_~ July 20, 1998 VIA FAX City ofRaneho Cucamonga P'lazming Commission P.O. Box 807 ll~neho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Sir / Madam: As the o~er and operator of a family oriented restaurant directly across the street from the Compass Creek Res'tattmnt and Brewery, we welcome the restaurant and brewing operation to the neighborhood. Adding other restaurants to the general area will enhance Foothill Boulevard's reputation as a place to visit when dining. However, as an operator with some experience dig with live emertnlnment operations adjacent to our operations, we would like to add a word of caution. Live entertainment in a bar atmosphcr~ generally brings a different crowd than non-emertainment restaurant/bars. The crowd is generally younger, rowdier and will stay later than typical dining hours. As a restaurant that caters to families and large groups, we want to be sure that titere are safeguards in place to ensure that there ,~ilI not be problems with parking lot drinking, par~s, crowds and litter. We want to be assured that our patirons and property will not be affected at any time of the day or Bight. We also want to express ottr cem and receive assunmces that any. live music will be limited to axe interior oft_b¢ facility and not be heard oulside the facility in a way that could be a nuisance to surrounding businesses. We have invested a substantial amounz 0ftime and money into constructing and operating the Old Spaghetti Facto~ in Raneho Oucamonga. W'e warn to be sure that our business is not adversely affected by our customer' s negative per~ption of other businesses inthearea. Thank you for considering our opirdon on thls matter. ' Vice ]h'esident-Development CITY OF RANCHO CUCANiONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY - A request to establish a bar and micro-brewery in conjunction with a restaurant within an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700 square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-011-39. Related file: Entertainment Permit 98-03. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY - A request to have entertainment consisting of live bands in conjunction with a restaurant and bar within an existing building in the Masi Plaza with a leased space of 8,700 square feet, located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-39. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 98-11. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics and Surroundinq Land Use: The site is within a 24-acre planned mixed use center consisting of multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings, restaurants, and auto services, as shown in Exhibit "B." The building for the proposed Compass Creek Restaurant & Brewery is an existing one and is being improved and expanded to allow two restaurant tenants, as shown in Exhibit "C." Within this mixed used center, Masi Plaza, the auto service court is completed, the buildings along Foothill Boulevard are completed, and Buildings 13 and 14 are under construction. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. North of the site is Terra Vista Promenade with users such as Home Depot, Spaghetti Factory, Arco, and CarIs Jr. South of the site is the City's Stadium and Adult Sports complex. West of the site is undeveloped. East of the site contains a single family house with undeveloped land around it. B. Parkinq Calculations: The analysis section of the report briefly describes the parking requirements for Masi Plaza. Exhibits "D-1" & "D-2" show the 3 parking areas by types of uses and a detailed parking calculation table. Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Commercial (Area 1) t37,746 971 983 Auto Court (Area 2) 24,531 109 110 Sebastian Way (Area 3) 260,255 Parking Study 238 270 1,318 1,363 [TENS D & E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOFT CUP 98-11 & EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT July 22, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. Proposed Uses: The applicant, Jim Cormell, proposes a full service bar and restaurant including a micro-brewery. He also pro aoses to have entertainment for his patrons, consisting of live bands. The days and hours of operation for the restaurant and bar are daily between 11 a.m. and 2 a.m. The days and hours of entertainment are Sunday through Thursday between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., Friday and Saturday between 6 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. At peak hours, the applicant anticipates having a maximum of 40 to 43 kitchen and floor personnel, and 2 management staff. The applican': is not proposing having security personnel at this time because he feels that his business is primarily a full service restaurant and not a nightclub. According to the applicant, the brew area and the grain storage area are located in the basement. A small brew area is also located at the main restaurant for display. The grain for the brewery will be delivered in 50-pound bags and by handcarts through the service entry. There will be two or three deliveries per week and approximately 20 to 40 bags each delivery. Exhibit "A" is a letter from the applicant describing the process of brewing beer. B. Compatibility of Uses: The site is surrounded by a developed commercial center. a community sport complex, and undeveloped but industrially and commercially zoned land. The closest residential area is more than 1,000 feet north and east of the site. However. there is one single family home at the soulheast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. This residence and the surrounding area are industrially zoned. The businesses within Masi Plaza are a mix of restaurants, a florist, a liquor and dell store, a coffee place, dental office, auto services, and a gas :station and a mini-market. The remainder of the site is undeveloped but planned for future multi-tenant commercial, recreational and industrial buildings, Therefore, staff believes that the proposed bar and brewery with entertainment would be compatible with the surrounding uses and would not have an adverse impact on adjacent residents. C. Public Safety Concerns: The Police Department has reviewed the proposed uses and has no comment. The Building and Safely Division and the Fire Prevention Unit have also reviewed the proposed uses. A condit:on of approval has been included that requires the applicant to meet all applicable codes for interior modification and improvements and that the building be inspected before occupancy. D. Parkinq: Because Masi Plaza is a mixed use development, the pr:oject site is divided into three areas for calculating the parking requirements by the types of uses. Exhibits "D-1" and "D-2" show the three parking areas and the parking calculation table. Area 1 is the commercial oriented section of the project and is bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Sebastian Way, Rochester Avenue, and Masi. Drivt;. The proposed restaurant, bar, and brewery are to be located in Building 5, which is within Area 1. The total floor area for this commercial section, including the proposed restaurant, is 137,746 square feet. The parking requirement is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet with th ~ allowance of 15 percent of the floor area to be food users. Because the floor area for food users exceeds the 15 percent by 4,936 square feet, an additional 49 spaces are required at the parking ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The total number of parking spaces required for Area 1 is 971 and the number of spaces provided is 983. Therefore, the site has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the proposed uses. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-11 & EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT July 22, 1998 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDING: The Commission must make all of the following findings to approve the two applications: A. Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the District in which the site is located. 2. The proposed use, togetherwiththeconditionsapplicablethereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. B. Entertainment Permit: 1. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. 2. The premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. 3. The applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position, or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offenses involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval. permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sales of alcohol or the provision of the entertainment been revoked within the preceding five years, 4. The granting of the application would not create a public nuisance. 5. The normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhoods. 6. The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement or material fact in the required application. 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 and all the tenants within Masi Plaza. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOF',T CUP 98-11 & EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT July 22, 1998 Page 4 -- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the bar, micro-brewery, and entertainment through the adoption of the attached Resolutions. Respectfully s bmitted, City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's lelter Exhibit "B" Masi Plaza Master Site Plan Exhibit "C" Detailed Site Plan for Building 5 Exhibit "D" Parking Area!; and Parking Calculation Table Exhibit "E" Floor Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Conditional Use Permit 98-t 1 Resolution of Approval for Entertainment Permit 98-03 Nancy Fong Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive POe 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Dear Nancy, After our telephone conversation last week I thought I would take a moment and outline the brewing process and some of the elements we discussed. Basically brewing beer is like making hot cereal. For our system size, a common one at 15 barrels (bbl), we use on average 500 hundred pounds of raw organic materials. Those being mostly grain, a handful of hops for flavor and yeast to ferment. These matedais wiII be stored in bulk off site and brought to the restaurant for use as our brewing needs dictate. Movement of these materials will seem no different than normal restaurant materials and goods. Off loaded from a pickup truck to a handcart or by hand through the normal kitchen service entrance. On site storage will consist of around 20-40 fifty pound bags of grain. Twenty bags is required per brew, 40 bags makes a pallet load-for convenient storage. The grains are cooked in a vessel called a mash tun, not unlike a huge pot making oatmeal at home. The cooked water is the basis of the beer. The spent grain is then removed from the mash tun and some is used in the kitchen for baking breads and crust, the remainder witl be packed back out in containers and taken away for livestock feed or to landfill. The water is transferred to fermenter tanks where the yeast is added At that point we are technically now making beer. After some days or weeks fermenting, depending on the beer style, the yeast is drawn off and the beer transferred again to a serving tank for our consumption as a great micro brewed beer from Compass Creek. All equipment is coded to the latest and future California codes and uses no more energy or creates no more waste than other restaurant production, actually tess was:e for we don't th~An 2nything ~BIf ~; av;ay except the bags from the grain. I hope this helps to clarify the brewing process and its impact visually and ecologically. If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~ ~ Th FOOTHILL BOLILEVABD ~ FOO'FNILL ~LV'D MAsI PLAZA ~ · .. ' .--~~~;' ,, ......~.._Z.... ,"-"~ ..~, L,~'l_l I~m'a s - _~ ~: -., . .:. -~. ...' ............ I-- + ,,. ~ ...... (',~ ~., .......... FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ICE BIG TING RINKS ROLEER RINK : ~ : ~ [A~J l.j~ m lLi LI~L~.I.[JJIIJ~_LELU.I~ ~.,p~ ,, , ........ COP ~'1/ Ex,,an' Pl-sn-E P~ . ..~f~-~ COMMERCIAL CENTER (AREA 1) . Bldg.~' , Fl~oF~r~ ~ ~-~'~ ~ ; :~ Pa~ng Ra~o c=;- Required -j'- Provided 3 2,770 Jack In the 8ox 5/1000 14 4 10,600 Restaurants/ 5/1000 53 Commercial 5 12,000 Restaurants 5/1000 65 6 4.978 Denny's Restaurant 5/1000 25 7 7,739 Multi-tenan~ 5/1000 39 Commercial 11 17,486 Commercial (future) 5/1000 87 12 14,800 Commercial (future) 5/1000 74 -. 13 20,688 Commercia~ (under 5/1000 103 construction) 14 11,980 Commercial (under 5/1000 60 construction) 15 14,300 Commercial (future) 5/1000 72 27 20,405 Theater -1300 seats 1:4 seats 330 (future) Total 137,746 922 4,936 + Restaurant over 15% 1/100 49 Total 137.746 [ 971 983 AUTO COURT (AREA 2) ::LB!~g~~ ~Elo~rea~,: :~Use';:q~2::7= --Pa~in~ RatiO7 .~:~ReqQire~ :~7 ~Z~i~ 1 4,322 Texaco Express Lube 3+2/bay 15 15 2 2,550 Mini-Ma~ 4/1000 13 14 Gas Station/ 3 Car Wash 8 5.132 Auto SeNice (8 bays) I 3+2/bay 19 20 9 7.791 Auto SeNice (20baysl t 3+21bay 43 41 10 4.736 Auto SeNice (8 ~ays) 3+2/bay 19 20 Total 24,531 109 110 EXHIBIT "D-2" CUP 98-11 EP 98-03 SOUTH SIDE OF SEBASTIAN WAY (AREA 3) :- : ,:,..~ :~.-~!:-:: :::::::; .:--- ,:,!-.'~s,;::~:~;!~:: :::::7 . ----: -- ,;i_,.::':. :I:j::s. pF_~-:~{,. 18/19 84,200 Ice Rink (future) Special 158 189 Parking Study 25 20,825 Multi-tenant Industrial 1/400 52 41 (future) 26 12,103 Multi-tenant Industrial 1/400 30 40 (future) Total 97, 128 238 270 PROJECT G~ND TOTAL ,Bldg ~.:~, ;: :EIqp~ A~a~':,: :::~?:,!{~;~,U~2)-:7~?/Z~::."2:: , Ra~ip~ ~i0':: E~:_~.~.~r~aj:~.~- 1 137,746 Shopping Center 971 983 2 24,531 Auto SeNice Cou~ 109 110 3 97,128 South Side of 238 270 Sebastian Way Total 259,405 1,318 1,363 EXHIBIT "D-2" CUP 98-11 EP 98-03 RESOLUTION NO. ,. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVtNG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-11, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A BAR AND MICRO- BREWERY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE MASI PLAZA WITH A LEASED SPACE OF 8,700 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-39. A. Recitals, 1. Jim Connell of Compass Creek Restaurant & Brewery has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-11, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22rid day of July 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct, 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard and is presently being improved and expanded. b. The property to the north is developed with a commercial center, the property to the south is the City's Stadium and Adult Sports Complex, the property to the east contains a single family house and the area surrounding it is undeveloped, and the property to the west is undeveloped. The proposed use shares a parking Io[ to the east with a restaurant and shops and a parking lot to the south with shops. c, The proposed uses consist of full bar and restaurant services, a micro-brewery, and entertainment. d. The proposed uses are consistentwith industrial Park District and the Commercial Recreation Overlay District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. +EI4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT July 22, 1998 Page 2 ' e. The proposed bar, brewery, and entertainment would be compatible to the surrounding uses and would not have adverse impact to any residential areas. f. The mixed use commercial center, Masi Plaza, has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the proposed uses. 3. Based upon the substantial evidi;nce 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 proposed use is in a:cord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, togeth~;r with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 4. ThePlanningCommissionherebyf[ndsanddeterminesthattheprojectidentifiedinthis Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and con,:lusions 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, attad* ed hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannina Division 1) Approval is for an 8,700 square foot restaurant with a bar and a micro-brewery. Expansion or intensification of the bar and brewery shall require a modification to the Conditional Use Permit. 2) Approval shall expire, unles,.~ extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or the approved use has not been commenced within 24 mont% of this date. 3) If the operations of the facilities cause adverse effect upon adjacent businesses or operations, th,.~ Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the use. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT July 22, 1998 Page 3 4) The facifity shall be operated in conformance with the performance standards as defined in the Industrial Area Specific Plan including, but not limited to noise, odors, etc. 5) Delivery trucks shall not be parked along the main entry drive at the west side of the building. 6) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed to be in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program No. 125 for Masi Plaza. Plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to permits and installation. 7) If the operation of the facility causes nuisance problems, the City Planner may require the applicant to implement a security personnel plan to mitigate the problem. A detailed security plan shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval. 8) The placement of more than three coin operated amusement devices in the facility shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit for an arcade. 9) All pertinent conditions of approval contained in City Council Resolution Nos. 92-240 and 95-020 shall apply. 10) All outstanding Historic Preservation mitigation (Vintner's Walk) shall be completed, prior to release of occupancy for Building 5. 11) The food and beverage menu shall include a short history of the Lafourcade family and its winery and the store entry, as depicted in the plaques within the Vintner's Walk. The written history shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval before publication and the ~:elease of occupancy for the restaurant. Buildinq and Safety Division 1) Occupancy of the facifity shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have been complied with. Detailed plans shaft be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. The building shall be inspected for compliance. prior to occupancy+ 2) Any modification to the approved plans after occupancy of the building may require additional review and/or permits from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-11 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAL RANT July22, 1998 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commissian shall CeF~ify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cec~ify 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 22nd day of July 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 'E) ed I':/- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 98-11 & Entertainment Permit 98-03 SUBJECT: Compass Creek Restaurant & Brewery APPLICANT: Jim Connell LOCATION: 11837 Foothill Boulevard ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform PIumbing Code, Nationai Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing develop, ment, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. B. New Structures 1. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: C. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. ProiectNo. CUP98-11&~.P98-03 Completion Da:e Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammab~e liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. .. 2. A fire a~arm system(s) shaft be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X California Code Regulations Title 24. 3. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval, Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 4.Plan check fees in the amount of S132.00 and a 81 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due prior to permit issuance, Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans, 5. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with I,994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. D. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on ,photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with / direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal*resis tant fixtures. / / F. Security Hardware 1, One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be insta led on all entrance doors. If windows are within / / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 98-03, A REQUEST TO HAVE ENTERTAINMENT CONSISTING OF LIVE BANDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, BAR WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE MASI PLAZA WITH A LEASED SPACE OF 8,700 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-39. A. Recitals. 1. On May 21, 1986, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment. 2. Jim Cormelf of Compass Creek Restaurant and Brewery has filed an application for the issuance of Entertainment Permit No. 98-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the application." 3. On the 22nd day of July 1998, the Ptanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard and is presently being improved and expanded. b. The property to the north is developed with a commercial center, the property to the south is the City's Stadium and Adult Sports Complex, the property to the east contains a single family house and the area surrounding it is undeveloped, and the property to the west is undeveloped. The proposed use shares a parking lot with a restaurant and shops to the east and a parking lot to the south with shops. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY July22, 1998 Page 2 c. The proposed uses consist of full bar and restaurant services, a micro-brewery and entertainment. d. Theproposedentertainmentconsistsoflivebands, The proposed days and hours of entertainment are Sunday through Thursday between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., Friday and Saturday between 6 p.m. and 1:30 a:m. e. The proposed uses would be compatible with surrounding land uses, f. There are sufficient park ng spaces within Masi Plaza to accommodate the proposed uses. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- -- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the conduct of the eslablishment and the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals or welfare; and b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner; and c. That the applicant, or any aerson associated with him as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years; and d. Tha{ granting the application would not create a public nuisance; and e. That the normal operation c f the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding commercial center and adjacent apartment complex; and f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines; promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conslusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the appfication, subiect to each and every condition set forth below: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY July 22, 1998 Page 3 Planninq Division 1 ) This approval is for live bands only. Any change of intensity or type of entertainment shall require a modification to this permit. 2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited to Sunday through Thursday between 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m,, Friday and Saturday between 6 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.. Any expansion of days and/or hours shall require modification to this permit. 3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted. 4) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the building. 5) When entertainment is being conducted, doors and windows shall remain closed for noise attenuation purposes, 6) Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 60 dB during the hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7) Access to the lounge/entertainment area must be from the main entrance to the primary use and not from a separate exterior entrance. Other exits shall be for "Fire Exit Only." 8) If operation of this Entertainment Permit causes adverse effects upon adjacent residences, businesses, or operations including, but not limited to noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, the Entertainment Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible suspension or revocation of the permit. 9) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 10) This permit shall be renewed annually by the applicant per Municipal Code Section 5.12.115. 11) If the operation of the facility causes nuisance problems, the City Planner may require the applicant to implement a security personnel plan to mitigate the problem. A detailed security plan shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 98-03 - COMPASS CREEK RESTAURANT & BREWERY July 22, 1998 Page 4 Fire District/Buildinq & Safety Division 1 ) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division. 2) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code ard Sate Marshal's regulations have been complied with. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division for review and app -oval, prior to issuance of building permits. The building shall be inspected for compliance, prior to occupancy. 3) Any modification to the approved plans after occupancy of the building may require additional review and/or permits from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division. 6. The Secretary to this Commissicn shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty 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 22nd day of July 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF IL=XNCHO CUCANfONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, 'Principal Planner SUBJECT: 1998-99 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM SCHEDULF The adopted City budget has allocated up to $500,000 to update the General Plan. A copy of the Memorandum to the City Manager dated June 3, 1998, contains details concerning the scope and schedule of this Project (see Exhibit "A"). The attached scope and schedule should be considered a draft and the Commission and Council are expected to discuss and modify this process accordingly. The process to discuss and arrive at a final scope and schedule may be conducted in many ways; however, the City has usually conducted a joint session of the Council and Commission or assigned the task to a combined task force with members from each group. Staff is seeking direction from the Commission and Council as to preferences on the process that is preferred for completing the scope and schedule. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Memorandum dated June 3, 1998 ITEM F DATE: June 3, 1998 TO: lad am, AICP, City Manager B e , , rincipal Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - SUMMARY DESCRIPTION A General Plan is a statement by local ciiizens of wha~ is in (he bes~ interest of their community, as well as a comprehensive strategy for managing future growth and change. The plan defines the type of commcrnity that is desired for the future and provides the means to obtain that future. It defines, in the form of text, maps, and illustrations, the desired organization o~ physical, economic, social fea!ures, and activities needed to maintain a fundional, healthful. and desirable place in v.'hich ~o live and do business, Rancho Cucamonga*s curren~ General Plan w~:s adopted in 1981. Now that it has now been nearly 20 years, and the resident population has mcre than doubled, a thorough update of the General Plan will ensure that Rancho Cucamonga is well positioned for the next 20 years. The proposed General Plan update would consist of several ~asks, which are outlined as follov.,s: 1,0 GENERA. L PLAN PROGRAM INITIATION 510,000.00 2.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES SUMMARY S75,000.00 3.0 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVES REPORT 540.000.00 4,0 GENERAL PLAN PREPARATION Si50,000.00 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT S140.000.00 6.0 FISCAL IMPACT REPORT S30,000.00 7.0 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS S25,000.00 8.0 PROGRAM AD,",41NISTP, A. TI DN S3000000 TOTAL: S500.000.00 For a furl, her description of the ~asks lis~ed above p!ease refer to the attached Exhibit "A." Summan/Scope of Work. An update of this magnitude will require significant staff,' involvemen'. and a large public pa,'licipafien pracess Consu!tants ,.vilr be required for technical studies and the reiention of one contract planner '.'.'i{i be necessaq,, ;,a coordinate the General Plan Update Program EXHIBIT "A" SUMMARY SCOPE OF WORK 1.0 General Plan Program Initiation 1.1 Project Initiation Workshop An initial meeting will be held to accomplish the following: Overview of key reasons for General Plan update. · Define key player roles and public participation. Identi~ contact agencies, organizations, and individuals. · Refine scope of work and schedules. · Establish product review procedures. · Esiablish strategy for General Plan consistency with any ongoing development applications. · Determine optimal scale and format for General Plan maps. 1.2 Review Existing Planning Documents 1.3 Base Map Preparation 2.0 Community Issues Summary 2.1 Da~a Resources A concise analysis of the current physical. natural, and economic environments of the City ~.:hich include the following: · Summan/of present conditions. · Analysis of key challenges and constraints to set stage for alterna[ives and policy formulation. · Evaluation of impelant inter-relationships among various planning issues and trade-offs beb..//een solutions. 2.2 initial Community Participation Activities Define the aspirations and concerns of residents and businesses for the future of their community through the following actions: · Planning Commission and City Council inteNiev,'s. · Communit/Workshop · Community Sen//ice Proriders Workshop. 23 Community Issues Rope*t. Preparation The resu!ts of all the previous work ,,vii', be compi[e,:~ inio a General Plan Issues Report.. 3.0 Alternatives Report 3.1 Alternative ~.,lanagement and Land Use Sce-~anos 3.2 Alternatives Presentation Wor.'<Siacps · Community Workshop to review and comment on Community Issues and General Plan Alternatives Reports. Joint workshop of Planning Commission and City Council to solicit comments on these reports and so!oct a preferred alternative. 4.0 General Plan Preparation 4.1 Vision Statement, General Plan Profile, and Land Use Map 4.2 General Plan Profile Presentation Workshops · Community Workshop to re,,jew and cerement on the General Plan Profile. · Joint workshop of Planning Commission and City Council to solicit comments on these rep.orts. 4.3 General Plan Document 4.3.1 Land Use and Development · Land Use · Circulation · Housing · Public Facilities - Community Design 4.3.2 Environmental Resources · Land Resources · Water Resources · Plan~ and Animal Resources · Open Space · Energy · imp!ementation 4.3.3 Public Health and Safety · Geological Hazards · Seismicity · Flood Hazards · , Fire Hazards · Noise Air Quality Crime Prevention · Emergency SeNices · Miscellaneous Hazards (VVind, Eucalyptus Windrows, etc.) 4.3.4 Implementation · Measures · Consistency Beb, veen General Plan and Implementation Actions. · Funding Sources 5.0 Environmental Impact Report 5.1 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation 5.2 Screen check EIR '5.3 Draft EIR' 5.4 Response to Commenis 5.5 Final EIR 5.6 Mitigation Monitoring Program 6.0 Fiscal Impact Report · , Major Sources of Municipal Revenues · Major A!loca~ions of Municipal Expenditures 7.0 General P!an Adopt!on Process 7.1 Public Hearings - Four Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. 7.2 Findings for General Plan Adoption and EIR Codification 7.3 Final General Plan 8.0 Program Administration 8.1 City Staff Meetings - Gondudeo ac leas~ once a month 8.2 Progress Reports - Submi~ed monthly 8 3 intergovernmental Coordinaiion GENERAL PUz, N UPDATE JUNE 3, 1998 Page 2 A recent survey of cities which have completed updates inditE!as that the success of the upda;e is directly proportional io staff pa-ticipafion. Intense sitizen pa-t.[cipaiion programs. similar ~o OZamend Bar, demons:rate thac the increase jr the ieve: off comnn.zni:~,, z~'.','s-eness in the p!annin~: process '.,,'as worth ~he effort. Our research indicates the average cost is 8500,000 for a complete Genera! Plan update. The time required typically takes two years from the dec sion to hire a consultant. A comprehensive request for proposal is the key to success. A projected time line is presented as follows: RANCHO CUCAMONGA GFNERAL PLAN UPDATE co: Rick Gomez, Communi.tv Developmen Direc;,cr Joe O'Nei[. Cit,/Engineer CITY OF tLANCHO CUCANfONGA -- ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission BY: Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS BACKGROUND: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item from July 8, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman to serve until the next regularly scheduled election at the first meeting in July 1999. City Planner BB/GS/gs \ ITEN G CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this matterfrom July 8, 1998. The Commission normally reviews Design Review Committee membership approximately every 6 to 10 months. Membership was last considered in August 1997. It is now time to review Committee membership. The current membership is as follows: COMMITTEE ALTERNATES (in order) Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Dave Barker Larry McNiel A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDATION: The PIanning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. Respectfull submitted, City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP January 1993 to Present ALTERNATES COMMITTEE (in order) January 1993 - October 1993: John Melcher Peter Tolstoy VVendy Vallette Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel October 1993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Suzanne Chitlea Wendy Vallette December 1993 - June 1994: I.arry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Jahn Melcher Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker June '1994 - December 1994: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Larry McNiel Dave Barker December 1994 - Auclust 1995: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker John Melcher Aucfust '1995 to January 1996: Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel January 1996 to Auqust 1996: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker John Melcher August 1996 to January 1997: Rich blacias Bill Bethel Larry blcNiel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker January 1997 to oresent: Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Dave Barker Larry McNiel Exhibit A /-/~ CITY OF RA, NCHO CUCA:MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: TRAIL ADVISORY COMMITFEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: The terms for Planning Commissioner William Bethel and bicycfing Member-at- Large, Paul Senft will expire in July 1998. Planning Commissioner Tolstoy's appointment expired in July 1997. Mr. Senft has indicated his schedule will not allow him to serve on the Committee (see attached letter). The Committee meets once a month, as needed, usually on the first Thursday of the month at 5:30 p.m. The last recruitment for the bicycling representative was in 1991, At that time the Planning Commission directed staff to solicit applications through newspaper advertisement and through ~yers at local bicycle shops. A subcommittee (Bethel, Tolstoy) was also used to conduct interviews and forward a recommendation to the Commission for consideration. CURRENT MEMBERSHIP: For your information, the current Trails Advisory Committee appointments are as follows (expired terms shown in boldface): Term Expires Appointment William Bethel July 1998 Planning Commission (1996) Peter Tolstoy July 1997 I Planning Commission (1986) Bruce Ann Hahn July 1999 Park &Recreation Commission (1993) James Clopton July 1999 Park &Recreation Commission (1997) Sue Rabone April 1999 Equestrian Member At Large (1997) Paul Senft July 1998 Bicycling Member At Large (t991) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions through minute action: 1, Appoint two Commission representatives to the Trails Advisor,/Committee, one for a term · to expire in July 1999 and the other term to expire in July 2000. ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TAC APPOINTMENTS July 22, 1998 Page 2 2. Direct staff to issue a Press Release, adverLise in the newspaper, and post fiyers at local bicycle shops to solicit applicants to fill the Bicycling Member-at-Large seat. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet City Planner BB:DC:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Paul Sen~ June 4, 1998 Dan Coleman Rancho Cucamonga Trail AdvisoD' Board Dear Dan, When I came home tonight front ~vork (about 6:30) I realized from your voice message that the Trail Advisor3,' Board meeting was tonight. That makes 2 consecutive meetings I've been unable to attend. My work schedule has been very hectic and I don't see any change forthcoming so I regretfully am submitting my resignation from the board. I have been proud of the work accomplished by the board and Rancho Cucamonga in general. The board truly deserves active membership of which I am unable to provide It has been a pleasure attending and [ personally appreciate >'our efibrts. Sincerely,