Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/02/22 - Agenda Packet - PC 4- THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 22, 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell _ Fletcher_ Wimberly _ Oaxaca • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 8, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes III. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW OF THE TRAILS PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. • 1 of 3 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 22, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TO DISCUSS THE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THE WORKSHOP WILL BE HELD IN THE RAINS ROOM. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 16, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, • please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours priorto the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. • 2of3 i^ i _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 22, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,216 for maps and $2,328 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are . established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us • 3 of 3 y Vicinity Map Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2012 ------------- - 1 roJ I fj ` y E E d CL U x Q S 2 1 N ly LL � U I 1 t0 D 19th St i $ase Line r` Base Line J Church 1 Church i m Foothill" Foothill d Arrow E R 1 Arrow Jersey r R 8th O w i U 6th` a c 6th w L C Cf Y N 4th ¢ x x _ 4th Item A will be a review of the Trails Priorities * Meeting Location:• City Hall for Fiscal Year 2012 - 2013 10500 Civic Center Driv Y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 8, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca ABSENT: Ray Wimberly, Frances Howdyshell STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca (Howdyshell,Wimberly absent), carried 3-0-2,to approve the minutes of January 25, 2012. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Munoz indicated that because of his employment in the communications field, he would feel that in the public's interest he should recuse himself on the following item. He noted that this would create a lack of quorum and therefore no action would be taken on Item A. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00873 -AT&T MOBILITY -A request to modify the existing wireless communication facility housed in a 57-foot, 6-inch high cross tower(MDR 00- 14) in order to replace the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas and related equipment for a site located on the north side of Highland Avenue and west of Cambridge Avenue in the Low(L) Residential Development District at 9944 Highland Avenue - APN: 0201-055-49. Staff has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). • Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney said the item would be re-noticed and scheduled for a future meeting. k k k k k w B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254-ALL • STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to operate a 4.42-acre recycling facility including the use of a temporary office module within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03&02. Related File: Development Review DRC2011-00255 Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255- ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to make site improvements including installing a temporary office module, constructing new screen walls, installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee eating area and parking for a 4.42-acre project site located within the Heavy Industrial District of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03& 02. Related Project: DRC2011-00254. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Chairman Munoz recommended that the items be pulled and brought back to the DRC for review. He said the applicant wants to change things that were agreed to at the DRC and that although the applicant submitted a letter to staff; he had not had the opportunity to review it. He said their request is specific to the wall material and the in-lieu fee calculation. He felt that a discussion at this time would be premature, that it should be returned to the DRC for proper review. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney explained that new information was brought forward today • and the Chair would like to bring it back to the DRC for further review. Commissioner Fletcher stated that since it was agendized and previously reviewed by the DRC, he would like to proceed and discuss the item tonight. He said it is not out of the ordinary to proceed although he thought they had agreed to a block wall at the DRC, but undergrounding fees are often discussed at the Planning Commission level. He said he did not want to delay the applicants. Chairman Munoz said it was ready to go and approved as presented to the DRC, but now the conditions have changed and he would like to review it again at the DRC. He moved that the items be sent to the DRC for another review. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if it has been reviewed before. Chairman Munoz stated, yes, twice. Commissioner Fletcher clarified that the applicant agreed, but now they want to review and discuss it. He asked if they needed to appeal the DRC decision. Mr. Flower stated that this does not require a separate appeal as the DRC is a recommending body. He said the item goes to DRC with a recommendation and then it is forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision. Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that there is one item in question for the DRC to review-a block wall vs. a metal fence. He said the other is in-lieu or phased payments of underground fees based on the acquisitions of currently leased parcels. • Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 8, 2011 Mr. Flower confirmed that in lieu fees are not for DRC review. • Commissioner Oaxaca stated the block wall was discussed in October and the project was recommended to the Commission with a block wall proposed. He confirmed that it did not reappear for the meeting in January where the temporary trailer was discussed. Chairman Munoz said this issue has not gone back and forth; the applicant agreed, the DRC approved it to move forward and now the applicant does not want that condition. Commissioner Fletcher said he read about the tan corrugated metal fence request. He said he did not think it appropriate to delay the item. He said the Commission could approve the application with the block wall as recommended and let them appeal the decision if they are not in agreement. Chairman Munoz asked for the staff report. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner gave the staff report and history of the business. He summarized the required improvements including curb, sidewalks, landscaping, a wall, and additional fencing. He said they upgraded the windows in the adjacent single-family dwelling per a noise study. He said the application was continued last time because the owner wished to add a scale to weigh vehicles and to use a temporary building. He said now the applicants do not want to do the walls and do not want to pay the full undergrounding fees. He said the applicant feels that because they lease two parcels on the property they should not have to pay for those. He said if the decision is to defer payment until they own the entire site,there would be no guarantee for payment in future. He said staff believes the improvements will help beautify the area particularly along Whittram Avenue. Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that the scale building is located on the southern portion of the • property and if it straddles the property line. Mr. van der Zwaag confirmed it was not wide enough, and therefore is straddling the property line. He said the owners processed a lot line adjustment to allow room for trucks to pass via the southern portion of the property which in effect lessens the truck traffic on Whittram Avenue. He said the applicants are willing to do all street improvements but not the undergrounding. He explained that the property with the single-family home is leased to them and there is an auto repair next door. He said it had become a wrecking yard and Code Enforcement has been working with the owner. Commissioner Fletcher suggested that if there is a 5-year lease, if the applicants have not acquired those properties in 5 years, then they could pay the fees at that time. He said that in the past we have not required the undergrounding fees for improvements taking place off-site. He said we are collecting fees on leased property and the applicants may not be there in 5 years. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer said the lease issue is not involved with the City. He said we would have to impose a condition for the paying of the fees in 5 years or shut them down. He said it is similar to when street improvements are required. They must guarantee completion of the street improvements with a bond and there is a timeline. He said they could do a timeline on the undergrounding. Mr. Flower said that the point about the property being only leased to the applicants is not relevant. He said development often occurs on leased land. He said this issue should be worked out with the property owner and the lessee. Commissioner Fletcher noted that to him the Heavy Industrial zone area is akin to the adage of the • silk purse/sows ear. He said Whittram Avenue is an industrial street and it is not a pretty site, so to require a lot of expense that will not affect their business nor the City did not seem appropriate. He Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 8, 2011 said it is a hodge-podge area. He granted that we may have to start someplace and improvements on this property may encourage other owners to improve as well. Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the railroad right of way and what is on the parcel to south • across the tracks. Mr. van der Zwaag said it is currently vacant land. Mr. Henderson added that the property is used for overflow parking for the racetrack and it was at one time a proposed soccer complex. Commissioner Oaxaca asked what the requirement for a block wall was based on. Mr. van der Zwaag said it is a standard condition to require either a solid block wall or a metal fence with a metal backing. He said the DRC did not feel metal fencing was not appropriate and would not look nice. Chairman Munoz clarified that the applicant's proposal was not actual metal fencing, but just old metal sheets that have been recycled for fencing. Mr. van der Zwaag said they used non approved metal fencing. He said the Edison Company no longer wanted them on their easement, so now they want to use the old fencing that was being used there. He said it is solid metal sheets with a V protrusion. He said it is not an actual fencing product, but something that was custom built. (He displayed a photo of the material on the overhead). Commissioner Oaxaca commented from his experience with the railroads. He said there concern is how to prevent access from a property owner's side and how to discourage access from rail • easement onto private property. He said a block wall may be the option of choice, but sometimes it is as effective to use wrought iron fencing. He said the footings for a block wall along the rail line could be a challenge. He said there would be no reason anyone would want to cross there, and he would be willing to look at alternatives to a block wall that would meet our standards. Mr. van der Zwaag says the City has no history of metal fencing along railroad easements. Commissioner Fletcher asked if we are attempting to screen the view from passing trains or something else. Commissioner Oaxaca noted that passengers sitting in the upper level of a train are about 16-feet high and therefore the wall/fence would need to be 20 feet tall to really screen the property. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. George Chu, 718 West 16'"Street in Upland, representing All State Recycling clarified that the letter was first distributed on December 14 and then again yesterday. He said the metal steel panels would be painted to match the block wall that will be constructed along Whittram Avenue. He said it would be supported by steel columns every 20 feet. He said the owners have been in business since 1987 and currently employ 40 people. He said the panels are 8 feet tall and they have been to DRC twice. He thanked staff for their assistance. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are efforts to purchase middle property. Mr. Chu responded, yes; they are not ready to sell and the elderly lady does not want to move. He • said her son works next door and they have been living there for about 30 years. He said the parcel Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 8, 2011 to the east is a different owner. He said he tried to purchase it but they are not ready to sell either; it is owned by an irrevocable trust. • Commissioner Fletcher said the letter indicates the objection to the block wall was because of cost. He said he got the impression tonight that the metal fence material-not a commercial fence-was something custom from the other facility. He said he visited the facility on one occasion and thought it was filthy and dangerous and would not go back there again. He said he is sympathetic to not spending too much on the railway right of way, but he would have reservations about approving a makeshift fence. Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Fletcher said his initial concern was about the expense in this particular area. He said he would think it to be more appropriate to require this with new construction applications. He said this is a large area and he did not want to apply standards that are not applied to others on Whittram. He said he did not think the underground fees are unreasonable for properties that are owned by the applicant. He said he is ok with delaying the fees for the properties that are leased (5 years). He said he has not seen the fencing the applicants want to put up so he is not sure that he could decide any differently than the DRC did. Commissioner Oaxaca said we could have an opening to consider a condition to pay the in-lieu fees in entirety but within a reasonable timeframe. He agreed that he is not comfortable with the fencing material and he has not seen an option proposed that fits in with our current standards. He said there are other barriers that could accomplish the screening that would also consider the surrounding propertie. He said he would look at a condition to pay the initial fees and require the balance over a maximum of 5 years that would compel them to pay remainder. • Chairman Munoz said phasing has been considered before. He asked staff if there is a way to collect an initial portion and phase a part. He asked if it is enforceable. Mr. James said it is not customary. Mr. Flower said it would have to tie to some time period. He said the City has not seen a lease and we have no way to monitor it. He said if it was not paid in 5 years, we would have to revoke their CUP; that is how it would be enforced, either they pay or shut them down. He said the process could be done. Mr. James said it is just like public improvements; they have a time line and if they are not completed, the applicant is also faced with that process. Chairman Munoz said he concurred about the wall. He said we rely on City standards and the concern has nothing to do with the wall being observed or being seen by the trains. He said there are safety issues and normally we require walls all the way around for safety. He said in-lieu fees are problematic and coming up with a condition is difficult because we do not know what will happen in future with this business or those leased properties. He said he cannot ask future projects to underground if we let this one go. He said we have negotiated with the applicant several times and he was surprised this came up. He said we prefer to operate this way and we would hold others to the same standard. He said they can be non-conforming until they develop and then they will face the same requirement. Commissioner Fletcher said he forgot to ask the applicant the level of difficulty of constructing block wall along the train right of way. • Planning Commission Minutes -5- February S, 2011 Mr. Chu noted that the challenge was mentioned by Commissioner Oaxaca but they would face big footings and a trench the full length of the wall, several feet deep along with workers and related equipment. • Chairman Munoz said that is an engineering issue and they would have to allow room along their property line for the construction of the wall. Commissioner Fletcher said he does not believe 'one size fits all'. He said the City is getting improvements along Whittram Avenue plus more. He said he does not like their alternative scrap fencing but he has a problem with taking fees for portions of property they don't own. He said he would like to condition them to pay the fees within 5 years and if that is approved then accept the application with the approved block wall. Mr. Flower said that if the applicant does not agree, they could appeal to City Council or request a continuance and go back to DRC to hash it out. Chairman Munoz said it seems the Commissioners are not in favor of the fence. Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that there are other opportunities for other materials other than block. He said he would lean towards flexibility about the undergrounding, but not for what was proposed instead of the block wall because the metal panels are very removed from our standards. He referred to Page B & C -14 and the DRC Action comments specifying the required walls and fencing for the entire site. Commissioner Fletcher asked if chain link with slats is an option in the Code. He said we have to look at alternatives and if there are other approved materials, why can they not be used. Mr. Henderson said the Development Code has several options listed but per policy of the • Commission, we really don't want to see that; solid block walls are preferred and that is what the Commission has requested that staff seek from the applicants. He added that staff is here to serve and if the Commission desires to change that policy, staff could do so with their direction. Commissioner Fletcher said he did not object to alternative screening material but if we could get the whole right of way in block wall then yes, he would support that. He asked if staff is requiring all the other property owners to install a block wall. He said if the applicant wants to go back to DRC to review an alternative material then he can with choices, but he did not feel we should enforce the most expensive one. He said the area is the problem. He said he would go along with the block wall if they can work with the applicant on the undergrounding fee. Chairman Munoz said the DRC has to have a standard and it is hard to set standards for various parts of town. He said it is problematic to go on an economic basis and this has been the standard for 25-35 years. He said if we change it, it should be a procedural change and not on a project basis. He said typically we ask staff to prepare a study, we consider it at DRC,then we share it with the Commission. We may even go out and look at examples and then bring everyone back for a decision. He said tonight, they agreed to the condition and then they came back and want to make changes and decide here at commission. He said we are making design and engineering decisions. Commissioner Fletcher said it is not unusual to do this and if it happens then it is the applicant's decision to either delay their project and work with the DRC or appeal the decision. Chairman Munoz said we depend upon recommendations from staff to guide us and there was no previous knowledge of a disagreement. He recommended the project be sent back to DRC for review. • Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 8, 2011 Commissioner Oaxaca seconded the motion to continue the applications and to be sent back to the DRC with the new information. He said the Commission should allow DRC to do its job-they make • recommendations to the Commission and then the Commission can make an informed decision. He said he did not feel he had all the options before him to decide tonight. Chairman Munoz asked the applicant if he accepts the motion to accept the project as proposed with exception to the in-lieu fees. Mr. Chu said he would like the opportunity to present an acceptable metal fence design to the DRC. Mr. Henderson said the project will have to be re-advertised when it is ready to come back to the Commission. He asked the Commission if they desired the staff to propose phasing options with respect to the in-lieu fees. Chairman Munoz responded affirmatively. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, to continue the applications for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00254 and Design Review DRC2011-00255 to a date non-specific for the purpose of reviewing the materials proposed for fencing at the DRC and to discuss phasing options. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA NOES: NONE ABSENT: FLETCHER, WIMBERLY carried PUBLIC COMMENTS • None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS None f R + W k ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Wimberly), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: • Planning Commission Minutes -77 February 8, 2011 STAFF REPORT r • PUNNING DEPARTMENT Date: February 22, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner (Trails Coordinator) Subject: TRAIL PRIORITIES ANNUAL REVIEW BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On January 11, 2012 the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) met and considered the Engineering Department recommendations relative to the 2012-2013 Trails Priorities Review. Based on the TAC recommendation, Planning and Engineering Staff proposed the following trails priorities. Additionally, and following the production of this report, the priorities were also presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on February 16, 2012 for their approval. Tonight's presentation will include any new information or recommendations received from the Parks and Recreation Commission. The action taken tonight by the Planning Commission will then be forwarded to the City Engineer to be incorporated into his annual budget recommendations to the City Council. • FY 2012/2013 1. Haven Avenue from Wilson Avenue to Vivienda Street — Complete the missing links for the trail on the west side and continue the existing trail on Haven Avenue south of Wilson. Note, the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Wilson Avenue is undeveloped and the trail along that portion of Haven Avenue would be constructed upon development. FY 2013/2014 2. Archibald Avenue from Norbrook Drive to Hidden Farm Road — Install the trail on the west side and continue the existing trail on Archibald Avenue. FY 2014/2015 3. Banyan Street from Carnelian Street to Beryl Street — Install the trail on the north side and continue the Banyan Street trail from Beryl Street to Archibald Avenue and link to the proposed Carnelian Street trail from Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue listed below. FY 2015/2016 4. Carnelian Street from Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue — Install the trail on the west side and continue the Banyan Street trail above and link to the existing Wilson Avenue trail. FY 2016/2017 • 5. Banyan Street from Sapphire Street to Carnelian Street — Install the trail on the north side and continue the Banyan Street trail above and link to the existing trail on Banyan Street from Sapphire Street west. ITEM A TRAIL PRIORITIES ANNUAL REVIEW February 22, 2012 Page 2 • All of the above is dependent on available funding. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the trail priorities for Fiscal Year 2012/2013 through 2016/2017 to be forwarded to Engineering Services to be incorporated into the City Engineer's annual budget recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Ja s R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT/LJH/Is C: Mark A. Steuer, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer • • A-2 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 22, 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell _ Fletcher_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca • II. NEW BUSINESS A. WORKSHOP ON THE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS III. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. IV. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 16, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. vc6 • If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Vicinity Map Planning Commission • Workshop February 22 , 2012 ---- - i- r..J rj yy E a O c I E d > i y � U I A �. 19th St s, Base Line /Base 1 Church Church 1 'oothill� 1 Foothill _C C d Arrow B Arrow m Jersey r 8th O 3 � W j d �w t7 6th` H = 6th w N . L > Y 4th a x x 4th The Planning Commission Workshop Meeting Location: • City Hall will be a Review of Environmental Documents 10500 Civic Center Drive 0 W � O vA A � � a W bJ) U � a cz y U �ixw � x • c • 11 W NO Wes-, • PZ 4=;) M CID o o o • rl ^O W u 91 �JJ ct • 1� ct • 1 \ 1 u w C� 4-D C C) Z rs� O O ♦ r • J CJ�• V` yTy O • r--1 +D +D 4-D C� V o 4-D � C c� oC/5 � '.., Cf) ct W �l • o ct . o CO c� U� r ® O l A S h ro S V � O O c� 4-D ct bJD 4-D ;L.4 O cz O o O N 4-D ,� U N . � C) b • r � � w Cf) a> o o 0 0 w o , _ s Q b-CA Ct Cl) a b 4 co 0 U bJD ,� • � c.� . � o � , Cld > • H w � � U a� b-O c� U a) WD "i cy� 4 r.-: 06 • V U W o o C • �--� C Cf rm � r (L)'� Q . � � P O 0 0 • r--1 W bL � o c ct cp O • • '—' o • • o • O aj ct E-� 4-D -4.D ct ° W W 0 0 � O V V ct rot p • r' O Ct • � p V ct O w � biD b-o cli y' • o' W Ct W clt . r, V t NO � O � � � p • � c+4 � Q � � N I N 4-D m...4 a) +� . r--+. Cn o ;-+ U D Mn - . _ _....,.: . _._ .,. ._...., ._._.;r a . ..... _ �,... __:... ,....,... .a .. . __�, _-. ..... ,. .._..�..r. ,. .. .. . . • O W ct cf) cn a� a� � ° o ct cid -4 ' ' r.-I o . C) cz Cid CID a o 4-D 0 � zC o a� C� -4ma rA7W� r 1 W � O � Cf) O 0 O tM 7 7r • CO t✓ [� U O 4 U cc Cl) cc bB U H V 1 U Ct$ r�i 4-D N ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � Cl) a� Tn U l!1 � Ctj bi) O CO O U � � c °O +; o 0 c co a� �i CO Ct$ ;.a N r1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • W H CO ° biDct4-D • P* ct ° rI i l T �+ cZi W C) ' n cn o Cl) O Cl) a w o ct _ ... ..-.�.. �e�. .e_......_��...��.�-...-e �.. .� .�.��.�.�.�...... ... ...— ter.. .....�..�..�'7w��+_.��..... ......_ .....�.. � � Tom. r � i , . .�. . .. ...: +... .w .r... ,b,. :aAt ..s ,, f• :r _..., r.. .. ' ��f..t�,;„ ......... .. ..Y.. .A�n ,.^',.M1l N 0 0 T JJ y` T Cl) (:J) • Co E—+ M Ct Cl) ct r-, p o � ` ct c c� . J • � c Ct bL cq Ct v �-+ o ct 4 41 ,—, ct bL 4-D ° ,4 Ct ct p-, . ._.__ .. ..�_._a__.-_.. _._._._ .__ ....—�._...�._ ._...—_,7._.. ._.._ ..._ ___._ —.r-• ._,_. ...__ __.. a ._-� M) • n E-� o cz oo bi) U� v� Cn Ct ct • 0 H H DoD W � W • � 0 0 0 0 0 • •O O H b D • 0 r.-I • r-I Cf) � � o w W � z 0 o 0 w � � w a 0 0 0 • c� ct c9d mci 4-D +' � O ►--, ct (:t e4 W a� Cf) Q bf Ct . M4 . . _. .. ._. : ,.,. . . . .. .... X .. . . .. .... . .. to .m,.. .' • V1 ct cn � O � O O U U a� (ZL) 0 0 • O U ;-4 N O O N Cl) 4 H o o p o cd +' o o ct co co cd O ct p O -.j �--� Ct biD ° zs cz CC +-) +� C) W •a�, bi) W ul O O O O • O r--4 a� a� � $:i O • O O U N � N 1-il U �i O O D Ct ^ �1A U CO ^ W � OU - o cd N U C C� O 4-D +, O O O N cc O O CO '� ,�—, 0 0 • Q Q ct 4-D a) ct CJ W � • VL U o ct Q; V O O ct b • Cf) +� ct Ct • biD • G� • � U PLI M ct O o bL c rTC11- • r Cl) � Cf) V W ct ct � p N • r, o , � o o � C3� ' cf) t` I O o V O O ci v i } I is ®HOW TO READ AN EIR R.—b.Cucmm,—,.19nnninA('ommiwinn � Frbrua�)'L'!r01L 0 Bluer 1.. I at.,o <icM1ardo-.11\\'eioon&Gerdmn I HOW TO READ AN Ell? oWhat is an EIR? c What is in an EIR? oTips for effectively reading an EIR? t p�. f ® E; WHAT IS AN El 119 oEnvironmental Impact Report I oCEQA: the California Environmental Quality Act V f�2 1; W HAT fS AN EI R? olnformational document oAnalyzes and discloses to public and decision makers potential environmental impacts oSupported by substantial r evidence—technical studies and data I I C 4 I WHATAN EIR IS NUT... l I; oA means of generating paper �s oAn opportunity to obfuscate behind technical jargon oA tool to obstruct or delay social or economic development II. l HOW IS AN Ell? PREPARED" oDrafted by planning professionals based on: •Technical engineering and planning studies, AND y •Public input 19 oReviewed by the Planning f. Commission oCertified by the City Council. ®l F. WHAT NVILL.I'OU FIND IN AN EIR? i. Introduction/Executive Summary Environmental Setting tt' Thresholds of Significance P. i Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impacts after Mitigation s Cumulative Impacts s. Alternatives s Appendices Is� HOW IS AN ISIR USED? f oReviewed by the public and decision makers. - oDecision makers use the information in the EIR to decide whether to approve the project. k oPublic uses the EIR to hold decision makers accountable. - e EIR CERTI FICATION#PROJ I?C'1' APPROVAL. is oCertification: Is the EIR legally adequate? oProject approval: Should the project be approved based on all considerations (not just the EIR)? BEEP IN MIND CECIA'S PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES i. Inform governmental decision ` makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects prior to approval 2. Identify how environmental damage can be avoided or O significantly reduced KE1;13 IN MIND CEQA'S L'URPOSESANDOBJECTIVES ° 1 s. Prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage by requiring feasible changes in a project n. Disclose to the public why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved 7 FOCUS ON THE UMPACT ANALYSIS i Impacts are analyzed by determining the significance of potential environmental impacts of the project on the existin¢ 0 environment as measured against an established threshold. t' I �I .R FOCUS ON THE Ii\IPACT ANALYSIS t P 4 oBaseline ciThreshold oAnalysis ell I FOCUS ON THE 1NI PACT ANALYSIS •Land use o Cultural resources •Aesthetics o Public safety I' •Traffic o Geology •Air quality o Water quality t„ •Greenhouse gas o Hazards emissions o Public services •Noise •Biological resources i G FOCUS ON THE IMPACT ANALYSIS t Baseline Baseline is normally the existing conditions at the time f the City announces it will prepare the EIR. i FOCUS ON THE IMPACT j ANALYSIS Thresholds Thresholds=Benchmarks. If thresholds are exceeded, the k impact is deemed significant. E' f.' FOCUS ON THE IMPACT ANALYSIS 6 Sample Threshold 1: Noise .r Would the project increase the ambient noise level by three to five decibels at noise-sensitive areas? FOCUS ON THE IMPACT ANALYSIS i Sample Threshold 2: Land Use Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental impacts? �I f FOCUS ON THE UN1PACT ANALYSIS Analysis Compare the baseline to a projection of what the environmental conditions will be after the project. If the threshold would be exceeded, the impact is deemed significant. EVALUATE; -,MITIGATION 1 MEASURES R 9 oAvoid 0 oMinimize oRectify oReduce or Eliminate �F oCompensate I! F EVALUATE MITIGATION MEASURES i The Limits of Mitigation oFeasibility oEnforceability i oConstitutionality [jg0 I' f GVALUATL NIITIGATTON TI EAS ORES oWhy oWhere y s oWhat oWhen oWho IDLNTIFY SIGNIFICANT AND II UNAVOIDABLE IT4PACTS j Any impact that remains after all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed are deemed significant and unavoidable impacts of the project and must be identified. P P CONSIDER CUMUL-A'1'IVB; IMPACTS � OA Cumulative Impact is the I� combined impact of the proposed project in combination with other projects that will produce similar . impacts. oProject list or Growth projection? i P f' i¢ E\'A LU:1'I'I?AI;I'biNNATIV[;S r •Reasonable range of alternatives must be considered. •Alternatives must: • Meet the basic objectives of the project Be feasible • have the potential to lessen or avoid one or more significant and unavoidable impacts of the project Q •A"No Project"alternative must also be considered. (, •The Environmentally Superior Alternative I. WEAGH THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS If there will be significant unavoidable impacts... •Decision makers most balance those impacts against the economic,legal,social,technological, or other benefits of the project. •The project can only be approved if they find those benefits outweigh the environmental risks and adopts a"Statement of Overriding 1 Considerations." Mh I" i QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF Has the EIR identified all of the significant impacts of the Project? I4 ®I6 QUESTIONS'rO ASK YOURSELF k E.: Have all significant impacts j been mitigated? Do any significant unavoidable impacts 4�4 remain? S a � k i� QUES'T'IONS TO ASK YOURSELF I ' Would any of the alternatives lessen or avoid the project's j3 significant unavoidable impacts? I 3 f QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF Are there other considerations that outweigh the project's significant unavoidable impacts? 6 E ULTIMATE QUESTION Should the project be approved? � prs i ii SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 22, 2012 NAME COMPANY. ` ADDRESS