Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/02/22 - Agenda Packet - Workshop CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1995 5:00 P.M. WORKSHOP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of AHegiance II. Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Lumpp IIL Announcements IV. Commission Business A. PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES 1995-96 V. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VI. Adjournment I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certif; that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 16, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. TO: CHAIRMA~I AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FROM: HEINZ A. LUMPP, PLANNING COMMISSIONER DATE: February 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Discussion Items for Planning Commission Issues 1995-96 For discussion purposes I would like to outline my thoughts for tonight's meeting. As I understand we are discussing topics to be covered with the City Council in our upcoming joint meeting. These topics might include: - A historical perspective on Planning Commission activities and accomplishments over the last year. - Future Planning issues: - Modernization of General Plan - Review of Zoning Ordinance - Commercial Zoning Evaluation - Monitoring Regional Planning Issues - Design Guidelines - Updated CEQA process - Review of existing Planning Commission policies - Review of existing Specific Plans - Role of Planning Commission in the future - Economic Development and the Commissions participation - Planning Commission visibility at local functions - Interaction with other Commissioners in surrounding communities , Daily Bulletin, Sunday. October 30. 19~4 B3 WHIIIm J. ' The city needs to continue advance "Ollr : planning, ,but 01e Planning Deper'e'nenl Alexander is barely staying above water with less staffing. But we're not ready to go saetngmo~constrdcUoninthecity,~t Paul forward planning being done. But Blaee them can he I:ae~er communication City is still maintaining the service JimIS V. level as belom.'You ca~ look around, Clrltllo ~ ancl the quaity of worklis still the . C4tyCounctl same. Butl'dllketostmarntinethe: ~ Planning De~ IllIf il in direct DIIIII ~ relatk~ to the wo,,k demands, To keep Wllllams people just to keep positions is footish.i (i~mlNmqC°und When davit picks up, we'll ' Your Service ~.~ Have We Got A Place For You!City Planning: Ensuring Quality of Life in Question: What is ..... Answer: A Rancho Cucamonga City Your Community Volunteer.t a person who is between City Planning, to one extent or another, The City of Rancho Cucamonga is very has been in existence since the the ages of 12 and 90+? fortunate to have a well-qualified and a person who gives freely enthusiastic volunteer force. Our beginning of humanity and is the foundation that creates a safe, volunteers assist in every aspect of City economically-vital, and socially-active of his/her time and Hall - including our Police and Fire energy? Depadments and our new Public Library. place for people to live and work. The The City is always on the lookout for cornerstone of City Planning is the a person who wants to individuals who are interested in City's General Plan which serves as a make a significant impact donating time to the community. If you blueprint to guide the orderly on the community? have a special skill or just a few hours to development of the community and spare, and would enjoy becoming represents the efforts of citizens a person who asks for involved with your local government, working together to define the very little in return for please contact the Volunteer Coordinator community's values. The original his/her contribution? at 989-1851 extension 2008. dream of the Rancho Cucamonga City founders for a "City with a Plan" has become a reality today. Rancho · ~ I I i · ! ffrine[tftePot Cucamonga has won praise ~, · of, qofd:. throughout the state and the nation for "' its planning leadership which matches ~ecome a G'ty ~dryG innovation with the commitment z o andiv towards creating a balanced community. The future of Rancho ---=- Cucamonga relies on this vision and our commitment to excellence. One Stop The Foothill Marketplace, located on Foothill just east of the 15 freeway, has several new tenants that are now open for business, including Food 4 Less, Office Depot, Michael's, and Petsmart. These new stores join the Sports Chalet, Circuit City, Claim Jumper Restaurant, Price Club, and Walmart. Most of Town Center Square, which is located next to the Terra Vista Town Center, is currently under construction. The first tenant, Best Buy, opened in November 1994. Best Buy is a discount consumer electronics goods store. Best Buy celebrated their Grand Opening in November. The City of Rancho Cucamonga The Grapevine Winter 1995 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16, 1995 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, FROM: Bill Alexander, May~ SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSING I just wanted to express my gratitude for your tireless efforts in serving Rancho Cucamonga, Too often we forget to say thank you for a job well done. I appreciate and admire yo,ur attention to the welfare of this community. I am aware that Wednesday night the Planning Commission once again demonstrated its commitment to serving this community by staying late into the morning helping the applicants create successful projects. This parmership of public and private working together is vitally important to building a strong and vibrant community. BA:gs cc: City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Dail~ Bull Inland Valley Frank Geary Gutierrez. informed on what is going on at Improve al}pearance of Metrolink corridor. ' ilyBulletin Councilmen James Curatalo CityHall." and Paul Biane are new to the Council members agreed pub- .. :,.:!.:~?i~:=. :::: ;~: :::i::':: :::,i:~!i: E~p~v~t~sect0rinvolvementwithy0uth CUCA1VIONGA -- five-member council, and the 16- lic safety is the foremost concern activities. services downsize construction lished a fresh agenda for the creates a detrimental ripple - :: :==,= i Develop senior citizen center: ' Central Park, improve new City Council. which spreads to other facets of AdVanced pla~ning!!i!iii:!!iii!iiiiiia!;~iiii!!~:i~!~i~':!E~l~ind~at~cial Cohipdna~ Latious with the business corn- There were about 30 specific day-to-day life. · ' ' clty's general plan. ~d the city toward the 21st broken down into seven broad safe streets, people will come SOURCE: city of Rancho Cucamonga Michele Lee DePierro/Daily Bulletin ntury. categories. They are public safe- here to live and businesses will The council concluded a goal- ty, business development, recre- follow," he said. design proposal in exchange for center, a performing arts the- ~ting session late last week, alien and community develop- Mother significant concern is a less expensive version and one ater, a tennis stadium and ~d City Manager Jack Lam ment, advanced planning, the city's 4.6 percent utility tax. which will come to fruition soon- swimming pools. The new plan spped out the city's new priori- revenues, infrastructure, The 'assessment is unpopular, er. The project was placed on the will be significantly more mod- es Tuesday during a meeting employee communication and and the council hopes to do away back burner because municipal est, Gutierrez said. th city administrators. morale. with it by gradually reducing the revenues dried up when the Additionally, both Williams "We have a number of goals "We found ourselves differing rate starting this year, said recession hit Southern and Curstale said they will · ich call for raising revenues, on the priorities," said Mayor Councilwoman Diane Williams. California. ~d we have others that call for Bill Alexander. "But there was a For years, residents have been The original proposal would explore ways to build a larger reduction of government. So, it commitment to the seniors, anxiously awaiting construction have cost between $75 and $100 library because the community going to be a real balancing working with the business corn- of Central Park. The council million, and would have has outgrown the current tempo- :t," said City Councilman Rex munity, and keeping the public agreed to scrap an upscale included a library, a cultural. rary facility. Murder defendant · .- .... faces new charges Daily Bulletin set Smith's bail at $100,000, not- '~' .... ~, in~ Smitli surrende~'ed' t~ t Beware of the Naked Checklist! The checklist is oftcn used Io focus sewage trcatmcnl plant W~ich was in- By Dallas HotIRes and the analysis of s~cific im~cts to ~ re- tended to zrve an existing motel corn- ROll Van Blareore viewed in an Environmental Impact Re- pies and future development in the small ~rt (EIR). However, Ihe checklist pla~ c~stal town ofGualalajust norlh of The The California Environmental its most im~rlant role -- a~ ~cci~s S~ Rash. Quality Act (CEQA) requires the close court ~rutiny -- when it i$ In o~rturning the county's adoption citiestoevaluatetheenvironmen- prepared as part of an Initial Study of a NegatiVe Declaration, the court al of new projects they are whichleadstotheadoptionofaNegative foundthatthecountystafffailedtonote underlake or approve. At your ~claration of environmental impel. t~ ~u~e ~ the content of data they cily, Ihere is at least one ~rson who~ NowthrceCaliforniac~rBha~cast relied u~n in filling out the environ- j~ is to complete this evaluation, corn- doubts on the use of this accepted and mental checklist. ]The staff checked mealy known as an Initial Study. con~nlenl decision-making t~l. Envi- "~" for 38 of 43 ~tential impact ques- The fi rsl step he or she probably t~cs tonmental evaluators should ~y cl~c lions in the environmental checklist. In is to fill out an environmental checklist attention to what the courts are ~ying. the case of several questions marked which identifies whether ~tenlia[ on- "no,' Ihe court found clear evidence vironmental impacts may be signifi- Sundstromv. CounryofMend~ino~ Ihat the project might disturb existing cant. The checklist h~ ~cn dc~lo~d is the m~t recent c~ in which conditions. over the years to direct and remind ca- the court commented on Ihe use ~e Sundstrom court relied on Citi- vironmental cvaluators of all ~tcntia] of the environmental checklist. Sund- ze~ A~iation for Semihie Develop- problem areas. To thog who work with strom claimed the County of Me~ino meat of the Bishop Area v. Count)' of the chccklist every day, the ~mple in failed toconduct apro~renvironmental In~.hhe firSl ca~tocriticize use ofthe Table I of checklist questions are quite r~icw ~fore it issued aug ~rmit for checklist. A citizens ass~iation chal- familiar.' construction and o~mtion of a private longed the County ,of layo's piecemeal environmental review of a proposed Table I shopping center. The Counly Board of Supcrvisor~ first Considered general Yes M,yM NO plan amendmeals and a zone reclassifi- ~t. Will the pro~sal resull in: cation for Ihe project. Then, they ser- e. Substanlial air emissions of deterSration of am~ent air quality? b. ~e erealan of objectionable ~s? (D,Ila.~ H,hnex t~nd Ron Van Blareore ore land use lawyers ~ A~eral~n of air movement, mislure, or temperature, ~ any Krieger. a firm of 80 Id~)'ers in River- ~anOe in climate, either ~l~ ~ tegional~? . ~ide, Ont~ri0, San Diego. Palm Springs  ' and Rancho Mirage. Hohnes is the Citx' ~ Use. ~ll the pro~sal resuH ~ a substantial a~eral~ of the. ~esent ~ planned la~ use of an area? __ Attorney of Corona and Redlands. Van Blareore is an ass~iate specidli;ing P~lation. ~11 lhe pr~sal alter the ~t~, ~, deftly, environmental _~, gr~h rate of the hu~ ~lat~ of ~ area? __ __ ~ 44 ,; i' 1; ~' S~ptemb~r 19SglWe,ter. City ralcly considered a Icnlativc Iracl map plclc proper Inilial Sludies. When an rcvicwingislhccxpansionofashopping aPProval and a road abandonmcn forthe Inilial Sludy produces substantial center complex Iocatcd in an exisling project. The Board adopied Negative evidence from which a fair argument cnmn~crcial zone. a "no" cbeckmar~. in Dcclarali~ms for each portion of Ihc can bc made that a proposed projccl response Io the question of whclhcr Ihe projecl. might have significant environmenial project will result in a reduction of the Primarily. Ihc liLTllnp courl bald that effects, CEQA requires Ihc preparation numbers of any rare or cadangered spc- the Board never considered the environ- of an EIR. When there is no subslanlial cics of animals need nol be explained. menial impact of Ihc Iolal shopping ccn- evidence before an agency that a project On Ihc other hand. a "no" checkmark Icr project. However. it also commcmcd may have a significant effect on the ca- in response to Ihe question of whclhcr on Ihe slaff's intpmpcr use of coyiron- vironmcnl. adoplion of a Negative Dec- the projcct mighl result in a subslantial men al checklisl.~ in Ihe Initial Sludics. laralion is appropriate. However, as impact upon existing transportation The court did nol ~r, ccifically rcjccl the explained by IhcSt,ldsfrt~t~t court, when systems probably would rcqu ire use of checklisls. bul found Ihe check- an inadcqualc Initial Study has been prc- explanation. lists used by Ihc c~unty defi~.'icnt be- pared. "mechanical application" or Ihc Whenever, "yes" or "maybe" is cause Ihey did no( disclose the dala or fair argumcnl rule would defeat Ihc put- checked. we already know that an cx- evidence upon which the pcr~ns con- Po~sofCEQAhyallowingpublicagcn- planarion of the polcntial impact must ducttag the ~tudy relied. The court cics to hide behind thcir own failurc to be given and proposed miligalion inca~ found lhal Ihc "mere conclusions" of invcsligalc polcnlial environmental surcs should be idcmificd if no EIR is to Ihc chccklist~ prnvidcd no vehicle for impacts. be done. judicial review. California courts will look for more Under state law, the following topics Christ ~'ord ,~fini.~rr). v. Superior than mere conclusions when reviewing must be addressed in an Initial Sludy:s Court' was decided shortly after the an Initial Study for legal sufficiency. (I) A description of the project in- Bishop case. A religious organization Therefore, staff members who prepare eluding its location. c~allcngcd Ihc Cily of San Marcus' ca- Initial Studies roulinely should refer- (2) An identification of Ihc projecl's v~ronmcntal review of a general plan cncc the data or evidence upon which environmental selling. amendment creating a solid waste man- they relied in checking "yes," "may- (3) An identification of Ihe project's a.gcment facilities designation. In i~s ca- be," or "no" in the environmen{al check- environmental effects (by use v~ron mental checklist, the city staff list. As your own city attorney may tell of a checklist, matrix, o~ other checked "no" for every possible cnvi- you, every staff member who prepares method). .runmental consequence. Because every an Initial Study should "bridge the an- (4) A discussion of wap to mitigate ~mpact question was checked "no", the alytical gap helwccn Ihc raw evidence identified significanl effects of City Council found there was on sub- and ultimate decisions" reflected on Ihe the project, if any. stantial evidence from which a fair at- chccklisl. (5) An examination of wbether the gumera could be made thai the project This cannot mean that every "no" project would be consistent with would have a siBni~cant effect on the checkmark must he explained, because existing zoning, plans, and other environment and adopted a Negative such a requiremeal would expand the applicable land use controls. Declaration. checklist into a catalog. However, some (6) The name of the person or per- Urging a strict application of this explanalion should be given when it sonswhopreparndorpanicipatcd "fair argumcnl" rule, the city aasertcd would not be clear to a rational ouLsidc in the Initial Study. thai adoption of a Negative Declaration observer why a i:xxcntial impact is ab- Wc suggest the following addition to was proper because Ihcre was no evi- senl. For instance, if the project you arc (continued on page 81) dance whatsoever of potential signifi- cant impacts in Ihc Initial Study. The court disagreed and found adoption of a Negative Declaration improper because tbec,ty',ussert,o. stedoo,t, ow. fa,,. - "JI" I"j ASSCCIATES arc to undertake an adequate coyiron- mental analysis. The Sandstroth courl has now clari- fied that CEQA places Ihc burden Io '~ conduel proper Preliminary environ- e arc pleased to announce that mental investigations on cities rather for the City of Davis, has become than the public. AfterSund~trom, cilins associared with our consulting firm. will not be allowed to hide behind their own failure to gather relevant environ- Mr. Storey will serve as a consultant in'all areas of our mental data. Thus, although the cnvi- practice includinit executive recruitment, organization runmental checklist slill may be used, analysis and development, and human resource checkmark answers Io qonslions regard- management. ing potential environmental impacts may often require further explanation. 1400 K Street, Suire .11 I, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-8022 n Sund'~trom, Ihe court slated hal faith effort" Io prepare and com- public agencies must make a "good Western CizylSepteml~er 1988 4~ At 'a mininmm, Slandar~,l plann'ing dor- sal anoints which arc orlcn staff should ~ included in the liS~ of ref- erences. Prior Environmental Impact gc~rls which di~uss rcl~nl regional environmenial impacts also should bc included. hc slogan "just say no" may work Tbut cnvironmcmal cvalualors well for federal drug programs should ~ aware that "simply checking no" .in an cnvironmcnla], checklist may not withstand a court challenge. CEQA requires a go~ [ailh eFfOrt to undertake an adcqualc cnvironmcnl~l investigation at Ihc Initial S~udy s~agC. Cities must di~losc to the public (and ~mctimcs lair( to court) the data or cvidcn~c u~n which they rclicd::in conducting Initial Sludge. Wilhoul such di~Cl~ure~, an In- ilial Study may n~ ~ rcn~rcd lcga ly insur~cicm and Ihc projccl il c~amin~ may lhcrcby ~ rcndcrcd vulnc~blc Io subs~qucnl challenge. ~ , a ~c~ qucslions ap~at in Ihe Environmental ~ccklisT Form. Ap~ix I l0 Ihe G6~c ncs rot Implcmehlalion of lhe Cafif~aia Environ- ulalions. Seelions 15~. et sty.. rormeHy California Adminislrali~ ~ 5,nd~lr, mv. Co~alv o/~n~ao (June 30. 1988) 88 Daily Joutn~l~ D.A.R. 833~. ' Cilizens Ass~ia~ion/~ a &~;~e De~lop- m~nt o/IAe 8isAop Area v. C~ o/la~ (1985) 172 Cal. App.3d i51. 184 CaI.App.3d 180. , · ~ .Guidelines ~ Implcmcnlazi~ of Ihe Calir~- n~a Environmental ~alily Ad, 14 Calirornia C~c or ReJulalions, ~cti~ 1~3(d). Checklist (continued from page thc lisl in practice: (7) A list or references which dis- closes the dala, information, and evidence staff has relied upon in conducling the Initial Study. Whenever possible, Ibis backup list should be direclcd at specific negative answers which appear likely to b~;com~ controversial when lhc facL~ surround'- district having jurisdiction in the area." The purpose information identifying the project's environmental of such consultation is "to identify facilities within effects, if any, by use of a checklist, matrix, or other one-fourth of a mile of the proposed schoolsite which method; a discussion of suggested means, if any, of might be reasonably anticipated to emit hazardous mitigating the significant effects identified; an exami- emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous nation of whether the project would be consistent with materials, substances, or waste.'; The lead agency's existing fiicable land use notification "shall include a list of the locations for which information is sought." (Pub. Resources Code, prepared or pa.,-ticipated in the initial study. t~u2eb!ove;ning board of the relUvant schoo ; a sample "environmental checklist form" that, must issue a written finding reaching one' of three according to section 15063, subdivision (f), will sat- the consultauo enU- isfy legal requirements when used in conjunction conclusions. The first is that ..n ~d fled no such facilities. The second is that Any such with the sample "environmental information form." )thool The who would attend or be employed at the ~c ." forms, however, without supporting factual data third is that an existing order issued b~ an agency and/or explanation is an inadequate basis for decid- with jurisdiction over the facilities requires orrective ing to prepare a negative declaration. In C.iti,zen~s measures that, before the school is occupi , will Association for Sensible Development of Bishop "result in the mitigation of all chronic ortdentalArea v. County of In'yo~4th~ ' ": 2::U c cal. App.3d l,l I217 CaCRptr. g93[, the Court of Appealhe.dthat, althougbthenseofacbec istw t i ~ml t health to persons who would attend or ; oyiG permissible, an initial study must also "disclose the the proposed school." If the governing makes data or evidence upon which the person(s) conduct- the third finding, it must also make a subsequ t - ing the study relied. Mere conclusions simply ing, prior to occupancy, that the emissions ha einfact provide no vehicle for judicial review." (172 e;? · · . . , Cal. App.3d at 171 [217 Cal. Rptr. 8931; Sundstrom v. h;p nga 7pp.3d296, 305-306 [248 Cal.Rptr. 3521.) In reach- G. Content ' ' ing this conclusion, the Citizens Association court The CEQA Guidelines do not specify the p ise cited Topanga Association for a Scenic Communi.ty description of the project, including its location; 2 the adequacy of findings for quas~-adjud~catory agency decisions. 82 / CEQA Guidelines section 1507 I, which governs the content An initial study is inadequate if it ' necth VI The Initial Study · 97 the environment. The Court also rejected as moot project defined more narrowly than that originally petitioners' arguments regarding purported inade- proposed; Moreover, although the SUpplemental EIR enactment of the new legislation. a'~ative," the c ' ent nevertheles i'ovided the subs h an analysis. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura Citizens Association for Sensible (2d Dist. 1985) 176 CaI.App.3d 421 I222, Developmen' of Bi , County of Inyo ' ' ' A citizens group sought a writ of i (4th Dist.' 1985) 172 CaI.App.3d 151 [217 CaI.Rptr. 1~93] aside decisions of Ventura County an EIR ' and modifying conditional use :he An association of citizens sought a wi'it of man- proposed expansion and refin- date and injunctive relief to set aside various cry. The Superior Court denied ' ' but the government approvals relating to a proposed shop- Court of Appeal reversed, citir inadequacy of ping center project. The Superior CoUrt denied the document's analysis of cum~ alive air quality relief, but the Court of Appeal reversed. impacts associated with offshore c 'illing. The Court of Appeal found that the county had The EIR stated that these i ili improperly treated the, approvals as constituting two icant, relying for that conclusion c~ ~ y's separate projects, rather than one, and so had imprap- existing air quality management I CAQMP"). erly prepared two separate negative declarations. As a The latter document, however, did reach such a result, the county failed to prepare ah adequate analy- conclusion. Rather, the AQMP sial ~at no exist- sis of cumulative impacts. The two documents also ing scientific model could adequat nalyze such failed to ~nalyze adequately the project's:economic impacts, which might well be signif . aced with and social effects as eelated to the environmental (4th D~st 1985) 174 Cal App 3d 1029 [219'~ analysis of the subject, in whatever de~ree of detail the data and information on which the county relied. \ , was feasible. X The Court of Appeal also ruled that petitioners had "~ established a colomble claim for attorneys' ,fees under Dusek v. Anaheim section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil ProcedUre. Redevelopment Agency al ·, · The owners of a registered historic building (1 st Oist. 1985) 170 CalLApp.3d 604 [~16 CaI.Rptr. 502] sought a peremptory writ of mandate to set aside a redevelopment agency's decisions certifying a sup- An environmental organization sought a writ of piemental EIR and approving the demolition of the mandate under CEQA to invalidate a timber harvest- building. The Superior Court denied the writ and the ing' plan CTHP") flied by the Georgia-Pacific Court of Appeal affirmed. Corporation and approved by the California The Court of Appeal reasoned that, although the Department of Forestry CCDF"). The THP in ques- agency had made a number of technical CEQA errors, lion proposed to cut a= 75 acre grove of old growth these neither prejudiced the public nor prevented the virgin redwood in northern California's Lost Coast statute's fundamental purposes from being served. region. The Superior Court denied relief; but the The agency did not abuse its discretion by adopting a Court of Appeal reversed. Appendix III Summaries of I~portant CEQA CaSes . 459 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF P~NNING AND RESEARCH 14~ TEN~ STRE~ '~ WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 ~E GRI~OM September 28, 1994 Ms. Sands George George R. Steffes, Inc. 1201 "K" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Sande: This is to inform you that the long awaited first round amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations) became effective September 19, 1994. The major issues addressed by these amendments are: (1) consideration of tiering and other similar provisions during preparation of an initial study; (2) considerations relative to determining whether to recirculate an EIR before it is certified; (3) selection of a range of feasible alternatives for discussion in an EIR; and (4) clarification of the use of subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. In addition, Appendix I (the initial study checklist) of the Guidelines has been substantially revised. i've enclosed a copy of the approved amendments. Although already in effect, these changes will not immediately be reflected in the copies of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in local law libraries. The code book publisher's regular update should be available in the next few weeks. Additionally, OPR hopes to revise its CEQA Guidelines publication to reflect these amendments by the end of the year. If you should have any questions about this, please feel free to call me at (916) 445-4831. Sincerely, ANTERO RIVASPLATA Principal Planner Enclosure. ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES 1994 The CEQA Guidelines are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) commencing at Section 15000. Amendments: 1. Section 15063 of Title 14, California Code of Regulations is amended to read: 15063. Initial Study. (a) [no change] (b) Results. (1) If the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall citkcr do one of the followinq: (A) Prepare an EIR, or (B) Use a previously prepared EIR which the Lead Agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand~v o__r (C] Determine, pursuant to a proqram EIR, tierinq, or another appropriate process, which of a pro~ect's effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or neqative declaration. Another appropriate process may include, for example, a master EIR, a master environmental assessment, approval of housinq and neiqhborhood commercial facilities' in-urban areas- as described in section 15181, approval of residential pro~ects pursuant to a specific plan as described in section 15182, approval of residential pro~ects consistent with a community plan, qeneral plan or zoninq as described in section 15183, or an environmental document Drepared under a State certified requlatory proqram. The lead aqency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or neqative declaration. (2) The Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration if thc a~cncy ~crccivcz there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. (c) Purposes. The purposes of an Initial Study are to: (1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration. (2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modif=y a,project, mitigating adverse impacts before anEIR~is prep~red~ thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration. (3) Assist in the preparation ofan EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identifying the effects. determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant,~ and fD) Identifying whether a proqram EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the pro~ect's environmental effects!. (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; (7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR,could be used with the project. _ (d)- Contents. An Initial Study shall contain in brief form: (1) A description of the project including the location of the project; (2) An identification of the environmental setting.; (3) An identification of environmental effects. by'use of a checklist, matrix, or other method~ provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation may be either throuqh a narrative or a reference to another information source such as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR or negative declarationS. A reference to another document should include, where appropriate, a citation to the page or pages where the information is found. (4) A discussion of ways to mitigate the Significant effects identified, if any; (5) An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; (6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study. (e) [no change] (f) Format. Sample forms for an applicant's project description and a review form for use by the Lead Agency 'are contained in Appendices H and I. When used together, these forms would meet the requirements for an Initial Study~ provided that the entries on the checklist are briefly explained pursuant to subsection These forms are only suggested, and public agencies are free to devise their own format for an Initial Study. A previously prepared EIR may also be used as the Initial Study for a later project. (g) [no change] Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21100, and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 305 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337, 1346 (1990). 2o Section 15072 of Title 14, California Code of Regulations is amended to read: 15072. PUblic Notice of a Negative Decla~ation. (a) Notice that the Lead Agency proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration shall be provided to the public within a reasonable period of time, but not less than 20 days {unless the neqativ~ declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, in which case the review period shall be at least 30 days}, prior to 'adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration. Notice shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: (1) Publication at least one time by the Lead Agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. (2) Posting of notice by the Lead Agency on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. 4' · ~ / Appendix I / ; ,./ Elx.rVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. Ge~neral Plan Desig-nation: 7. Zonin~a: S. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, suppon, or off-sire features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary) 9. Sun'oanding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, Financing approval, or participation a~eement.) I-1 EhWIRON?d2ENTAL FACTORS pOTEiNTIALLY A2 _~ECTED: ! e environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one Lmpact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Lad Use and Planrang f'l, Transportation/Circulation [] Public Services [] population and HOusing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Set-vice Systerr..s [] Geological Problems D Energy and Mineral Resourc~ [] Aesthetics [] Water [] H~7~rds [] Cultural Resources F'] Air Qualit>' ~ Noise [] Recreation [] Mandatory.' Findings of Significance DETERZvlINATION. "' (T~be comni ed by the L-,lad Agency.) . et i the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 iMAY 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 on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or 'potentially significant unless mitigated.' An ENVLRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I-2 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmenti there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant: effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier El:R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the pro~iosed proje=t. Signature Date Printed Name For /'~tATION OF EN'VrRO~IENTAL B,[PACTS: ]7~~17~''LL A. brief exolanation is reouired for all answers except "No iraDace" ar~wers that are adequateiv sunooned by the hu'~rmation sourc-ls a lead agency cites in thL- parenthelM following each questiorL A "No'impact" an.swer is adeouately auooor~ed if the referenced information sources show that the Lmpac'. sh-npiy does not apply to projeSts like the'one involved (e.g. the projec~ falls outside a fault rapture zone). A 'No L~pact" answer should be explained where i[ is ba~ed on projec:-specific factors as weil as general standards (e.~. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to polluxants, based on a project-specific scree?ing analysis). 2) All answers must take acco'unt of the whole action involved, Lnc]uding off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirecl Ls we{l as direct, and construction zs well a ooera:ionai h-npacts. 3) 'Potentially Signj.~cant .Lmpact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effete is signiF. z~'qt If there are one or more 'Potentially Sigm~cant Lmpact" entries when the de:e.~"mA'nation is made, required. 4) 'Potentially Sign.i~can: Unless Mitigation incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mi~.igztion measures has reduced an effect from 'Poeentia!ly sigm~cant Lmpac:" to a "Leas than Sig.~jgca~t L-..pac:." The lead agency must describe the miti=_ation roeautos, gd brie~y exolzin how the'.,' red'ace :.~.e effect :o z less than sig.~j~cant level (mkigadon me~ures from Setzion ?~;LI. "Earlier Analyses." mav be crcs.~- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, putsurer to the tiering, progra'n E'~, or other CEQA process. effect h~ been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Set:ion 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier gaiys~s are discussed in Section X"v'II at the end of the checFdist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraoed to incorporate into the checkiisz references to information sourc~ for notentizi Lm.:aac;s (e.g. ge~ral ptw.$, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document shouid. where anoropriate, include a reference '~o the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample ouestion below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals connected should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different on=. S.~'5'LE QD'EST!ON: Signl,'~can; · issues (and suppc~mg ~'~ormnfion Soure:s): L~pac Would t-h~- proposal resuk in potential impace Lnvob'ing: Landsiid:s or ~uds;ddes? (1, 6) (Ar-~ched source lisa exoiah:~ that 1 is the gener~i oi. an, v_nd 6 is a USGS topo map. Tvis answer would probably not need ~rther explanation. Issu~ (and Supporting Infornncion Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLAA~N~NG. Would the proposal: a) Comqict with general plan designation [] [] [] [] or zoning? (source #(s): ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plims [] [] [] [] - or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the [] [] [] [] vicinin,,? ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] ' []. (e.g. impacts to soils or faglands, or irapacts from incompatible land uses)7 ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement. t"'I [] [] [] of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ( ) II. POPULATION A~ND HOUSihNG. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projection.s? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly '(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major izirastrucmre)7 ( c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Does the project have impacts that are [] individually limited, but cu,mulatively considerable? CCumularively 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) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XUvTi. EA.R,LItR 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 dezlaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify, the following on attached shee~: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checi~_list were within the scooe of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable' legal standardi, and state whethe~ such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated;" describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sire-specific condition~ for the project. : Authorit'}': Public Resources Code Sections 21085 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code S~ctioas 21080(c), 2!080.1.2i080.3. 21082.h 21083, 21083-5. 21095. 2109= 21151; 5uadsrrorn v. County of Mendocino. 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leono,fly, 3{onter~' Board of Supervisors, 222 Cat. App. 3d 1337 (1990). I-!3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC I-IE-~qlNG RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF ThE CrrY'S CONSOl.mATED PLAN (HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS) TH.E CITY WANTS YOUR INPUT: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on October 19, 1994, at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, COuncil Chamber, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The City Couhcil will take public testimony for the purpose of obtaining the views of citzen~ public agencies, and other interested parties, on the housing and community development needs, (including non-housing needs), for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This iS the first step in preparation of a Consolidated Plan. Of primary concern will be the n~ls of low and very low income individuals and families, as well as the needs of the homeless, iow income areas; and the elimination of slum and blight conditions. The Consolidated Plan is a five-year planning document which will address the use of Federal grant/enti~lement funds (such as Community Development Block Gr~.t ~funds) for the .purpose of meeting the goals of providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities for those in need in our community. The Consolidated Plan replaces ~the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and the Final Statement, and will serve as the City's annual application to the Depa~'~ent of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Once community needs have been determined, a five-year strategy will then be developed that~ based on expected resources, will deten~ne the types of activities the City will undertake to address the Plan' s goals. These activities may include: low-income housing rehabilitation, street improvements. park development, public facility improvements, historic preservation,. as well as public services, such as homeless assistance, fair housing counseling, battered spouses? and youth activities. An annual action plan will be prepared to determine specific use of funds as well as to provide a basis for assessing performance. This will be the first of two required public hearings to:be held during the,process. The second will be held after the draft on the Plan has been completed. This fffst meeting is intended as an information gathering session for citizens to identify community needs. YOU ARE INVITED: The City requests that all interested persons attend the meeting m give general input, or you may call Cindy Norris, Associate Planner/CDBG Coordinator, in the Planning Division at (909) 989-1861, or visit our offices located at !10500 Civic Center Drive. A copy of identified target area maps is available in the Planning Division.. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require sllcial assistance~to participate in this meeting, please call Cindy Norris at (909) 989-1861. Please call 48 hours prior to the meeting with any special requirements to ensure that the City wffi be able to mak reasonable arrangements. Rancho Cucamonga City Cottea CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i ' . MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 1995 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner~_~ SUBJECT: DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS The following projects were completed during the 1994 calendar year; therefore, may be considered for the 1994 Awards for Design Excellence program. Please review the list.and let staff know which ones you feel should be nominated for this years program. Due to reduced staffing in the Planning Division, and increased workload, the Design Awards program will be delayed this year, probably until late summer. The call to the public for nominations has not gone out yet. Best Buy (NWC Foothill & Elm) Discovery Zone (NEC Foothill & Haven) Men's Wearhouse (NEC Foothill & Haven) Weinerschnitzel (Foothill Marketplace) Food 4 Less ) Petsmart ) Michaels ) Office Depot ) ~ Sports Chalet ) r Circuit City ) / 72, P; tion'.. ools?-----~v~ ~ Summit Middle School (NEC Summit & East) Ruth Musser Middle School (E/s T.V. Parkway, N/o Church) Terra Vista Elementary (NEC T.V. Parkway & Mtn. View Drive) rata e Elemen_ta.,y (SEC V~ctona Park Lane & Kenyon Way) Centex Homes Tract 13280 (N/s Base Line, E/o Milliken) Your nominations should be submitted to Brad Buller or myself no later than March 22, 1995. H~Wt~DSWpO Commissioner Melcher suggested that the Commission consider establishing new eligibility criteria for the Awards for Design Excellence Program that would require the project to have been processed through the City's review n;u uju Jhe commission · ' ' that Commissioner Melcher's suggestion PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -2- Planning Commission Public Testimony COMPLAINT FORM i 253-ABLD-7.48-A [] Please circle the appropriate entries Ill. Chairman/Madame Chair,, Members of the Commission: Hello, I'm [your name] of the [local place name] __a__ Country Club Palm(s) Association Creek Ranch(o) Coalition Estates Ridge Committee Heights/Highlands Springs Community Hills/Mountains Valley [name] District Lake(s) View/Vista Neighborhood N/S/ENV Village/ViIlas Organization Our chief concern is the proposed Child/Adult Entertainment Apartments/Tract Day Care Center Communications Tower Home for Handicapped Senior Center Liquor Store Homeless Shelter Shopping Center Park/School Low-Income Housing YOuth Center I have a petition here from the of the [above group]. Members Equestrian Owners Concerned Citizens Residents Home/Property Owners Concerned Parents "Friends" RV/ATV Owners Concerned Voters And while we sympathize with the need for such facilities, we feel our area is' not the place for it because of Aesthetics Endangered Plants/Animals Open Space/Steep Slopes Child/Senior Safety Fire/Flood/Earthquake Traffic/Parking Cultural Resources Noise/Glare/Air Pollution Wetlands/Desert In addition, we really hate Bad Roads Children/Old People Bureaucrats Beer &Liquor Minorities Realtors Construction Poor/Rich People Politicians Taxes Renters Lawyers Revised from "The Daily Plan-it" section of the Kansas Chapter APA PL4NNING Newsletter The Memo December 1994/January 1995