Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-238 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 01-238 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS. 1. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in conformance with the requirements of State Law, adopted a complete General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan on April 6, 1981, by the approval of Resolution No. 81-40. 2. After various amendments and partial updates, the City commenced the process of preparing a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 1999. The process of updating the General Plan has involved various departments of the City and included numerous meetings of a General Plan Task Force, which was comprised of representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and community members. As a result of that process, a draft General Plan Update has now been completed. 3. An Initial Study was prepared for the General Plan Update (the "project") pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines by the Planning Department staff with the assistance of the City's environmental consultant, Michael Brandman Associates. The Initial Study, which was completed on May 22, 2000, identified that there was substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on several environmental resources and governmental services. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 and 15081, a decision was made to prepare an EIR for the project. 4. On May 22, 2000, a Notice of Preparation was prepared and sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California and to other responsible agencies. The review period on the Notice of Preparation closed on July 7, 2000. 5. On June 22, 2001, the Draft EIR was completed and made available for public review. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, the City prepared a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR, which was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research. Public Notice of Availability of the EIR and of the comment period was provided pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092 and a copy of the Notice was posted in the office of the County Clerk in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.3. The EIR was circulated to interested agencies between June 22, 2001, and August 6, 2001, for a 45-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. Comments were received and responses prepared and incorporated into the EIR. A copy of the final EIR is on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Resolution No. 01-238 Page 2 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 6. On September 12, and continued to September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed City initiated public hearing on the General Plan Update and Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in accordance with the requirements Government Code Section 65355 and 65090. 7. On September 19, and continued to October 3, 2001, and then to October 17, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed City initiated public hearing on the General Plan Update and Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in accordance with the requirements Government Code Section 65355 and 65090. 8. The Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this resolution consists of that draft document dated June, 2001, entitled Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2000061027), written comments on that draft report, and written responses thereto submitted by the staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, an Addendum to the EIR attached as Exhibit "A" of the September 12, 2001, staff report of this item, and written testimony presented by City staff and the City's consultant during the hearings on the recommended adoption of said General Plan Update insofar that the testimony pertained to environmental matters. Hereinafter, the above- mentioned documents will be referred to as "the Final EIR." 9. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, prior to making its recommendations on the General Plan Update, and the City Council finds, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20192.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the Final EIR has been independently analyzed by City staff and the City Council, and that the Final EIR represents and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council with respect to the project. Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 3 of 117 2. The additional information provided in the staff report accompanying the EIR, the Addendum to the EIR, and Response to Comments provided in Exhibit "A" to the staff report, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the above-mentioned hearing does not represent significant new information so as to require re-circulation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20192.1. 3. Based on all of the findings, evidence, and information presented, the City Council finds, pursuant to Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines, that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, and that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20192.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the Final EIR has been independently analyzed by the City Council and represents and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council with respect to the project. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17`h day of October 2001. AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None illia7Ale , Mayo r ATTEST: 4t4 , — { &CZi,lz Debra J. Adams, MC, City Clerk Resolution No. 01-238 Page 4 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 17`h day of October 2001. Executed this 18`n day of October 2001, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ,6, lh'o 0 D bra J. Adam MC, City Clerk Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 5 of 117 i i RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Addendum: I . Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse 2000061027) i City of Rancho Cucamonga September 2001 Michael Brendman A.,s. ce Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 6 of 117 I ADDENDUM: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE State Clearinghouse No.2000061027 Prepared for: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730 Contact:Larry Henderson,Principal Planner _I Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 15901 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 200 Tustin,California 92780 (714)258-8100 Contact:Michael E.Houlihan,AICP,Manager of Environmental Services i ❑Wj September 5,2001 I I Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 7 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paee 1 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1 2 LIST OF COMNIENTORS..............................................................................................2 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS......................................................................................3 HAClirnt(PN-N)MUM20300I3\Rancho RTC830.ac Table of Contents Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 8 of 117 i Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update was circulated for public review and comment beginning on June 22, 2001 and ending on August 6, 2001.As required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),this addendum responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. As required by Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the final FIR mus[ respond to comments regarding significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. This addendum provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of the issue,explaining the EIR analysis, supporting EIR conclusions, or providing new information or corrections,as appropriate.This addendum, however, need not, and should not,attempt to respond to comments about the merits of the project. This addendum is organized as follows: Section 1 This section provides a discussion of the relationship of this document with the Draft EIR.It also discusses the structure of this document. Section 2 This section lists the agencies/individuals that commented on the contents of the Draft EIR. Section 3 This section includes the comments and the responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR. This addendum(Responses to Comments Document)is part of the Final EIR,which includes the Draft EIR and the technical appendices.These documents,and other information contained in the environmental record constitute the Final EIR for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update. I 0I HAREDU wcho RTC830.dm I Introduction Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 9 of 117 i Rancho Cucamonga Gmera!Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR SECTION 2 LIST OF COMMENTORS A list of public agencies,organizations,and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation (A through N). Each comment within each letter has been assigned a numerical designation so that each comment could be crossed-referenced with an individual response. Responses follow each comment letter. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EER A. Karen A. Evans, Assistant Field Supervisor, United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service B. Scott Morgan, Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse, State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research C. Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Specialist IV, Supervisor,California Department of Fish and Game D. Kenneth E. Trott, Environmental Coordinator, California Department of Conservation, Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations E. Robert R.Wirts,Traffic and Transportation,San Bernardino Associated Governments F. Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Planner, Intergovernmental Review, Southern California Association of Governments G. David G. Wodfd, Planning Section, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region H. Laura J. Simonek, Principal Environmental Specialist, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California L Barrett Kehl,General Manager,Chino Basin Water Conservation District J. Randy Scott,Division Chief,Advance Planning Division K. James A.Ragsdale,Principal Planner,City of Ontario L. Jorge Aspa.Technical Supervisor,Southern California Gas Company M. Frank Schiavone,Resident N. Leeona Klippstein,Cofounder,Executive Director,Spirit of the Sage Council I oesxnaeDa.ho arce30 doo '1 List ofCommentors Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 10 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft E!R SECTION 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS f _r 0%SH D@m b.RTC830.do Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 11 of 117 _.__. ......... .....,-.. •• 000E 08i08i01 18:01 FAX 790 401 8024._ L'S FISH AND WILDLIFE United States Department of the Interior FLSB AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services cadsbadField Off= 2730 Laker Avm eWar Carlsbad.Cdft= hi Response Reply Ta FWS-SB-2089.1 AUG 6 20M Gvty Henderson,principal Planner City of Rancho Cocamooga,planning Deputinent 10500 Civic Center Drive ltaocho swam,-9 California 91730 Re: Draft Environmental Isopact Repoli,City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update (General plan Ammcbnmt 99.07),Sen Banatdino CountY,Callfomia Dear Mr.Hrndetson: . We have reviewed the draft Favimamanel Impact Report Cm)for the City of Rancho Cuetunooga's(City)ganand plan update(2070 Geriaal Plat). At issue aro poromsdal impacts to the federally endangered San Bert adipo kmgaroo tat(D#"?om S merr(=a perms,"SBKRI, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly(Raphioaudw termlamw abdominalis."Del?"),and southwestern arroyo toad(B,&c Y.threatened" coastal a omia tptatcatcha(P ): tilacdybmica rnlifornica. pnacut ), and FPO60d endangered mountain yallow-kggod flog(Rana mncom). We provide the following comments in keeping with out agency's aaiasim to work with others to conserve,protect,and enhance fink,wildlife,and plants and their habitats fdo the conblildag benefit of the American PeoPle." Mmmaw-we provide comments on public notices issued for a Federal penult or license gaTWing the Nation a waters pursuant to the Clean Water Act We also administer the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended(Act). Section 7 of the Act requites Federal agencies to consult with ma,if it is determined that their actions may affect federally listed spenaes. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the"take"(e.g..ham.harassment,pumit,341tuY. kill)of federally listed wildlife. "Harm"is furthu defined m iachtde habitat modification or degradation where it►'ills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patrons including breeding,feeding,or sheltering. Take incidental to othetwise lawful activiUb Act olized on da section 7(federal consultations)and sxtionl0(incidental take pmnits)of Tae project area includes Rancho Cucamonga and the CitY's spher"f-influence aces. The City's general plan area addresses 24.021 acres in weaern San Bernardino County. The spher- of-influence area encompasses 7.718 acnes within the general plan eros math of the CitY on the lower foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The proposed 2020 General PLOD includes a t prefaced land use plan and alternatives that will change proposed land use and housing deositY designations and designates 1.048 acro for conservation-a new land use designation. i 1 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 12 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 08,08/01 19:02 FAI 760 401 9924 L'S FISH AND WILDLIFE 0003 I Larry Henderson,Principal Planner(FWS-SB-2089.1) 2 Portions of the Biological Resources section of the EM(pages 5.3-12 and 5.3-13)display some mistmdetstetrding regarding the Act and associated Federal regulations. The Act does prohibit take of listed species as described above,but does not mandate any findings of significance for impacts to federally listed species nor to wildlife owve nam:corridors. However,it is our A- I I orulminanding that State guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)do require a finding of significance for any project which would reduce the number or restrict the i range of an endangered,rare,or threatened species(14 CCR✓t15065)_ We believe that buildout i of the 2020 General Plan meets this criteria for a mandatory finding of significance. Many of the proposed mitigation measures are entirely appropriate to assist in the identification � of sensitive biological resourom and to avoid or trummia potential impacts. However,we do ! not agree with the draft Ent's fording that time measures will reduce impacts to biological /r,� resources to a level that is less than significant. This proposed finding is entirely contrary m that 11 suggested by your initial study circulated Ian summer with the Notice of Preparation(NOP). Further,the 1,000 acres of redesignated conservation area proposed for use as famre mitigation (Ames la.b,and c)appear to be conservation Isnds already established as mitigation for other j projects. The 2020 General Plan proposal to designee time areas as conservation win not mcmase existing levels of conservation,and will not be available for funne proje is to use as mitigation. In addition,areae proposed for conservation should be linked as much as possible to A-3 extant conservation areae and other open space uses which may provide setordiny benefits for � wildlife. Lutmepaaing development,even low density and hinside residential development,with conservation meas creates problems for reserve integrity and the ultimate utility of a reserve far conservation. �... We rawmmend that the City designate areas came fly proposed for"very low"residential development north of the Foothill Freeway as"conservation"parcde in keeping with the intent of the Memorandum of Understanding(MOM between Federal and State Resource Agencies and the City of Rancho Cueammp}regrading the development,and implementation of a San BemncSno Valley-Wide Muhiple Spada Habitat Owaavadon Plan(SBVMSHCP). We spaifwAy soler to parcels APN 225-151-11(Etiwanda School District),APN 225-131-9.-10. and-14(City of Rancho Cucamonga)which he south of the existing Etiwanda spreading grounds facilities of the San Bernardino County Flood Control Matrict(District). The inclusion of these parcels into a regional conservation plan to critically important to the continued e-iate„ee and i recovery of the SB%R in the Ftiwanda alluvial fan. Without these parcels,the conservation value of adjacent parcels currently owned by the District,and the value of am approximately 30- ase parcel(APN 225-141-12),now in conservation,will also be apprmiably diminished. A 3 We sought to make this point,in general,in our eadier conespondcnm to you regarding the f'� general plan. In our July 14.2000,letter,we stated that proposed conservation auras should be finked,as much as possible,to a xistiog conservation areae and this interspersing development with eonsavation meas significantly reduces the dtimste utility of such reserves for conservation. Failure to take steps in the planning stages,such as the proposed 2020 General Phe,to identify currently undeveloped auras that abut orcounat to existing preserves amd/or conservation areas ad reduce the development threat by designating them as either"open Spatz' 57 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 13 of 117 CS _.. __KD.,WILDLIFE IA004 FISH ,1 06/06/011 '^� Fy"max 760 3�7 0024 3 Larry 11..de,.,Principal Planner(FWS-SB-7089.1) or"conservation"areas procludes the eventual development of viable habitat conservation and wmplomisea the value of those auras already preserved. to designate areas north of the existing Las Angeles Depatilment of The City is also prop osing .� llside residential." 'Vase areas appear m abut the S�� A-3 Wates and Powe+utility corridor as Iri ti the of animal spores. Bematdtno National Forest. The vegetation,and wnsequen y type zWA alluvial fan areas occupy Forest habitat differ from thou which ctarentlY rPY the f tiw=tl These doweslope areas crates by sippis the downslope of the National Forest boundary• es for which the SBwMSHCP is being paicatcher and numerous other State sensitive spay also be designated as conservation. developed Therefore,we recommend that these areas We appreciate the opportunity to review your CF.QA document,and your offals m avaluste and mitigate the effects the 7070 General Plan on federally listed species_ If yon need any additional information.please contact Doug McPherson of my staff at(760)431-9440. Sincerely, yarnA. Assistant Field Supervisor cc: California Department of F•rsh and(tame(Atm: Jeff Drongeson) t(Atm:handy Scat) County of Sen Bernardino,Land Use SmfPu Public Kea Mme) County of San Beraudino.Department i 6 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 14 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga Genera[Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR A. Karen A. Evans, Assistant Field Supervisor, United States Department of the interior,Fish and Wildlife Service Al. This comment supports the findings in Section 5.3.2 of the Draft EIR. n pages 5.3-13 through 5.3-16 of the Draft EIR are A2. The mitigation measures identified o programmatic measures to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with future ure development in accordance with the General Plan to less thic mitigation an measures tare development is proposed and the applicable program implemented, potential impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant. However,in the event that the City finds that future development could result in potential significant impacts (i.e., biological resources) after the implementation of mitigation documentation in the form of an environmental measures, additional environmental d to comply with the California Environmental impact report will need to be prepare Quality Act. A3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga is currently working with the County on the San Bernardino Valley-Wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.Currently,the Pled is in the preliminary stage of development..The intent of the proposed designated conservation area is to include only those areas that are currently set aside for preservation and conservation. If additional lands outside the proposed conservation designation area are formally approved for preservation/conservation the City's intent is to update its General Plan to include these area.The Draft General Plan has identified a substantial amount of land within the sphere-of-influence area that could be designated conservation in the future.These areas would only become conservation areas after they are formally approved for such a use. It is noted that there are some hillside residential uses planned for the northeastern portion of the Planning Area that is adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF). Impacts associated with residential development within the Planning Area is E1R. Forest habitat occurs within the SBNF area addressed in Section 5 of the Draft which is located outside of the Planning Area.Except for bird species,wildlife associated with forest habitat primarily breeds and forages in forest habitat.Therefore,development occurring within the Planning Area would not significantly affect wildlife associated with forest habitat. I -i -I Responses to Comments s:�arcen.aa Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 15 of 117 STATL OF CALIFORNIA raft Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse �`''�' Steve Nissen Gray Davis DIRECTOR GOVERNOR August 7,2001 Larry Henderson City of RaDcho ClamSu ager 10500 Civic Center Drive RaOcho owmaga,CA 91729 Subject CjM f Raorbo Cra;armr'ga Genera)Plan Update SCH#.- 2000061027 Dar Larry Heodel m - The Sure Cl,�sub®tred Os above numd Draft E11t to selected stab aQmcin foe review. Oo the enclosed Dacl®eot Details Repoli please note that the Clariughouan has listed the state agencies that reviewed your docmrml The¢view period closed on August 63 2001,and the c0nmcm from rise rmpandma agency(id)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is mt in order,pWse � Ctnr ;,m mbately. Please:refer b rethe project's=-Wt state Ckm*ghaDe cmrapondww so that ape may respond prmtpdy Please ma,that Section 21104(c)of the Cdifumia Public Resources Code rotes that "A r,vocusbic OR other public Rgacy shall duly make substaoti ,twmmenftbe�or which a 3 activities involved m a project which are wi16m en am of expertise o —i ferried B. be carried out or approved by the agency. Those wmmms shall be auppora,d by specific dpermmaeoa" There cOuRW Rr m forstatded for use inprcpmmg Your final avrtomsotal dosumcm. ShwAd ym Deed nitre mronnation os clairmo.o of the mcbsed cow,we that yon cmLet the wuRoenung agency duectlY- Tbis letter acknowdedgm that you have wmplied with the State Clcmiogbouve review regsmemau fm dnH - mvimmrcmal doc mens,prnananl m the Califmn s Pnviroom W Quality Act Plast contact the Sate G7atmghouse at(916)415-0617 ifyuu have mY 9'scrulm RS"d'Ag the env rcasuacssal"N'ew Process. Smcerely, Terry Robson Senior Panner,Sate Clemmgbmse p„rlosures cc: Rnources Agcy 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.Or R.CA.GOVICLEA RINGHOUSE,HTML 8 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 16 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft E/R i B. Scott Morgan,Project Analyst,State Clearinghouse,State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research B1. This comment is an acknowledgement of receipt of the Draft EIR and not further response is necessary. i Responses to Comments 5VtanchoRTC827 doc Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 17 of 117 08/06/2001 09:14 9095970067 FISH AND GAPE PAGE 02 STAT 0FCVff MA-TeRESoURCE6mecY dUrnvia aawror DEPARTMENT OF fleN AND GAME FasOam afema-Inland Deserts Region 4775 Bird Farm Road Chino Hills,California 91709 (909)597{043 August 2,2001 Larry Henderson,Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Depaihme. 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Phone: (ON)477-2750 Fam(909)477-2847 Re: Draft Emrirommental ImpaG Repoli(DEIR)for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update SCHO 2000061027 Dear Mr. Henderson: The Caltfomia Department of Fish and Game(Department)appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the Random Cucamonga Gerwal Pian Update with regards to Impacts to biological resources. The City of Randa Cucamonga is located in San Bernardino County and Is surrounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. the City of Upland to the west,the City of Ontario to the south,and the City of Fontana to ft east The General Plan Update Includes the existing City(24,000 acres)as well as a 7,700 acre area to the north of the City in its sphere of influence. The proposed General Plan Update includes the reduction of approximately 162 acres of residential uses and an Increase of 182 acres of nonresldantlal trees within the City,and a reduction of 200 scree of maidential uses and an increase of 200 acres of non-residential uses within the CNys sphere of Influence. The Department is responding as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources[Fish and Gene Code sections 711.7 and 1802 and the California Environmental Quality Ad Guidelines (CEQA)section 153881 and asaResponsible Agency regarding anydisci oneryscions(CEQA Guidelines section 15381). IMPaete to Bkbgkaf Resources I The Depari rientisconcemedaboutimpactstosensitivespeciesandhabitatsthatorxwrwimlin the City and its sphere ofUdlusnoe. The Biological Resouraessecfionofthe DEIRidentified eight spades of plants and 13 species of wildlife that occur within the Plan area and are listed as rare, to Resolution No. 01-238 Page 18 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 00/06/2001 09:14 9095970067 FISH AND GAME PAGE 03 Page 2 DSEIR—Rancho Etiwanda Estates SCHa 19SM2915 threatened, or endangered(Section 15380.CEOA Guidelines). The DEIR also identified four sensitive plant communities(Including Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub), several regionally important wildlife movement corridors, and innpartant sfreamiad and wetland areas. Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is designated bythe Depammentas berythreatened"(State rank S1.1)because of Its rapid decline in the area due to development projects. In addition to these resources,portions of the Plan area occur within designated critical habitat for the federally listed coastal California gnatcatcher(Po/lopfie caWamica cal9omice).are within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Program(NEOSHPP),and are included in the Ontario Recovery Unit for the federally listed Delhi sands flower-loving fly(RapMomides ferminefus abdominalis;'Delhi fiY")• Based on the proposed land use plan (Exhibit 33, DEIR), development is planned within currently undeveloped land adjacent to the San Bernardino National Fared that occurs within the City's sphere of influence. This area contains the majority of the retraining high quality Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat in the Plan area and the majority of henaitive flora and fauna species. The Lead Agency Proposes to redesignate apKax mately 1 AW acres of this open apace area to conservation"to be used for future mridgation"(sectlom 5.3-14,DEIR). The Department would C like to point out that these areas are already serving as mitigation for prior project Impacts and are protected from deveiopmentthrough existing conservation easements(refer to letterfromthe Department of Public Works detect June 30, 2000, Appendix & DEIR). Therefore, the redesignation of Hese areas will not provide additional mitigation for future impacts associated with development under the proposed General Plan. Frxtiherore,although the Lead Agency proposes to designate areas within its sphere of Influence aa. 'Open Spaos", there Is no guarantee that time areas will be conserved as natural open space. The Department finds that development of two areae as'HiIW&Residential•or as golf courses will degrade the natural environment,prevent the effective conaervatlon of these areas(e.g.,within NEOHPP and San Bernardino County Multiples Species Habitat Conservation Plan),Impedewtldlte movement,and will Impact listed and rare species such as the coastal CalMomia gxaftatcher,San Berrand no kangaroo rat (Doodw" norm parvus), and PlurnmWs Mariposa Illy (Cafadoafw lolummerae). The Department is also concerned that lands adjacent to watercourses that contain a bed, bank and channel,have been planned for development Although several of fie watercourses are lined with concrete, It" still serve as important resource areas for migrating Wildlife. Development that occurs immediately adjacent to these waterways may disrupt migrating wildlife C 3 by removing a WWOf habitat needed for M*ctlon,and by irt~easing night lighting,noise,and predation by domestic pefe. The Department Is also concerned about knpacts to the Delhi fly. Although no observation of the Delhi fly have been confirmed within the Plan area.Delhi sand soils,which are essential habitat for the Delhi fly, do occur within the City boundary. Additionally, the San Gabriel Mountains and the floodplain that occur within the City and sphere of influence provide the C-L� source sand for Delhi soils,which are blown into adjacent communities by strong winds that are common in the region(refer to Soils and Geology section 5.1 DEIR). Development that occurs Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 19 of 117 09/06/2001 09:14 9095970067 FISH AND GAh£ PAGE 04 Pape s DEIR—Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update SCHa 2QW1027 on top of Delhi sands soils and the continued mining of these resources will remove the source)C sand for Delhi habitat in adjacent communities. ur The Department finds that the conservation of the above-mentioned resources that occur within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its sphere of influence is importantforthe maintenanoe of the quality of the environment for the people of the State of California(Section 2100, Public ResourowCode). As such,the Department concurs with the Lead Agency's findings that impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species,sensitive natural plant communities, •jurisdiatonal areas' C CJ such as streams and associated habitat(riparianOwetan l and/or aihrvlal fan sage scrub habitat), and regional wildlife movernant corridors are considered significant. The Department also concurs that cumulative impacts be natural communities within the City's sphere of Influence are considered significant under CEOA. However,the Department does not agree with the Lead Agency s findings that cumulative impacts to'vegstaflon,habitats,and wilditte populations existing within the City...is expected to be lase than signMcanP(section 5.3-13, DEIR). The lose of undeveloped Delhi sand soils that occur within the City may preclude the expansion and recovery of the Delhi fy,which is known to occur 3%miles south of the southern City boundary(California Natural Dhrentity,Database 2001). Furthermore, Impacts to DeIN sand solls may result in the boas of source sand that rejuvenates Delhi fly tabilat in adjacent communities. Additionally, developmerht that occurs C(o within and scent to wildlife movement Corridors that bisect the City q.e., Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek,Day Creek,San Sevaine Charnel)may impede access by wildlife to and from the San Gabriel Mountain. The Department finds the above-mertloned impacts to be'eumubatvety, corsideraW as defined In Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Department recommends that the Lead Agency provide appropriate avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures to reduce Impacts to lase than significant Yltlaatfon Attastrros The Departmerd Is concerned aboutthe adequacy of the.,illp on measures proposed in the DEIR. Fourteen mitigation measures for impacts to biological resourose were provided in the DEIR. The Depanment appreciates that the Lead Agency has included measures to limit development into natural areas, protect streams and associated woodland habitat, and recommends oomptancewkh eodstrg regulatoryagency requirements. However.the DepaMhent does not agree that the mitigation measures provided are sufficient to reduce impacts to biological resources to lees than significant The Department recommends the Lead Agency implement the following measures to C-7 reduce/minimize impacts and Incorporate appropriate mitigation identified below to compensate for unavoidable Impacts. I. To conserve the remaining high quality Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub(AFSS)habitat In tre Plan area and to proted sensitive flora and fauna spades,Me currency undeveloped land adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest tat occurs within the City's sphere of innuence: Resolution No. 01-238 Page 20 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 -j0/06/2001 09:14 9095970067 FI91 AND GAF£ PAGE 05 Pats` DEIR-Rancho Cuc4019019a General Plan UDd Ww- SCFfd 2000061027 a. The City shall redesignate the currently undeveloped land adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest as'Natural Undeveloped Open Space'. b. The City shall limit development within and adjacent to the Natural Undeveloped Open Space areas to passive recreation that is compatible with conservation. 2. To conserve AFSS habitat and associated flora and fauna: a. The City should require avoidance of this sensitive habitat type where feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the Lead Agency should incorporate the following mitigation measure in the DEIR to compensate for unavoidable impacts to AFSS habitat i. The Applicant shall oompenaats for unavoidable impacts to AFSS habitat with the preservation of Department-approved suitable in-kind habitat, occupied by the Impacted spades,at a minimum 2:1 replacement-todmpad ratio. 3. To prated and buffer wildlife rntmament corridora,the Lead Agency should incorporate the fallowing mitigation measure In the DEIR to minimize impacts to drainagea0watercourses and associated resources: a. The City shall limit development to include a act beck(100 R.mininwm)from the edge of C- a watercourse or from e>asting riparian habitat if present A buffer conreiating of native landscaping shall be planted along the corridor and/or between the drainages and the development Lighting shall be diaway from watercourses and riparian habitat 4. To provide for the future expansion and recovery of the Delhi fly. a. The City shall identify contiguous or adjacent lands containing Delhi send soils that can be conserved and shall limit development within the identified area. 5. To protect the source send for Delhi habitat In the City and adjacent communities. a. The City shall limit development and mining within the floodplain and San Gabriel Mountains and allow for blowsand to move through the City. B. To promo fie burrowing owl(Athena cunicuferin),a migratory raptor that nests and winters in ground burrows. - a. The City shall require that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for burrowing owl following the 1093 Burrowing Owl Consortium protocol guidelines prior to ground disturbing activities. Survey protocols can be obtained from the Department. If occupied !3 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 21 of 117 00/06/2001 09:14 9095970067 . .. FISH AND GAME PAGE 06 Page 5 DEIR-Rancho CueamonW General Plan Update sciv z000061027 burrows are found the project site,the following mitigation measures need to be included in the DEIR to minimize Impacts to burrowing owl: I. Occupied burrows shell not be disturbed during the nesting season(February 1 through August 31)unless a qualified biologistapproved by the D"Srtmentvedfies through non-Invasive methods that either.(1)the adult birds have not begun agg- laying and incubation;or(2)the juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If a biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions,then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet C-7 of the burrowing owls nest during the breeding ses—n to avoid abandonment of the young. H. if destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable. ion mathod according to t nesting,the applicant shall implement one-way door Depaitment protocols,than collapse their burrow. As mftigadon for the permanent Impact:to burrowing ant foraging and burrow habitat at the project site,the applicant shag acquire and pemmnently protect a mi nirman of 6.5 aces of foraging h�itet per pair or unpaired resident bird impacted by the P101MI• Thank you for this opportunity to comment• Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Yvonne C.Moore,Environmental Specialist III, at(We)608-2413. i Sincerely, J� 4"� Jeff Drongesen Environmental Specialist IV,Supervisor Habitat Conservation-Southwest Region 6 cc: Jeff Newman,USFWS,Carlsbad State Clearinghouse iy Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 22 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR C. Jeff Drongesen,Environmental Specialist IV,Supervisor,California Department of Fish and Game Cl. This comment is noted. The designated conservation areas include areas that have been set aside for preservation as part of mitigation. Therefore, the third paragraph on page 5.3-14 of the Draft EIR is revised to read as follows: Delete: "The City of Rancho Cucamonga will redesignate approximately 1,000 acres of open space to a conservation use area in the Planning Area,potentially to be used for future mitigation." Add: "The City of Rancho Cucamonga will redesignate approximately 1,000 acres of open space to a conservation use area in the Planning Area. The City will also support preservation of lands having biological significance, especially the alluvial fan sage scrub and riparian areas and their associated woodland vegetation,and critical habitats." C2. This comment regarding the Open Space designation is noted. Limited residential and golf course uses as well as non-urban uses are permitted within the City's Open Space designation. Development that occurs within the Open Space designations located in the sphere-of-influence could result in adverse impacts to biological resources as identified in Section 5.3.2 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures are recommended in Section 5.3.4 of the Draft EIR to reduce potential significant impacts associated with future development that is implemented in accordance with the General Plan. C3. This comment regarding the designation of urban uses adjacent to watercourses is noted. Potential impacts to these jurisdictional areas are discussed in Section 5.3.2 of the Draft EIR. C4. This comment regarding development and mining of Delhi sands soils is noted. Page 5.3- 12 of the Draft ETR states that future development could affect the federally-listed endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly. Mitigation measure BR-14 identifies that individual developments that could potentially impact threatened or endangered species (i.e., the federally-listed endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly) as well as the occupied habitat would need to consult with appropriate regulatory agencies. C5. This comment concurs with the findings in the Draft EIR. No additional response is necessary. ! C6. As stated in Response to Comment C4, a mitigation measure is provided to reduce impacts on the federally-listed endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly. Therefore, development that may affect Delhi sand soils that are occupied by this species will need to implement the mitigation measure. Areas of Delhi sand soils that are not occupied by the Delhi sands flower-loving fly could be identified by future projects as potential mitigation areas;however,at this time,the City's intent is to ensure the habitat areas that are occupied by the federally-listed species are adequately mitigated. Furthermore, impacts on wildlife corridors from future development may also be significant as identified on page 5.3-13 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measure BR-2 is provided to reduce impacts to riparian corridors. S.v.h.RTC827 I C Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Page 23 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR C7. This comment regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures to reduce impacts on biological resources is noted.The City believes that the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.3.4 of the Draft EIR as well as the modified mitigation measure BR-3 on page 5.3-13 of the Draft EIR(see Response to Comment Cl)would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. 5:Q1e RTc927 d« 16 Responses to Comments II Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 24 of 117 Aug-06-01 04:16P St Mining & Geology Board 1-916-445-0738 P-01 State of California The Resources Agency MEMORANDUM To: Project Coordinator Date: August 6,2001 Resource Mr. Larry Henderson City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9172 From: Department of Conservation Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—SCH 0200007027 The California Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection(Division)has reviewed the DEIR for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Division administers statewide agricultural land conservation programs,including the California Land Conservation(Williamson)Act,and has reviewed the subject DEIR with respect to potential project impacts on agricultural land resources. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The project is the update of the CiVs general plan. The City is located in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County. The planning area encompasses all of the land within the boundaries of the City and its sphere-of-influence. The total acreage of the City is 24,000 acres. The additional area within the sphere-of-influence is 7,700 awes. Agricultural Land Impacts and Mitigation The DEIR states that the majority of farmland within the planning area will be converted to urban uses. This represents approximately 1,210 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The loss of this farmland is considered by the DEIR to be a significant impact. In addition,the DEIR states that incremental development under the plan could �_ result in considerable cumulative impacts. Although specific mitigation strategy for the conversion of farmland is not provided in detail,the DEIR appears to reference a more systematic, general plan policy-level approach to mitigation. On page IV-57(management of Open Space/Sensitive Lands), the Draft General Plan states, "[t)he dominant direction Resolution No. 01-238 Page 25 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Aug-05-01 04.16P St Mining & Geolo y Board 1-916-445-0738 P.02 Project Coordinator and Mr. Larry Henderson August 6, 2001 Page 2 continued in this Plan is to sustain the long-term viability of these rare resources by setting aside land where that is feasible and applying sensitive development practices where acquisition is not possible." On page 5.1-18,in addressing Mitigation Measures, the DER states."The City should evaluate the conservation of economically viable agricultural operations that remain within the Planning Area on lands that are designated by the State as important farmland" Although we agree with the approach seemingly proposed(i.e.,mitigation nested in high-level and programmatic policies of the County's general plan)we recommend that the final EIR discuss the specific mitigation measures that will be used to compensate for the loss of agricultural resources. The Department has compiled an annotated listing of approximately thirty"conservation tools'that have been used to conserve,or mitigate project impacts on agricultural land,many of them simply adapted versions of relatively routine planning and zoning practices. This compilation report may be useful to the development of specific mitigation measures and can be requested from the Department at the address or phone number listed below. Among D, the"tools"listed are: • Increasing home density or clustering residential units to allow a greater portion of the development site to remain in agricultural production. • Implementing a right-to-farm ordinance to protect continuing farming operations from the frivolous nuisance complaints of urban neighbors. • Investing in the remaining agricultural land in the project area through a mitigation bank that invest&in agricultural infrastructure,water supplies,marketing and other programs thatsupport commercially viable agricultural enterprises. • Establishing buRers such as setbacks,berms,greenbelts,and open space areas to separate farmland from incompatible urban uses. • Protecting nearby farmland from premature conversion by encouraging and providing incentives for landowner participation in the less than permanent long-term restrictions on use such as 20-year Farmland Security Zone(FSZ)contracts or 10- year Williamson Act contracts(Government Code Sections 51296 et seq. and 51200 at seq.,respev9wely). The use of these latter tools,Williamson Act and FSZ contacts,to protect farmland beyond the City's sphere-of-influence in cooperation with the County and Local Agency Formation Commission, may be a useful mitigation in that lt prevents the premature loss of agricultural resources. Thus,these tools could provide back-up support for the phasing of growth within the context of the general plan while encouraging the interim economic use of the land for agriculture. 18 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 26 of 117 Aug-06-01 04. 17P St Mining & Geology Board 1-916-445-0738 P.03 Project Coordinator and Mr. Larry Henderson August 6, 2001 Page 3 However,to address the direct,cumulative and growth-induced losses of agricultural land,we recommend for your consideration a program of agricultural land conservation easements. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines define mitigation to include measures that compensate for the impact by providing substitute resources or environments'(Section 15370(e)). Also, CEQA requires consideration of feasible mitigation measures that will lessen impacts,whether or not the impacts are considered unavoidable. We advise that this includes the application of agricultural land conservation easements to protect agricultural land of at least equal quality and quantity as that converted,the ratio of compensation depending on the quality of land converted and the degree that the project has growth-inducing impacts on other agricultural lands. The rate of compensation could be determined through the adaptation and use of the Department's Land Evaluation and Site Assessment((-ESA) model. This model was designed to determine the significance of agricultural land conversion,but could be adapted for use in determining level of mitigation; i.e.,the higher the LSSA value,the higher the ratio of acreage of land protected by easements to that converted by a project. D- 1 We recommend the use of agricultural land conservation easements because, while it does not result in the replacement of the lost resource,the heightened protection of remaining agricultural land lessens the impact of the land resource converted. This is particularly true with respect to cumulative impacts,where easement protection can lessen the extent of the remaining resource that can be adversely impacted by future projects. Also,if strategically used,easements can help to avoid adverse growtW nducing impacts on nearby agricultural lands intended for long-term conservation. Indeed,the number of cities and counties now using agricultural conservation easements to address these impacts is growing, including the Cities of Woodland and Davis in Yolo County, cities in Monterey County, Livermore in Alameda County, and others. ' Because agricultural land is typically a regional,if not statewide,environmental i, and economic resource,the ideal use of conservation easements will encompass a regional, rather than strictly local, approach. Therefore,we recommend that if conservation easements are employed as mitigation, bre search for easement acreage be part of a regional or county collaborative effort. Easement mitigation can be employed in at least two ways. Purchases can be made directly, as a contingency of approval for the project. Mitigation can also occur independent of project timing through easement purchases that are part of a more comprehensive strategy of acquisition. This alternative requires payment of mitigation fees to a local, regional or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes i I Resolution No. 01-238 Page 27 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Aug-06-01 04.17P St Mining & Geology Board 1-916-445-073B P.04 Project Coordinator and Mr. Larry Henderson August 5,2001 Page 4 the purchase, holding and maintenance of agricultural land conservation easements. These organizations include local land trusts and conservancies and,at the state level, the California Farmland Conservancy Program(CFCP). The CFCP is authorized to accept funds for the subsequent lead agency-directed purchase(via grants to local organizations)of agricultural land conservation easements. Information on the CFCP,and conservation easements generally,as well as Farmland Security Zone and Williamson Act contracts, is available on the Department's website,or by contacting the Department at the address and phone number listed below. The Deparhnent's website address is: D— http:/Avww.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/CFCPfindox.htm As we've alluded,we believe that the most effective approach to farmland conservation and impact mitigation is one that is integrated with general plan policies. For example,the measures suggested above could be most effectively applied as part of a comprehensive agricultural land conservation element in the City and County's general plan. Mitigation policies could then be applied systematically towards larger cdywide or regional goals of agricultural land conservation. Within the context of a general plan mitigation strategy,other measures could be considered,such as the use of transfer of development credits, mitigation banking,and economic incentives for continuing agricultural uses,along with the other mitigation measure listed previously. Williamson Act The Department recommends that the final EIR include discussion regarding the development of Williamson Act land. If lands under Williamson Act or FSZ contracts, or non-contracted lands within agricultural preserves', exist on or adjacent to a project area,the Department recommends that the final EIR address the following information: • A map detailing the location of agricultural preserves and contracted land within each preserve. The final EIR should also tabulate the number of Williamson Act and FSZ same,according to land type(e.g.,prime or non-prime agricultural land)that could be impacted directly or indirectly by the project. ' An agriaYtural preserve is a zone authorized by the wllliamson Act and established by the local government,to designate land quail ad to be placed under contract. All contracted lands must reside within an agricultural preserve unless the aRected contract is undergoing contract nonrenewal. Preserves are also intended to create a setting for contract-protected lands that Is conducive to continuing agricultural use. zo Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 28 of 117 Au9-06-01 04:1eP St Mi.ing & Geology Board 1-915-445-0738 P.05 Project Coordinator and Mr. Larry Henderson August8, 2001 Page 5 • A discussion of Williamson Act and FSZ contracts that may be terminated in order to accommodate the project. The final EIR should discuss the growth-inducing impacts that termination of contracts would have on nearby properties also under contract. (We consider such impacts growth-inducing in the sense that the removal of contract protection not only lifts a barrier to development, but results in higher property taxes,an incentive to shift to a more intensive land use, such as urban development.) As a general rule, land can be withdrawn from Williamson Act contract only through the nine-year nonrenewal process. Immediate termination via cancellation is reserved for"extraordinary", unforeseen situations(See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward(1981)28 Cal.3d 840, 852-855). Furthermore, it has been held that "cancellation is inconsistent with the purposes of the(Williamson)act if the objectives to be served by cancellation should have been predicted and served by nonrenewal at an earlier time, or if such objectives can be served by nonrenewal now"(Sierra Club v. City of Hayward). If cancellation is proposed, please be aware that new notification requirements are effective January 1, 2001 (AB 1944,Government Code Section 51284.1). Notification must be submitted to the Department prior to a board or council's consideration of a proposal for tentative cancellation' Likewise,the board or council must consider the Department's comments prior to making a decision on the proposal. Required findings must be made by the board or council in order to approve tentative cancellation. Cancellation provisions involving FSZ contracts 'include additional restrictions. • If land under contract or non-contracted land within an agricultural preserve, is considered for acquisition by a public agency,the agency must submit notice to the Department as soon as the acquisition is considered, but certainly prior to the aoquisition dsetf. In addition,specific findings are required of the agency. Finally, j the agency must consider the Department's comments prior to a determination to proceed with the acquisition. Again, notification must be made separately from CEGA documentation,pursuant to Government Code Sections 51290-51292. If land under contract is annexed,the City must succeed to the rights,duties,and powers of administering the contract, unless conditions specified In Government Code Sections 51243 and 51243.5 apply. Additional conditions apply to FSZ i ' The notice should be mailed to Darryl Young.Director,De partnent of Conservator,Go Division of Land Resource Protection,801 K Sheet MS 13-71,Sacramento,California(95914-3528). i z � Resolution No. 01-238 Page 29 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Aug-06-01 04:18P St Mining S Geology Board 1-916-445-0738 P-06 Project Coordinator and Mr. Larry Henderson August 6, 2001 Page 6 contracted lands. The final EIR should discuss annexation of contracted lands and its succession to the contract. • If any part of the site is to continue under contract,or remain within an agricultural preserve after project completion,the final EIR should discuss the proposed uses for those lands. Uses of contracted and preserve land must meet compatibility standards identified in Government Code Sections 51238-51238.3 and 51296.7. �- I Otherwise,contract termination(see paragraph above)must occur prior to the initiation of the land use, or the preserve must be disestablished.The uses of non- contracted agricultural preserve land must be restricted by zoning or other means so as not to be incompatible with the agricultural use of contracted land within the preserve(Government Code Section 51230). Therefore,the final EIR should also discuss any proposed general plan designation or zoning within agricultural preserves affected by the project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. If you have questions on our comments or require technical assistance or information on agricultural land conservation issues please contact the Division at 801 K Street,MS 13-71, Sacramento, California(95814);or, phone(916)324-0850. You may also call me at (916)445-8733. Kenneth E. Trott Environmental Coordinator cc: Erik Vnk,Assistant Director Division of Land Resource Protection zz Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 30 of 117 I , Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft E/R D. Kenneth E. Trott, Environmental Coordinator, California Department of Conservation,Once of Governmental and Environmental Relations DI. Page 5.1-14 of the Draft EtR states that development of the General Plan could result in the loss of approximately 1,210 acres of farmland. Mitigation measure SG-22 on page 5.1-18 of the Draft General Plan states that the City would evaluate the potential to conserve agricultural operations. This conservation would be based on economic viability.This mitigation measure is a programmatic measure to reduce potential impacts on farmlands. Specific measures to reduce potential impacts on famdands, if available, would be identified as individual projects are implemented. I i S 6.Rrce27 a3 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 31 of 117 Thursday bu9ust 2 1901 1:15p -- Fran 19M772847' -- Page 2 SENT 8Y: N CUCAMONGA COM DELI; R. 2- 1 1:03PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5558; 02/2 Sail llevllartfilm Associated (�llv c'I'i16Elc-l))- .LIII &•rmrnLbo Cial.nr lrartspnnuliuu Curmnisriwl r ";OAL .Cm /rrrrran6nu Colvin Tmalpurmlinn Audurnn Sm Nrvmu.G...• Cmuur Ctmgemmi , M..agrnew 4,Crnn .k,A r,im,..risV jor r......IY Gmrrgrnl irl ®..Io.r...,rs 472 Nnrth Arnrrhewl Avrnu, San Dorm Nino,Cuhliu nia 92401-1121 I (901)HM-8276 1'AS: CNill 8854a)-,' r 111h :I.700 %r. I are•I Icluleaon I`rincip:d l'I:unlr:r h�FI C•ilc of Rancho Cucau bIga ... ,.� 10W Civic Center Chive Rancho Cucm ionp.CA 91730 - �NN�Nr RE: General Plat l Ipdaic Drell I twirnarnentrd Impact Repnrl 0'ar mf- I lendersmr I hank you (irr the oppornumv to review and colnmenl ori the aMwe referenced I?IR dated .lune _'00I,and to meet with you on July 25.2(X)1 regarding the tratlk study hound in Appendix 11. We have carefully, compared the traffic volumes generated by the SH)of the currently ndopled Uvocrul Plan(See Table 3-1)to Hurt of the 3021) with preferred GP Lund Ilse used in the report (See lsble 3-4)and find the difference mvcis the thresimild for the preparation ora CMI'l]A. E — I I-he IIA will need lo use SCAG's 2020 model 8IC1) hvxausc of the large ditierence in clnplovnicnt (1113-00) SCAG vs. 166,70X1 City). 'Ibis disparity in employment results 61 adJitiomtl daily irAllic volumes of nppmsimatcly i4f1,(NIII. �houlJ you terve:my yucslions, please elavact ae at(91)9)X84-827(when convenient. Sincerely J. NolieM1 K. VPiris,1'.I.. /Prattle and fransrwxtation l'mr�ry.bar bulb.,fLrr.nr.'.Nr l'Ilrru'lulr.Clnu...(Irina nd6.GJnn,F•w.mu,..U.,xul L++.y..IlrgeaL..HrALxur.l.Leu:1....tr, VI.. o... N."till, u.n.•.e•. All m.i..r'n.r•rumx.rn. nrvflnm/s.Nirdu•. .%ltrr ernx.rd:m.. T..... .Ad, l:pbxxl. 181.....!!, /.• n/AppG I'q/Int rw... runar (oo,.... .J.6nr n..xrvl:.... Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 32 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR E. Robert R. Wirts, Traffic and Transportation, San Bernardino Associated Governments El. It is noted that there is a disparity in employment figures between the SCAG model and the City's projection. This disparity occurs because the SCAG model represents employment projections through the year 2020 while the City's projection represents total employment after full buildout of the City. Full buildout of the General Plan is expected to occur after the year 2020. It is unknown when full buildout would occur after the year 2020 because development trends after the year 2020 are uncertain. The analysis in the EIR used the City's projections to adequately analyze future potential impacts resulting from full buildout of the City's General Plan. This analysis of full buildout is consistent with the CEQA analysis requirements. As a member of the San Bernardino Associated Governments(SANBAG), the City and SANBAG established development projections for the year 2020. Through the development of the updated General Plan,the City has not modified the projections for the year 2020. The City expects that development up to the year 2020 would be consistent with the current projections for the year 2020 that have been established for the City. It is noted that Table 3-1 in the traffic study(Appendix B of the Draft EIR)has different traffic volumes compared to Table 34 in the traffic study. Table 34 was provided for information purposes to show what the projections would be for the total of all traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that lie totally or partially within the City and its sphere of influence. Accordingly, it shows a greater level of buildout than for the more limited Planning Area. Table 3-4 does not conflict with Table 3-1; it simply reflects the additional TAZ areas that extend outside of the General Plan project area. s.�.h.RTCe27 d. Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 33 of 117 Thursday August 2, 1901 3:45pm Fran /9094772&47' -- Page 2 SENT By: R CUCAMONGA CON DEV; 8- 2- 1 3:32PMp 9094772847 => 714 250 5556; M2 i r'llt Of F:AN:HII )V V/I II YN/F,:IIFXU July 21,2001 1ANNINU y., Mr.Lary Hendcnsdl.AICP Principnl Planner Cay of Rancho Cucan uvga Community Developncra Dcparluml ASSOCIATION of 10500 Civic Center Drive GOVERNMENTS Rancho CuonhOnga,CA 91729 Alai.OWKe RE: Cormtents on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of st' ,4 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update-SCAG No.120010157 nL fYYn Dear Mr.Flendersar Iv.a,Avlv,,la4lo,:u: Thank you for subnihing the Draft Enviromrerdal btlpacl Report for the City of Rancho Cucanneoga General Plan Update to SCAG for review and comment. As areavade clearinghouse for regionally significant projects. SLAG reviews the ,,,,,n.,,�:,,, consistency of local plans,projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based en SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to slate and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by )hese reviews is inlended to AsrjS1 frral agw.rciet ant peniend Sponsors In lake oclinns that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies .... . .---. If you have any rprrsliors regarding the attached comments,please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. ...... �NKerefY.. If .. M. .AICP v• Y• 40trpl� .... . .:__ "... _ Indengovemmental Review 'D Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 34 of 117 Thursday August 2 1901 3:45pn -- Fran 190%772847' -- Page 3 SENT By: R CUCAMONGA COY DEV; B- 2- 1 3:33PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5558; 03 July 27.2001 Mr.L..A y Henderrghn Page 2 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SCAG NO-1 20010357 i PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project consists of a Comprehensive General Plan Update for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. The proposed Project involves the planning of 24,000 acres of incorporated lands and an additional 7,700 acres of within the sphere of influence. INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management (adopted June 1994), Regional Transportation Plan (adopted April 2001), Air Quality (adopted October 1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality (adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governmerds ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans tinder CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letter. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) constitutes the region's Transportation Plan. The RTP policies are incorporated into the RCPG. ��I I Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation,Water Resources. Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. These chapters address important issues facing the region and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or polices required of local govemment. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG stat comments regarding the consistency of the Project with those policies. Resolution No. 01-238 Page 35 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 I Thursday August 2, 1901 3:45ps -- Fram 19094 M84P -- Page 4 SENT BY: B CUCAMONOA COM DEV; B. 2- 1 3:33PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5550; 94 July 27,2001 Mr Larry Henderson Page 3 SUMMARY OF SCAG STAFF COMMENTS 1. The Draft EIR does not addresses the relationship of the proposed project to applicable regional plans as required by Section 15125 [d] of Guidelines for ImplementadOn of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The Final EIR should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, utilizing commentary from the following detailed SCAG staff comments. The response should also discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional plans. We suggest that you identify the specific policies, by policy number, with a discussion of consistency or support with each policy. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update. F_I Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Corwacil and that reflect iocal plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in allphases of mWlementabon and review. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR does not utilize SCAG's 2001 RTP Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) subregion and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These forecasts follow: SAM13AG Subregional Forecasts 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Population 1,743,438 1,855,434 2,031,708 2,238,937 20466,564 Households 543.171 582,536 640,917 708,521 789,378 Employment 322,239 351,014 380,765 398,340 414,421 zO Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 36 of 117 Thursday Auy,st 2, 1901 3:45p -- Fr. 19094T72e47- SENT By: R CUCAMONGA COM OEM; B- 2- 1 3:34PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5558; #5/14 July 27,2001 W.Larry Henderson Paye 4 City of Rancho Cucamonga Forecasts _ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Population 123,400 135,984 143,225 152,901 165,727 Households 38,264 40,529 43,624 45,575 51,135 Employment 49,224 59,208 69,524 75,626 81,203 It would be helpful if the Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is supportive or detracts from the achievement of this - policy. Based on the information provided in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine if the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transpafation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, suggests that the General Plan would be implemented over a twenty-year period. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. F- Regional Transportation Plan The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and actiorts pertinent to this proposed project This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportatiort-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant goals, objectives, policies and actions of the RTP are the following: Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAB s adopted Regional performance Indicators. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR does not provide a discussion on Transportation investments based on the following SCAG adopted Regional Performance Indicators: Resolution No. 01-238 Page 37 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 ih.rsdey August 2. 1901 3:45pm -- Fran 19094772847' SENT BY: 8 COCAMONGA COY DEV; 8- 2- 1 3:34PY; 9094772847 => 714 250 5558; 98/14 July 27,2001 W Larry HerKWson Page 5 MobiC - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access. and for safe, comfortable, convenient, faster and economical movements Of people and goods. . Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes-25 minutes(Auto) . PM Peak Freeway Travel Speed-45 minutes(Transit) . PM Peak Non-Freeway Travel Speed . Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay(Fwy) . Pertaent of PM Peak Travel in Delay(Non-Fwy) AccessWfrry - Transportation system should ensure the ease wfth which oppafunrbas are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost. . Work Opportunities wiffm 45 Minutes door to door travel time(Mode Neutral) . Average transit access fire Environment - Transportation system should sustain development and Preservation of the existing system and the environment (All Trips) CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5-Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and _ I the Transportation Conformfty requirements Rellabd' -Transportation system should have reasonable and dependable Levels of service by mode. (All Trips) . Transit-63% . Highway-76% Safes- Transportation systems should provide minimal accident, death and injury- (All Trips) . Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles-0 . InjuryAc idents-0 Equilf4fErlvira+arFentaI Justice - The benefits of banspartabon investments should be equitably distributed among a9 etllrliq age and income groups. (AN trips) By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits- Equitable Distnbufion of Benefits among all Income Quintiles Cost-Effectiveness- Maximize return on transportation investment(All Trips). Air Quality, Mobility,Accessibillyand Safety . Relum on Totaf Investment-Optimize return on Transportation Investments The Final EIR should address the manner in which the Project is supportive of or detracts from the achievement of the eight core RTP objectives. Based on the 3p 5 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 38 of 117 Thursday August 2 1901 3:45pw -- Frm 19094772847• -- Pne 7 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 8- 2- 1 3:35PM; 9094772847 -> 714 250 5558; #7/14 July 27.2001 Mr.Larry Henderson Page 6 information provided,we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. SLAG staff coinnents. The Draft EIR in Section 5.5 (Traffic and Circulation) identifies transportation and circulation impacts, and details the measures to mitigate dx-.e impacts on page 5.5-8. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. - 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority. SLAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section 5.6 (Air Ouafiry) includes mitigation measures that supports the implementation of Transportation Control Measures. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity F-I SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, in Section 5.5 (Traffic and Circulation), discusses circulation system upgrades,which should help to maintain and operate the existing transportation system. The Project is consistent with this core RTP poficY- GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE REGIONAL j STANDARD OF WING The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cosi, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be competitive,strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy- The evahnabon of the proposed project in relation to the following j policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section 5.5 (Traffic and Circulation) acluiowledges that the Project will maximize the use of existing infrastructure and improve infrastructure deficiencies to meet the needs of the proposed Project. 31 6 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 39 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 inurseay august 2, 1901 3:45P+ -- Pran 1909GT728477 Page el SENT BY: a CUCAMONCA COY DEV; 8- 2- 1 3:35PM; 9094772047 => 714 250 5558; #8114 July 27,2001 Mr.tarry flenAerson Page 7 Mdlgation measures outlined in Section 5.5 would address identified impacts. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions'efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and Vie provision of services. SLAG staff comments. See SLAG comments on policy 3.05. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.10 Support local jurfsdidions'actions to minimize red tape and expedite the pwmRting process to maintain economic vitadty and competitiveness. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR only addresses subjects that may have adverse environmental impacts. It is written in a concise manner, where all possible adverse impacts are mitigated this will help minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition, the Draft EIR,on page 3.6, includes a number of project objectives, which will also help to minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The F_ I Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. r GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALWY OF LIFE The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities,enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of Fide. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates. 3.12 Encourage exisft or proposed local jurisdictions'programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures that encourage the coordination and implementation of transit and transA facilities, and bikeways, and pedestrian trails. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG �z 7 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 40 of 117 Thursday August 2, 1901 3:45po — Pram 190947728471 -- Page 9 SENT By: 8 CUCAMONGA CON DEV; 8- 2- 1 3:36PY; 9094772047 -> 714 250 5556; #9/14 i July 27,2001 W.Larry Henderson Page 8 policy 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions'plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. SLAG staff comments. while tho Draft EIR does not directly address the subject R transit service to serve and provide access to new development and redeveloped.areas, mitigation measure AQ-6, on page 5.6-22, recommends that applicants of Iarge—smle'projects provide incentives for rhe use of mass transit. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.17 Support and encourage settlement pattems, which contain a range of urban densities. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section 5.4 (Land Use and Planning) identifies ranges of urban densities. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact. SCAG staff comments. The Project is proposed in a manner, which will minimize f'_I —r adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR f have been developed to address identified impacts. The City of Rancho C xmnonga should carefully consider the adequacy of these measures. The Project is supportive of the ancillary RCPG policy. 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section 5.3 (Biological Resources) acknowledges that implementation of the proposed Project will resuft in impacts to certain plant and animal species. Mitigation measures outlined in this Section are recommended to address identified impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga should carefully consider the adequacy of these measures. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection ofreconled and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. SCAG staff. comments. The Draft Program EIR in Section 5.11 (Cultural 33 8 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 41 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Thursday August 2, 1901 3:45po -- rrm '909477ZU70 -- Page 10 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; B- 2- 1 3:311PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5559; #10/14 July 27,2001 W I any Henderson Page 9 Resources) acknowledges that implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to cultural resources. Mitigation measures included in this Section are recommended to address identified impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga should carefully consider the adequacy of these measures. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.22 Discourage development or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep sbpes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section 5.1 (Soils and Geology) identifies potential impacts related to land form, geology, seismicity, and soil conditions. Mitigation measures outlined in this Section are recommended address the identified impacts through the implementation of development codes and specific requirements. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in oertain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would �— reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans SC:AG staff comments. See SCAG staff comments on policies 3.18. 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22. The Draft EIR in Section 5.7 (Noise) acknowledges potential noise impacts related to mobile, stationary noise sources and construction activities. Mitigation measures included in this Section have been recommended to address identified impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga should carefully consider the adequacy of these measures. The Project tS supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL, POUTICAL AND CULTURAL EQUITY The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid eooromic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing soda] and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the accomplishment of Phis goal,and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers. 3-24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as 34 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 42 of 117 Thursday August 2, 1901 3:45pm -- Fran 19094772847 — Page 11 SENT 8Y: 6 CUCAMONGA COY DEV; S- 2- 1 3:37PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5556; #11114 July 27,2001 Mr.Larry Hendcrsm Page 10 evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment- SCAG staff comments- The Draft EIR, in Section 5.8(Socioeconomic)provides a discussion on housing impacts. The discussion suggests that there is the potential for 55,612 units at buildout, or an increase of 13,500 units over the next twenty years- The Draft EIR, however, does not provide a discussion on programs that could -increase the supply and quality of housing and the provision of affordable housing. It would be helpful if the Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the Project is supportive or detracts from the achievement of this policy. Based on the information provided in the Draft EIR,the Project is partially supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessibre and eHecfiwe services such as. public education, housing, health care, social services,recreational facilities,law enforcement,and fire protection. SCAG staff convrients.The Draft EIR, in Section 5.9(Public Services and Utilities) acknowledges that implementation of the proposed Project would have impacts on Police and Fre Servioes,public schools,and library services. Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5-9 are recommended to address the identified impacts. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy- AIR QUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS The Air Quality Chapter (AQC) core actions that are generally applicable to the Project are as follows: —� 5.07 Determine specific rams and associated actions needed e. sPecr prop ( g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles- travek Vernission fees)so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. i SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, in Section 5.6 (Air Quality), includes a number of mitigation measures that encourages the implementation of measures —� that focuses on utilizing alternative methods of transportation. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at aN levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subnegionat and local) consider 3S 10 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 43 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Thursday Aueust 2, 1901 3:45pm -- fr. '9094772547' -- Page 12 SENT BY: B CUCAMONGA COM DEV; B- 2- 1 3:38PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5556; X12/14 .h4y 27.2001 Mr.Lamy Henderson Page 11 air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, in Section 5.6 (Air Quality) discusses the consistency of the proposed Project with regional and local air quality policies and includes mitigation measures for impacts to air quality. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. WATER QUALfTY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical,physical and biological integrity of the nation's water, arid, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. 11.06 Clean up Ore contamination in the region's major groundwater aquifers since its water supply is critical to the long-term economic and environmental heafth of the region. The financing of such clean-ups should leverage state and federal resources and minimize significant impacts on Ore local economy. F- f SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section 5.2 (Hydrology and Drainage) discusses the subject of groundwater. Mitigation measures outlined in this Section are recommended to address impacts to groundwater resources. The Project is supportive of this Dore RCPG policy. 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, on page 5.9-15, includes a miligation measure that recommends the reuse of wastewater for irrigation and industrial. The Project is supportive of this core RCPG policy. CONCLUSIONS 1. As noted in the staff comments, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update is consistent with of supports many of the core and ancillary policies in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. 3(o it Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 44 of 117 Thursday August 2 1901 3:45pm -- Frme 19094MB47' -- Va9e 13 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COY DEV; 8. 2- 1 3:30Pu; 9094772847 => 714 250 5558; 913114 July 27,2001 W.Larry Henderson Page 12 Based on the information in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with core policies 3.03 and 4.01. Based on the information in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Project is partially supportive of ancillary policy 3.24. 2. As noted in the Summary of SCAG Staff Comments,the Final EIR should address the _ I relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional plans. 3. All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA, i --I I i I 3� 12 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 45 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Thursday August 2. 1901 3:45pe -- Fro, 09094M8470 -- Page 14 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; B- 2- 1 3:38PM; 9094772847 => 714 250 5558; 914/14 July 27.2001 Mr.Larry Henderson Page 13 ENDNOTE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authwbes THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS(SCAG)a a loin[is w Agency e.Ttabishhd ands CalBanhia CWwTwrat Code Semen 8502 et seq. Under federal and dile law.SCAG is designated as a Comet of Goggin is(COG).a*--WwW Transportation Plarmig Agency(RTPA).aro a M«mopohat Pkwwimg oroarwzabon (MPO). SCAas mandated rales and responsibilities hrdrde the folowng: SLAG m duski aced by the TedexJ ghwaemwnt as the Regions llebopoNfan Plaarng Orgenhwdon and nandrbed to maertan a maiming, aoopx awe. and mff9reherhsve transportation plannig process resulting m a Ro9oai Tmrspodabon Plan ad a Regonol Thaspatation InvmAmvyd Pmgrsn pursuant to 23 U-S.C.'134.49 U.S.C.5301 et seq-;23 C.F.R.'450,ard49 C.F.R.513. SLAG a also the dhsigraded Regional Transpxbtion PlannidgAgency. and as such 6 responsale for Cott preparation of the Regio"Teanspoda w Plan(RTP)and Regional Traaportaroh lmprmmrnerw Program QUIP)uder CaHomia Gcv rnd Code Section 65060 and 65082 eesPeldwel r. SLAG 6 responsible for dweloping the ednoyeplic puwL mhs ad the iaegraled lad use.housing.eaVioyment• ad traspotalkni piotpanrt,it : es.and slrabry'es poYons of the South Coast Atr Ouafify Maaagaramf flan. pursuant to Catilurnta Heath and Sdety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). SCAG is also designated oder 42 U.S.C.7504(x) as a Co4"d Agency lor ori g1aMy prang for to Cmdra Cuast abet Southeast Desert Air Basin District. SLAG 6 reWm"e under the Federal Clearh Ai Ad for detemtrug Conlonniry of Projects,Plat ad Rograms b the State Iahplarhmlabm Plan,pursuant b 42 U.S C-7506. Purssani to CaWornui GwmwnM Cale Section 115089.2, SCAG 6 mWmable for mvmwmg ati Congestion Ma 39WPOW Pierer XM W for V—ft a:y with regnant bansparMW Plans required W Section 65060 Of the Govarment Cade. SCAG must also evalae the Consistency and cAmpMb W of Such proWwm within the regiot SCAG 6 the a#Wu%td mobnal agency for 4Nel-Go menml Review of Prograr s proposed for federal bwK=d awatancearddireckdevAbprneM adNMGs-pursuanttoPresitlenial Exact Order12372(mplar:g Aa5Reviay. SLAG mviews.I„asuard b PUW Resources Code Sedans 21093 and 21067. Environmental hnpats Reports of Pm)ects of rew al signdlcastoe for mnsatency with reWmW plans(Calderone Enwaonner"Quality Art Guidelines Sections 1522 and 15125(0)) Powart to 33 U-SC. '1298(a)(7)(Semon 208 of the Federal Water pollution Certain Ad), SCAG 6 the authorized Arwwide Waste TreafteMllanaganerrePlamdngAgency- SCAG 6 MVWW W se In phi—.6—of the ROgwoM Hhwslag Nexis Assessaeat phawad to C2worm tlflwetmmrs Code Section 666t4(a). SCAG is responsible(trill tie Assoma4m of Bay Area GoveownenK Ore Sacrxnerto Area Caatdl of Gm mww ts, - and the Association of Monterey Oat Area Govenmenls)for gepain9 the Sontirern Calilomla Hazardous Warn Management Plan purwmK b Califorria Heath and So"Code Section 251353. Revised July 2001 3 13 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 46 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR F. Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Planner, Intergovernmental Review, Southern California Association of Governments Fl. Based on a review of the project and comparison with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Growth Management policies by SCAG staff, there were questions regarding the project's consistency with core policies 3.01 and 4.01 as well as ancillary policy 3.24. Core policy 3.01 refers to population, housing, and job forecasts for the year 2020- The proposed project is the buildout of the General Plan land uses. As stated in Response to Comment El, buildout is expected to occur after the year 2020. The City expects that development up to the year 2020 would be consistent with the current projections for the year 2020 that have been established for the City.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with core policy 3.01. Core policy 4.01 refers to transportation investments that are based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators such as mobility,accessibility, environment,reliability, safety, equity/environmental justice, and cost-effectiveness. Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR identifies the potential effects of the implementation of the General Plan. These effects are based on full buildout of the General Plan which would occur after the year 2020. These effects would be reduced subsequent to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in Section 5.5.4. An interim analysis of traffic impacts based on partial implementation of the proposed project was not prepared for this EIR because CEQA requires an analysis of an entire project and not part of a project. Based on the City's intent to be consistent with the current projections for the year 2020 that have been established for the City, it is reasonable to assume that development up to the year 2020 would be consistent with core policy 4.01. I Ancillary policy 3.24 refers to increasing the supply and quality of housing and provision of affordable housing. The proposed project will result in the increase of 13,524 residential units. A discussion of policies associated with the supply and quality of housing as well as affordability is provided in the Draft General Plan.One of the primary goals of the Housing Element is to promote housing opportunities for all members and economic segments of the community. The proposed project is expected to be consistent —! with core policy 3.24. As shown in the SCAG review of the regional policies, the project is consistent with the remaining applicable policies. SNi O.RTC827.d 39 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 47 of 117 v California Regional Water Quality Control Board (@ Santa Ana Region Internet Address: hop://www.svvmb.ca.gov/rwgcb6 Gra Davis Wirtslr H.Hick9x 3739 Main Suva,Suite Sm,Riverside,California 92501.3348 y .Srrrnaryfar Governor Envirunmrnwl Phone 19091]82-6130-PA%(909)761fi768 Pmratinn The energy rlmllmgr faring Cafil mia is real Every Cd fnmian nrrdr m rake invrudiare anion ro reduce rnogy ron4umplion. Fur a lin of inutile ways You ran reduce drmaml and rut yaur energy mars,see our websirr at wwwC"rggor(Agy'bR. ter���I fr VVrr FF1S IIVVCHO CUCAMONGA August 2,20f11 Larry Henderson,AICP AUG O6 2M City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department RECEIVED-PLANNING 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 RESPONSE TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 2000061027 Dear Mr.Henderson: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), has reviewed the draft environmental impact review for the above referenced project. The proposed project is the update of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The planning area includes the existing City(approximately 24,000 acres)as well as its sphere of influence area(approximately 7,700 acres)located north of the City. This update includes changes in land use designations as well as updates to the policies and programs within the City's General Plan. There is widespread experience that urban development impacts water quality. There is the potential that the implementation of the General Plan Update, which would add over 13,000 residential units, will result in substantial degradation of water quality. The General Plan Update discusses impacts to hydrology and drainage (including water quality)as a result of the project.The report describes mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project to lessen the impact to water quality. Listed below are principals and polices,including some of the proposed project mitigation measures, which should be incorporated into the project to lessen impacts to water quality standards and protect beneficial uses: 1. Limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; conserve natural areas; protect slopes, drainage systems, and water bodies. Natural drainage systems and water bodies reduce impacts to watie G quality and will improve impacted waters. In addition, they provide beneficial uses for wildlife and UI recreation. I The General Plan Update describes the numerous drainage systems that flow from the San Gabriel I Mountains and through the city. It is important to protect the natural features of these drainage systems where still present, including the reaches of the drainage systems that flow through developed areas. If possible, modify the concrete lined sections to incorporate natural features. Consider the use of pervious G I materials, such as natural soil, grass (grassed swales), permeable or porous pavement, etc., to line runoff channels. Encourage riparian vegetation in the drainage systems. Provide adequate vegetated buffer areas to capture storm flows,to lessen erosion and protect water quality,and for possible recreational use. 2. The mountainous drainage area to the north of the city has produced large amounts of runoff. This runoff has the potential of creating flooding and impacting water quality. Therefore it is important to provide -1_3 adequate area to capture the runoff flow to allow infiltration. This allows recharge of the local groundwater basins and helps manage and moderate storm flows. California Environmental Protection Agency RrrlyHr1lyd Paper 1 IJ Resolution No. 01-238 Page 48 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Larry Henderson August 2,2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga This project will increase the amount of area covered with pavement or structures. This will alter the rate and volumes of groundwater recharge and surface water runoff. The preservation of natural and agricultural CI-3 areas will allow groundwater recharge and retention of storm water flows. 3. The General Plan Update describes the presence of wetlands in the project area. Wetlands serve a number of important functions, including absorption of floodwaters, water quality improvement by the removal of pollutants,providing habitat for wetland species,and providing recreational values. Protect and preserve the wetlands in the project area. Provide adequate mitigation for any loss. r__ty The feasibility and effectiveness of constructed/water quality wetlands should be considered for all �1 1 development within the project area. Constructed wetlands throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed have been found to be very effective in removing pollutants from urban runoff and stormwater. 4. Utilize dry or wet retention ponds to capture dry weather urban runoff and the first flush of rainfall runoff to minimize discharge of pollutants that contribute to the degradation of water quality. 5. Native vegetation has been found to be protective for slope soil retention, helps filter and clean runoff, G-1; maintains habitat for native animal species, and has other water quality benefits. Therefore we encourage the use of native vegetation in replanting and hydroseeding operations as much as possible. In addition, provide limits on the clearing of vegetation during development activities. 6. We recognize that the Draft Environmental Impact Report mentions that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program will be incorporated to protect surface and groundwater quality. As a general reminder pleased be advised of the following. Any construction activity occurring in an area over five acres will require a General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to be obtained by the project proponent. A notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. Contact Milasol Gaslan at(909) G-6 872-4419 or review the Construction Activity General Permit and Fact Sheet on the SWRCB website (www.swrcb.ca.gov)for information. In addition, as a co-pernutee in a municipal separate storm sewer(MS4) permit, the City is required to 1� notify grading permit applicants of the requirement for the above mentioned permit. 7. If any fill or dredged material is proposed to be discharged into surface waters of the State including ephemeral waterways, vernal pools or wetlands, section 401 certification is required. In addition, an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section 404 permit likely will be required. Contact Kelly Schmoker at(909)782- 4990 or review this Regional Board's website(swreb.ca.gov/rwgeb8)for section 401 information. r_� 8. No waste material may be discharged to any drainage areas, channels, streambeds, or streams unless �I authorized by permit, agreement, or certification. Spoil sites must not be located within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed into a waterbody. 9. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be developed and implementedduring and after construction to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid discharge of sediments into the streets, storm water conveyance channels, or waterways and generally protect water �1—g quality standards and beneficial uses. California Environmental Protection Agency Reryrled Paper J{ I Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 49 of 117 Larry Henderson August 2,2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga For more information on the construction of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) mentioned above (grassed swales,porous pavement,dry/wet retention ponds,constmcted/water quality wetlands etc.)and that can be incorporated during post construction please review the EPA website www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/post.htm. G—g 10. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters,or Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of wastes to land,is required by the California Water Code. If you should have any questions,please call me at(909)762-7960 or Mark Adelson at(909)782-3234. Sincerely, 0tt,, pppp��-� •� ��I� ���� ��A� W11 -Cel David d GG..Wcelfel V Planning Section cc: Scott Morgan—State Clearinghouse I I I I California Environmental Protection Agency i pRa Nerritrerao.e � � z Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 50 of 117 i Rancho Cucamonga General plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR G. David G. Woelfel, Planning Section, California Regional Water Quality Control Board,Santa Ana Region GI. As recommended in Section 5.2.4 of the Draft EIR,new development will be required to implement best management practices to minimize pollutant runoff. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.3.4 of the Draft EIR, if new development affects water bodies or drainage systems that are under the jurisdiction of the USACE and/or CDFG, specific water quality measures will need to be reviewed and approved by the RWQCB prior to development. These measures will assist in reducing impacts to water quality. G2. This comment regarding the protection and incorporation of natural features of drainage systems is noted. As stated in Section 5.3.4 of the Draft EK impacts to the natural features of drainage systems that are also considered waters of the U.S. would require additional measures to reduce impacts on these natural features. These additional measures would be determined through the USACE 404 permit process. G3. The implementation of the proposed General Plan will increase surface water runoff in the Planning Area.The Proposed Land Use Plan(Exhibit 3-3 in the Draft EIR)designates areas identified for flood control/utility easements. This designation typically includes flood control channels, drainage,basins, and major utility corridors. There are areas within the Planning Area and specifically in the northern portion of the Planning Area that are used to capture runoff flow and allow infiltration. As discussed on page 5.2-7 of the Draft EIR, the City's existing drainage plans which includes drainage basins are adequate to accommodate future development in accordance with the proposed General Plan. G4. This comment regarding the preservation of wetlands and establishment of wetlands is -i noted. Section 5.3.4 of the Draft EIR identifies a mitigation measure (BR-11) for potential effects on wetlands as well as waters of the U.S. G5. This comment regarding the utilization of dry or wet retention pond and native vegetation to capture dry weather urban runoff and fust flush of rainfall runoff is noted. These measures are forms of best management practices(BMPs).As discussed in Section 5.2.4, new development will be required to implement BMPs to minimize pollutant runoff. G6. This comment regarding the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program concurs with mitigation measure HD-5 on page 5.2-9 of the Draft EIR. G7. This comment regarding the Section 401 Certification concurs with mitigation measure BR-12 on page 5.3-15 of the Draft E1R. I G8. This comment regarding the use of BMPs concurs with mitigation measures HD-5 and HD-8 on pages 5.2-9 and 5.2-10 of the Draft EIR.Furthermore,these BMPs would be the basis for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Mitigation measure W-6 on page 5.9-15 of the Draft EIR concurs with the implementation of applicable provisions of NPDES. S choaresn.mo 143 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 51 of 117 I MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Office of the Gene21 Manager JUL 3 0 2001 RECEIVED-PLANNING July 20,2001 Mr.Larry Henderson City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Dear Mr.Larry Henderson: - Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)has received a Notice of Availability(Notice)of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the City of Rancho - 1 Cucamonga(City)General Plan Update(Update). The Update includes changes in the existing land use designations as well as updates to the policies and programs within the City's General Plan. The Update includes the reduction of approximately 182 acres of residential uses and an - increase of 182 acres in non-residential uses. The planning area encompasses the existing City as well as approximately 7,700 acres located north of the City. This letter contains our response as a potentially affected public agency. Our review of the Notice indicates that Metropolitan may have facilities located in or near areas that are proposed for development under the Update. Metropolitan's Foothill Feeder—Rialto u Pipeline,Etiwanda Pipeline,Etiwanda Power Plant,and Upper Feeder all traverse the City. fl Metropolitan expects to be notified of specific developments in the City so that we may 1 adequately respond to any and all impacts to Metropolitan facilities. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's rights-of-way,we request that any preliminary engineering design drawings or improvement plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be submitted for our review and written approval. The applicant may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at(213)217-6564. To assist the applicant in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements,we have enclosed a copy of the"Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities,Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way. 700 N.Alameda Street,Los Angeles,California 90012.Mailing address:Box 54153,Los Angeles.California 90054-0153.Telephone(213)217-6000 i �y Resolution No. 01-238 Page 52 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Mr. Larry Henderson Page 2 July 20,2001 Metropolitan requests that the City analyze the consistency of the proposed project with the growth management plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Metropolitan uses SCAG's population,housing and employment projections to determine future water demand. Development above these forecast provisions may increase demand on Metropolitan's resources and facilities beyond that anticipated. Additionally,Metropolitan encourages projects within its service area to include water conservation measures. Water conservation,reclaimed water use,and groundwater recharge programs are integral components to regional water supply planning. Metropolitan supports mitigation measures such as using water efficient fixtures,drought-tolerant landscaping,and reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated with the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at(213)217-6242. Very truly yours, 9" Laura J. Simonek Principal Environmental Specialist CDM Enclosures: Facilities Location Map Planning Guidelines Cl)00 � s[[ 388 wR 573- r04AV— v e i r vAunP I s + ! 114'{,{� - J'__- _-____.-._- . .__. -. 1.. \ SB-573. ' O � x ,d V, j4 'I rS M - m ° 1 Sb 4 F p g O LO Q> FEZ) J a 99pp d AYE 1� 1 CK ,�d kj�darW�A-01 roar wEd TO ITTt FF fO/! P3 �gg L isxP s sirveR f lly . I#fit 1iB—16 �' J� •1x.""" xi«s�o[ ao irs�os_.m /9,/"� �� +a STA.3471+00 2 N M f R( F �6 F vaso kA $' TalIII _• .. j�+pgnPCT H. '270 vl. Ixe.i r.'4' Yi esq s om*.wPow` , ° .. .. • � A r_1li--m �s4e' S96'P.S.P. - I 1 .x `�' H •,yypyF.r, ` rns} .°... 4 .P M4 i! iw , Y it C 9 3 ate. •� q° s a FOi7 d, 7E� a Q'-f L E -• z9 P i. :' .2...i {n� ;[.„�� .Iiii. ] ' } � .� @ •°"� �. Il q � �� -�"'} gym `r 0111..ITEI ll h I ! . 3 Y""i r .:� ! c.,"t c °• .,�� uni�u�i 'I.o s __ s. Psxvu a 4 ma i11 . � Jd ° w• �3., { I r I alqIf AV AV HIDUND {xuR ar „m r: m } {R� f� �H �" HO Ibr�`15g�� r[�� �t+� {e�Ik MT@ F�c4 d r SS sl9TNm,• {s s, = n e °� @woac s}�%T� � 'i`�" ncr ,4°' NDA F� 1 JIa��.{� Puav �'�.. #y.c ._.. j s R R M r •on m �� �31 o vwv is i 3"as`i w` frI j i� ! F .� I [ PARK .vx I!l A u W �s 32> r c wI. sr T v�crwiu $ sxs• 5 1J , . j 33 ft TV -PT Iz �X_�LI I uu�PRi �b - wJ`• aYmi vuR rs}m - i F' K TIN a' ASEIINE {� ' — - u .� • r TIN` " TI5 p N .n T • �el ,.w j i_ i 9 4rr LS [ I'll 451 41 A, �-- � 1 I f ^\ w IT.NJRCR 3 s} { { ,,,,.'h1 Y� J... F KwAax- "lsi 3: •inoe —_�1 J x us. 2 �aP ... .•.. VY� R V 603 a YJ ST BLVB mise BLVO lz - -------------- 7— A 1c, 2 8 N 0— RMTE A PTIWANDA CUUAMU IA NITROL 0 C LITY, RESERVOIR 3 PLAN.T.— -bppm 12'i 10 4P 10'-8*P.C.P. L C81—i P' ALL it "K� --j-11,4TA. 1 3+00 4 Ctl.�AM� NG �F 55 J4 E l'v4 IM, ST IT- ST SO BERN4901M AV' ST 4TH A. 00 ONTARIO 2 6 C) Z 23 CBERNARD10 0 0 Lo cy) A I AMPT AV a) GJASTJIl -- w — T=j . MIER INTERUTIMAL cu Ill r Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 55 of 117 Guidelines for Deve12 ents in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of southern California 1. introduction a. The following general guidelines should be followed for the design of proposed facilities and developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties, and/or easements. b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement, landscape, storm drain, and utility plans he submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or easements, prior to the commencement of any construction work. I j 2. Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps: a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans. i b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the official recording data on all applicable parcel and tract maps. C. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements i and existing survey moments must be.dimensionally tied to the parcel or tract boundaries. d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be referenced on the parcel and tract maps. I i y8 i Resolution No. 01-238 Page 56 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 2 — 3. Maintenance of Access Along Metropolitan's Rights—of—Way a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide access to its aboveground and belowground facilities. b. We require that 16-foot-wide commercial-type driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-o£-way. Openings are required in any median island. Access ramps, if necessary, must be at least 16-feet-wide. Grades of ramps are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a 40-foot-long level area on the driveway approach to access ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's fee properties, we may require fences and gates. C. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities. Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance of the pipelines and other. facilities on a routine basis. We require a 20-foot-wide clear zone around all above-ground facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed 2 percent. We must also have access along the easements with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on Figure 1. d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent to Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not encroach into the fee property or easement or impose additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or easement must be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee property or easement area. 49 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 57 of 117 3 _ e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities, e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc. within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans . for the easement area. 4. Easements on Metropolitan's Property a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights- of-way by governmental agencies for public street and utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of the property is accepted into the agency's public street system and fair market value is paid for such use of the right-of-way. b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302, concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain, sewer, water or .other public facilities proposed within Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county will accept the easement for the specific purposes into its public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had not been made. There will be a charge for the easement. Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit. S. Landscaping Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee properties and/or easements are as follows: a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's i fee property or easement. b. All landscape plans shall show the location and size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other facilities therein. 50 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 58 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 — 4 — C. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 feet of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future Pipelines and facilities. d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow- rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow-rooted trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from the centerline of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than 20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See Figure 3) . e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein. Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also, any walks or drainage facilities across its access route must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards. f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge for any entry permit or. easements required. 6. Fencing Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee properties and facilities be constructed of universal chain link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan. (Please see Figure 5 for details) . 7. Utilities in Metropolitan's Fee Properties and/or Easements or Ad'iacent to Its Pipeline is Public Streets Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and street rights-of-way is as follows: S� Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 59 of 117 _ 5 _ i a. Permanent structures, including catch basins, manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall not be located within its fee properties and/or easements. b. We request that permanent utility structures within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. C. The installation of utilities over or under Metropolitan's pipelines) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the theoretical trench prism for uncovering its pipeline and must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-way lines as practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be at least two feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approval. Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or tunnel must be filled with grout. i 5� Resolution No. 01-238 Page 60 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 — 5 — g_ Overhead electrical and telephone line requirements: 1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the California State Public Utilities Commission, General Order 95, for Overhead Electrical Line Construction or at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan. Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than 35 feet. 2) A marker must be attached to the power pole showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or other work being done in the area. 3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be shown on the drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line under the most adverse conditions including consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change, and support type. We require that overhead lines be located at least 30 feet laterally away from all above-ground structures on the pipelines. 4) When underground electrical conduits, 120 volts or greater, are installed within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning signs must also be placed at the right-of-wap lines where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way. h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must conform to the California Department of Health Services Criteria for the Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates to installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure waterlines. The construction of sewerlines .should also conform to these standards in street rights-of- way. i. Cross sections shall be provided for all pipeline crossings showing Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement limits and the location of our pipeline(s) . The exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their elevations shall be marked on as-built drawings for our information. 53 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 61 of 117 7 _ j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide a representative to assists others in locating and identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is requested. k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the zone shown on Figure 4. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements: 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning tape shall be imprinted with: •CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" 2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted i with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE• i 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: i •CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE• 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall be imprinted with: •CAIITSON BURIED CONDIIIT• 5) Telephone, or television conduit: A two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" 54 I Resolution No. 01-238 Page 62 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 - 8 - M. Cathodic Protection requirements: 1) If there is a cathodic protection station for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed work, it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and manner Of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans. Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714) 593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic protection stations. 2) If an induced-current cathodic protection system is to be installed on any pipeline crossing Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E. Risner at (714) 593-7474 or (213) 250-5085. He will review the proposed system and determine if any conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic Protection systems installed by Metropolitan. 3) Within Metropolitan's rights-of-way, pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated with an approved protective coating to conform to Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolitan. The application and monitoring of cathodic protection on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal- Regulations, Part 195. 4) If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used: (a) Cathodic protection shall be provided by use of a sacrificial magnesium anode (a sketch showing the cathodic protection details can be provided for the designers information) . (b) The steel carrier pipe shall be protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification. n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be placed in 8-inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698) . S5 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 63 of 117 9 - o. Control cables connected with the operation of Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the area, the control cables shall be located and measures shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in place. p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service Alert (USA) . The contractor (excavator) shall contact USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities as a result of the construction. 8. Paramount Right Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be subject to the - paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties and/or easements for the purpose for which they were acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. 9. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons- truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to you and we will requiie a deposit for this amount before the work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include materials, construction, engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. i 56 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 64 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 10. Drainage a. Residential or commercial development typically increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation, obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee properties and/or easements. b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan will insist that plans for development provide that it be carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be maintained by others, e.g., city, county, homeowners association, etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan in writing. 11. Construction Coordination During construction-, Metropolitan's field representative will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications for notification of Mr. of Metropolitan's Operations services Branch, telephone 213) 250-_, at least two working days prior to any work in the vicinity of our facilities. 12. Pipeline Loading Restrictions a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in structural strength, and some are not adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines are typically adequate for AASHTO 3-20 loading provided that the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary cover over the pipeline during construction is between three and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which 57 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 65 of 117 imposes loads no greater than AASHTO B-10. If the cover is between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract-type tractor. If the cover is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used. Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications of such equipment for our review and approval at least one week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines 1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits. b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance. 13. Blasting a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to Metropolitan as follows: b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a complete summary of .proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. C. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and controls of .noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration. 14. CEOA Requirements a. When Environmental Documents Have Not Been Prepared 1) Regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the agency or consultants preparing any environmental documentation. We are required to review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for your project before committing Metropolitan to approve your request. 58 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 66 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 12 — 2) In order to ensure compliance with the regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to ensure compliance with the Act have been established: a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of any determination that a Categorical Exemption applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies Participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during the preparation of the Negative Declaration or EIA. c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or draft EIR. d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. b. When Environmental Documents Have Been Prepared If environmental documents have been prepared for Project, Please furnishfor _ P P_ your in a timely manner so that we may have sufficientatimeltos review and comment. The following steps must also be accomplished: - 1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. 2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or liability. arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. 15- Metropolitan's Plan-Review Cost a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities and developments and the preparation of a letter response S9 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 67 of 117 giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. if an engineering review and letter response requires more than 8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the proposed facility or development is compatible with its facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s) or other facilities will be required, then all of Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior rights. b. A deposit of funds will be required from the developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The amount of the required deposit will be determined after a cursory review of the plans for the proposed development. C. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan review, inspection, materials, construction, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional ,..j deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit. 16. Caution We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and responses are based upon information available to Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. 60 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 68 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 14 - 17. Additional Information Should you require additional information, please contact: Civil Eaaiaeerino Substrnetures Section Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 (213) 217-6000 JEH/MRW/lk - Rev. January 22, 1989 Encl. 61 N N W N N J W O N V 6 . BACKHOE OR TRENCHER— I. ,;� -+—LATINO CRANE lam'• �k � i �. 21t-0" NEEDED KOR TRENCHER '�:a•• .!: ALSO DUMP TRUCK �•� C PARKING MINIMUM WIDTH FOR d.!y B�-0°I.D. K 20'-0"LENOTII FULLY TIMBEREDWEIGHT 50,000 LBS. II TRENC t' OPV ITAN ATf 0/3TFICT • Mu. •na.. 8-OI 28�0" REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION N a WIDTHS In - 440 0 E _ ..M..............RnW.RMI[...............-........ m 0 Z 01 O FIGURE 1 Q0 o 0 —• N W V 00 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 70 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 NO PERMANENT 57RUCTUR£S PERM/7-TED M.W.O. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY I NO ROOF OVERHANG PERM/TTED—+-� B UILDING FOOTING MUST NOT. ENCROACH INTO TO RIGHT RIGHT OF WAY - OF WAY FIN/SHE' SURFACE ::: I \\REOU/RED I DEPTH OF I I FOOTING I I. 1 I� 45' I TYP/CAL i i 1 1 i Pf i MWD. PIPELINE i n¢ATnMro s� MUFMCz REOUIREMENTS FOR 11107—r: M.WD.PIPELINE SIZE,DEPTH,IOCA71ON BUILDINGS AND FOOTINGS AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF ADJACENT TO M WD. WAY VARIES. RIGHT OF WAY FIGURE 2 ....+ «....rte....or.�...o 63 p A N O M,W,D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY NO DEEP NO TREES NO DEEP 6 ROOTED TREES' ONLY APPROVED SHALLOW ROOTED TREES ROOTING SHRUBS OR GRASSES /5' /5' FINISHED SURFACE 6� E MWD PIPE —C 0 `QE me m�rro r ororemr www N LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES N FOR p M,W,D. RIGHT OF WAY o m nr.x .............uar.rt�en................ Z uraea..........nrranro........ ..... ...... V O J FIGURE 3 p O W V 00 0) CD K] N (D O i V C i N O O -+ Z Q -4O !}` O � STREET a W co I W 0 R TRENCH a 10. 0• /// �QOOPQ\QE • /�/ 450 TYPICAL `ADEOUATE SHORING ANO BRACING \ REWIRED FOR TH£ FULL DEPT// OF INE METROPOU^°T A•�°yj OI TRIC! THE TRENCH WHEN THE £XCAVAT/ON "'� • ENCROACHES WITHIN MIS ZONE SHORING AND BRACING REOUIREMENTS 0 N N N FIGURE 4 o N • N V 0 SPECIFICATIONS No •SHEET NO. A-ml fs AA "'Cl MACY mii w/ U. AM f" 14 ,on frolmW A, Al Xl= 3 M=I jYAn/AMmrM1 ENO. ?RAC-MANO POLL POST BRACINd pp A. mv SAME C~ Mr I1 an M4Aa3°r STN. — " 11re"MYA , A xL- A: I- Cexr..1ft-Mv, Ili xxwnW 42%09=1 rN�Iii FLEVAriff Ar AIAM n SWI, SWAM I C- C-.... wlrflmkr CAAY I f", 'Opt MNwl � ll . -�Al A - flAN..CI aErAz ff curour ArnN MYV CHAIN ANO LOCK IA= A� A IA. CD Av,-A ayWwmftk, uA1Al OAA.) TT MAN Mff C-0*=lva%�,A;o FENCE DEWLS CD Z AMPLE -4 0 Ow"Pa w , C) Lj FIGURE 5 -4 00 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 74 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 B 1 1 �I II 1 AMD. Pipu/ne l/4 I 4 X 6 premo/ded i t l -------* eXpaaS&V JOiM ••.. =: •: -/ filler = _ r_ 4 Dmm. Apertures as directed by -- cy - e •' • the Engitteer,Jota/ Volume i r•'°• jW ro exceed 2 the Volume Of the supporting wall ! •• _ Concrete support wall to - ` be placed 090l7st undis- :;'..o. tubed ground -_______ SECT/ON "A-A" I =—I CROSS_SECTION I /. Supporting wall shall Aave o firm bracing po me srtbgrode and 09011121 the Side of the elcavat/On. 2. PremOlde'd expansion Joint filler per ASTM D-1751-73 0. to be used in support for steel pipe an/y. 3. /f trench width is 4feet or greater,measured along F centerline of MWD.D. pipe,concrete support must be constructed. - 4 /f treneh width is Jess than 4 feu,clew sand back- :• r'..- R/l,COWO'Cted to 90% density in accordance wihY the provisions of ASTM Stand"D-1557-70 may . :•' t.:` i be-used in lieu of the concrete support wolf. SECTION "B-B" i T1F IA1VV,97ZN afy'tRTt i TYPICAL SUPPORT FOR AMD. PIPE41SE G9547 67 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 75 of 117 Trench width EQ Japreformed expansion S joint filler This method to be-used where the pipe utility line is Z4'argreoter in diameter and the clearance -- between the utility line ofd M.WD. pipe is /Z'or less. 2. Special protection moy be required SECT/ON E::Aif the utility ane diameter is greater than M.W.D.pipe or if the cover over the afflily line to the street surface is minimal and there is IZOOr less clearance between At.WA I. pipe and the utility line. 3. Aelarmed expansion joint filler to comply with ASTM designation D-17SI-73. 4. M.WD. requests 120mimmum clearance whenever possible. 0.75D ExCOYOt%On limits Sond,bac*fill Preformed expansion joint filler CROSS SECTION 716 AM7ROOTUM WYE? TrPICAL EXPANSION 101ST FILLER PROrEcrloll FOR OVERCROSSING OF U.W A PIPEL INE Resolution No. 01-238 Crass Reference 01-227 Page 76 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR H. Laura I Simonek,Principal Environmental Specialist,Metropolitan Water District of Southern California HI. This comment regarding existing Metropolitan Water District(MWD)facilities is noted. As future development is proposed, engineering drawings or improvement plans would need to identify all underground utilities including MWD facilities. This requirement is typical for all new development projects. As discussed in Response to Comment El,the City is not modifying the projections for the Planning Area for the year 2020. The City expects that development up to the year 2020 would be consistent with the current year 2020 projections that have been established for the City. H2. This comment regarding water conservation concurs with mitigation measure W-4 on page 5.9-15 of the Draft EIR. i i i SN ,h.RTC82J&o 6q Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 77 of 117 I DIRECTORS H-E"v P.uuan i K1n Ui p;\ I L:'ninn' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Vai T.Rlnrn" ,, ,I pi, o, I Chino Basin Water Conservation District JUL 02 2001 HI,RI D,Hu,k RECEIVED- PLANNING Gn11FRO\'1,n1,H I III Faxed to 477-2847 D;:,.;, OFFICERS June 29,2001 PILI HOoK lou,T.Rwmx Mr. Brad Buller,City Planner HF R,oI H, ,.N CityCi of Rancho Cucamonga ,KRoi B�Ru[tI KILL P.O. Box 807 ,,,,,.,., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 DISTRICT COUNSEL \NIu1n,BRc�r" Re: Draft Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Dear Mr. Buller: On behalf of the Conservation District it would be greatly appreciated if you would deliver this letter to the General Plan Update Task Force as we believe it is of utmost importance that the documents presently under review by the Task Force include evaluations relating to the importance of the capture of nuisance and storm water runoff from not only a "water supply and reliability" perspective but from one relating to the ability of the city to meet the Total Mean Daily Load (TMDL) requirements presently being developed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board I—I for pollutants commonly found in developing communities. In this regard, the Conservation District is concerned that numerous development projects and planning activities within the City may be missing opportunities to conserve water and reduce pollutant loads through proper landscaping techniques. As a consequence, we are recommending that the City of Rancho Cucamonga include in the referenced DEIR a review and analysis the water supply and TMDL impacts to be derived from the implementation of landscaping techniques that reduce nuisance (yard irrigation and other outside om, 4594 SAN BIRN�Rooro SIW 6 P.O.Bus 2400mMunuR.CA 917fi]-0'AI� 1909)626-2711 _ 70 FAX 19096 1625'174 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 78 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Chino Basin Water Conservation District water uses) and storm water runoff. Particularly we are recommending that the DEIR analyze the impacts from the use of "depressed"planted areas that are bordered by shrubbery screens to block the visual impacts of parking and the like as new developments are completed rather than utilizing "mounded" grass and shrubbery planted screens that do nothing for water conservation and pollutant reduction. In this manner each depressed area will retain and percolate both the applied water and storm water falling upon the premises while stili providing the screening effect. Not only will such landscaping techniques provide for the conservation of water, they will reduce the TMDL of pollutants originating from _I within the limits of the City and thereby assist it in meeting its water quality obligations. In addition to the "depressed" screening areas, the Conservation District is recommending that the DEIR study and analyze the impacts upon the community from the City making it a requirement for developers to utilize "Xeriscape" techniques and more drought tolerant, less maintenance, plant types when beautifying their properties. Again, it is our belief that not only will more water be conserved and pollutant loads reduced but the property owners will save money m future from reduced water consumption and lower plant maintenance and disposal costs. Sincerely yours, Barrett Kehl, General Manager Cc: Board of Directors Watermaster 4594 SAH B[RNkRDINO STRUT P.O.Boz 2400 MosIC1AIR,CA 917630900 19091 6 26-2 71 1 71 FAX 19091 626 5974 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 79 of 117 I Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR l I. Barrett Kehl,General Manager,Chino Basin Water Conservation District IL This comment regarding water conservation is noted. Various water conservation and retention of water runoff measures are included on page 5.9-15 of the Draft EIR (mitigation measures W-2 through W-5). �I sv choarcazza« 7^l Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 80 of 117 AUG 06 CI IMONI IS 59 PACE. ;/? CMW OF IN BUND pN0 LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT c . PIAIMNm 111MMON hr.CHAEL E.HAYS 315 M MAnaalrsAnr • a tone Use serving tipR whe PW 817-3=11 • tW flaw Far P"atva:m 15616 P*MR•WmvftU 117202•(718)243a216•Fa (M)2*ar12 August 6,2001 Mr.Larry Henderson,Principal Plan= City of Rancho Cucamonga,Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cuemnongs,CA 91730 RE: NOTICE OF AVAQ,ABELITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE The Sen Bemardi to County land Use Services Department has reviewed the above referenced Drell Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Tae County's primary concern in reviewing the DEIR is the potontisl for advem effects on unincorporated lard in the City's sphere of irdhmme. Additionally,the - County is concerned about consistency between City and County land on plans and policies in the sphere of influmee area Please address the following comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EER)and the General Plan document. Proposed Land the Plan The Proposed Lead Use Plan, Exhibit 3-3 should display unique colors for parcels zoned "General Commercial -Industrial Park"and "Flood ControVthility Corridor"which are all currently shown in J' white. So as to distinguish between these three unique land use designations. The Proposed Conavation Areas 2 alt 3 drown on the Sensitive Biological Resources Map,Exhibit IV-3I� of the Draft(lmml Pam are not reflected in the preferred Lard Use Plan Exhibit M-1. Designation of these areas ae proposed conservation had is also inconsistent with the County General Plan. The County is cunmtly processing residential development applications covering a mgjority of this area. These proposed pwjects as consistent with the County General Plan and will be essential to County compliance with housing production targets of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA). We coeaider any anu ict between the Couuny and City General Plans for the sphere of influence area to be potentially dgilisant. )o the County's previous comments on the Notice of Pmpration(NOP),sent `l to Thomas 3. McGla F on July 3, 2000, we indicated that the DEIR should identify, quantify (with comparative build-out analysis)and evaluate the potential effects of conflicts between the County General Plan and the City's preferred land use plan proposed for the sphere of influence area Although the DEIR does provide comparative buildout numbers,the significance of the reduction in housing opportunities in the sphere ren is art adequately addressed. IYIR.SM 11,DANUUr W q/i N 0 !:IUM BOIrtI b Suwrv�wrs 1 til I'IXi1MU.i .. Flnl 01WO DENMe MANSHEIICI. -- r:- .t ,c I r .:.:. PIN D MIKEtti .. wawa nlshio MED AGU1LN. �4 I ,nes .rAnY kAV13........ . fin Dwim Puldic:<rv¢ri Gauy 73 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 81 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 ACG. 06 07 MON) 15:59 - PA(:e. 2/3 DER Rssporoe—Rencf)o Cucemonpa General Plan Update EIR AVM 8.2001 Page 2 of 3 In the County's previous comments on the NOP,we indicated that the DBIR should include a detailed description of the various open space designations in the Preferred land Use Plan,and that the General Plan text should include distinctions between the "Open Space" and "Conservation" categories. The J DEIR should analyze the fimcdon of each open space designation and the potential impacts of incomparable land uses within and adjacent to open space areas. Unfortunately,to DER doesn't address these concerns. Please include this information in the fins!EIR document. In the County's previous comments on the MOP,we indicated tin concern about the Rost C 'ab send and gravel mine,operated by Hansen Aggregate,in the Day Creels Spreading Grourds,which u permitted through 2031. The mine is located within a"Flood Control"open space designation. The presence of the J CJ mining activity within the open space should be made elder in the GMMI Plan, and the EIR should address the land use impacts of ongoing mineral team=recovery as a given condition over the life of the proposed General Play The DER does not address concerns about the protection of aggregate resource recovery activities in the Day Creek ares. In fact,we believe that General Plan Policy 2.3.1.3.is in direct oonflid with County and State mineral resource preservation policies. Specifically, the policy stases that, "Where we have determined that urban use is a priority over the preservation of potential sites for aggregate recovery,we shell seek the removal of such areas Gam the Surface Miming and Reclamation Act(SMARA) maps". J 1D Tho County would encourage the City to identify existing mining uses on the Prefarred Land Use Plan and develop appropriate General Plan Policies to discourage the encroachment of incompatible urban uses in the vicinity of State-designated Mineral Resouioe Zones(MRZ's)to avoid obvious conflicts. Biological Reseerees Although the County can not support cradim of proposed conservation eras 2 & 3 as ley discussed, we do suggest formal designation of conservation corridors within the Open Space area,to support the goals of the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Pio(MSHCP} Thee corridors should be designed to avoid key residential development areas sad should errmad we&into the City to entourage wildlife movement between the eanyom north of the City and the valley Hoo. Opporramiim for then wildlife corridors exist sling major drainage easements,where Hooding action is essential to the pseaervation of native habitat The County would encourage the action of open apace conservation areas within the current Citj boundary. Potentia site include preservation of Alluvial Far Sege Serb Habitat(AFSSH)south of 24 Strut,between East Avem w and Wmftm Bullock Road. Additional sites fix AFSSH met south of SR T p 30 and enol of Day Greek Boulevard and in the Cucamonga Creek wash along the western edge of Aha V o I opme Caner atim aroma could also be established in the southern portion of the City to preserve vacant Defai Soils that could support the Dolhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. In the County's previous comments on the NOP,we indicated that the DER should present an overview of the City's approach to participation in the MSHCP;specifically,a discussion of anticipated methods of mWea"m far incremental and cumulative impacts to sensitive habitat within the City. The DER does not address this issue specifically, The Draft General Plan Section 2.3.4.6,states that the City will promote the use of a 1pitigation land bank within the boundaries of the proposed Alluvial Fan Sege Scrub Preserve,in the City's sphere of influence. Discussion of this mitigation measure soDidd be included in 7`{ Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 82 of 117 AUG. 06 ' 01 MON) 15:59 soca. 9/9 DEIR Response—Rancho Cucumonpe General Plan Update EIR Atjust B.20D1 Pepe 3 of 3 Tthethe EIR and should include specific standards for the amount of mitigation land to be provided based on IT— the ecological value of the habitat being impacted. In the County's previous comments on the NOP,we indicated that the DER should address the objectives and purpose of the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat preservation Program(NEOSHPP). Neither the DEIR Dor the proposed General Plan mates any mention of thio program. The final EIR should address T 10 the objectives sort purpose of the NEOSHPP;including a discussion of consistency of the Preferred Land Use Plan with the provisions of the NEOSHPP. Population and Housing The County must plan for residential development in unincorporated areas in order to satisfy the housing growth targets enforced by the State Dcpartmem of Housing and Community Development(HDC). In the Courdy's previous comments on the NOP,we requested an analysis of ava able sites for new housing in the sphere of influence area It appars that the proposed Land Use Plan for the sphere vee would allow fewer housing units than either the current City General Plan or the Cavity Gsstaal Plan. Although we recognize the obvious benefits of open space conservation,we consider the loss of housing growth capacity in the sphere of influence area to be a potentially significant environmental impact,which should be quantified and discussed in tho Eat. We urge the city to maim®consistency with the County General Plea by inaeadng residential density designations on proper as Dot set aside for open space%nsrvation within the sphere of influence area. Conelnebn Overall,the Draft General Plan and DEIR arc comprehensive planning documents of high quality. The comments in this: letter aro focused exclusively on potential conflicts with County plans and policies concemnig the unincorporated sphere of influence and regionally agmficant nasal resources. Plante feel fere on contact County staff for more ioformaboo you may need to address the comments in this Idler. Jerry Ouarracino,Senior Associate Planner,can be reached at(909)387-4163. Sincerely, RAND AK7 14Advance AdvamaplanningDivision oc; John Goers,Assistant County Administrator Keith Lee,Associate Administrative Offlccr Michael E.Hays,Land Use Services Director Jury Ouarmcino,Senior Associate Planer 7S Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 83 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga Generd Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR i L Randy Scoff,Division Chief,Advance Planning Division 11. This comment is noted. There was a reprographics error that occurred on Exhibit 3-3 in the Draft EIR related to the colors. The attached Land Use Plan (see Attachment A) provides a clear distinction of all land use categories. J2. The proposed conservation areas are not designated for conservation in the Draft General Plan. The areas identified for conservation are only areas that have been formally set- aside for mitigation and will be conserved. The City has identified additional areas as proposed conservation areas. These areas have been identified by the City as potential conservation areas to create contiguous conservation areas. As areas within the proposed conservation areas are formally set-aside for mitigation, the City will update its General Plan. B. Potential buildout of the sphere-of-influence area under the County of San Bernardino General Plan is different than under the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Higher Intensity Alternative addressed in Section 7.3 of the Draft EIR includes the development of the sphere-of-influence area under existing County designations. Section 7.3 identifies that a total of approximately 5,000 more residential units would be constructed as part of this alternative. Of the approximately 5,000 units, approximately 4,000 more units would be associated with the sphere-of-influence area. As discussed in Section 7.3.2 of the Draft EIR, additional development associated with this alternative would result in greater environmental effects. It is noted that the County General Plan provides more housing opportunities for the sphere-of-influence area compared to the City's General Plan. However, based on the various constraints associated with the sphere-of-influence area (i.e., fire, geologic, seismic, and flood), the City has conservatively planned the sphere-of-influence for urban uses in order to ensure public safety. Although the City's plan conflicts with the County's plan, the City's plan would result in fewer environmental effects(i.e.,biological resources,traffic and circulation,air quality, noise,aesthetics and visual resources,geology and soils, land use compatibility, and cultural resources)as described in Section 7.3.3 of the Draft EIR. 14. The specific discussions of the types of uses allowed in the Open Space and Conservation categories are provided in Chapter III of the Draft General Plan. The Open Space designation would allow up to one residential unit per 10 acres as well as recreational uses. This designation includes the existing golf courses in the City and the natural open space lands in the sphere-of-influence. The Conservation category includes areas already set aside as mitigation for various State, County, City, and private projects as well as areas that may be purchased in the future as mitigation for other projects in the area. The increase in residential units that is identified on Table 3-1 in the Draft EIR(13,524 units) includes those future residential units that could be developed within the Open Space category proposed in the sphere-of-influence area. The potential effects associated with the Open Space category are addressed in Section 5 of the Draft EIR. Land use compatibility impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan are discussed on page 5.4-4 of the Draft EIR. 15. The seventh sentence in the second paragraph on page 5.1-9 of the Draft EIR states that mining operations currently exist in the Day Creek fan which is located within the City's sphere-of-influence area. The first paragraph on page 5.1-15 of the Draft EIR addresses S U choRTC927doc 76 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Page 84 of 117 cross Reference 01-227 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR the potential effects associated with urban development and existing and future mining operations. Mitigation measures to reduce these potential effects are identified on page 5.1-18 of the Draft EIR. J6. This comment is noted. The last sentence in paragraph one on page 5.1-15 of the Draft EIR states that the removal of resource areas prior to the depletion of the resources would be considered a significant impact.General Plan policy 2.3.1.6 in the Draft General Plan refers to active mining operations and the City monitoring the mineral extraction activities to reduce direct and indirect negative impacts. Impacts associated with development that encroaches on active mining operations will need to be assessed in accordance with CEQA prior to development approval. J7. This comment regarding the designation of conservation corridors is noted. The City's intent regarding the designation of conservation areas is to include existing formally designated mitigation areas. As shown on the attached exhibit (see Attachment B), the City has identified potential future area that could be designated as conservation. However,these areas would need to be formally designated as mitigation areas before the City would update its General Plan. new potential areas as shown in Attachment B includes areas designated for Flood Contml/Utility Corridor. I J8. This suggestion regarding areas that could be designated for Conservation is noted. J9. The City will work with the County on the formulation of the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Plan(MSHCP)as identified in Policy 2.3.4.3 in the General Plan. Currently the MSHCP is in its preliminary stage of development.The specifics regarding the implementation of the MSHCP such as performance standards is part of the existing MSHCP planning process.The City will continue to support the County in this process. J10. The portions of the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program (NEOPHPP) that are located within the Planning Area has been designated for Conservation in the General Plan. Pages 3-5 and 3-6 of the Draft EIR include a discussion of General Plan policies that support the NEOPHPP.The City has designated the North Etiwanda Preserve area for conservation to recognize the formally designated mitigation area.The City's intent is to designate this area as conservation to be consistent with the objectives of the NEOPHPP. 111. As mentioned in the comment,the proposed General Plan includes fewer residential units within the sphere-of-influence area compared to the existing County General Plan. The provision of fewer residential units would result in an inconsistency with existing County plans; however, this inconsistency would not result in greater environmental impacts compared to the implementation of the proposed General Plan, as discussed in Section 7.3. Please also see response to comment J3 for a comparison of effects. i s v.cMRres27.d« 77 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 85 of 117 I O�tA R�0 C I T Y O F a_a, ,_ O N T A -RI O 303 EAST 'B- STREET, CIVIC CENTER ONTARIO M-ag -�I'OIIIIA CALIFORNIA 91764-4196 (909)395-2000 FAX (909)395-2070 GARY GOTT C GREGORY C DEVEREAUX MAVOP CITY MANAGER GERALD A DuROIS ryCFRANCyp CU MARY WIRTES.MMC MAYOR PRO TEN M u C�ERI ONG�IES R 1JEER R ALAN 0 LEON Jut 2 Easoaea PALLS LEON July 24,2001 5 ' 1 DEBORAH S.ACKER 'Y CCUN[LMEMBEaS CEI V f G PANNING Larry Henderson,Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Dear Mr.Henderson, Thank you for allowing the City of Ontario the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced project. We have completed our review of the Draft EIR for Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan Update. At this time,we have no concerns or comments pertaining to the project. K—' We appreciate being informed of the project and look forward to continued communications regarding the project. Sincerely, ONTARIO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jerry L. Mia/m,,Planning Director James A. Ragsdale,AICP Principal Planner JAR:dm 79 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 86 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR K. James A.Ragsdale,Principal Planner,City of Ontario KI. This comment is an acknowledgement of receipt of the Draft EIR and identification of no comments on the Draft EIR at this time. i l SSR hoRTC827 77 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 87 of 117 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Southern California omp ny 1981 w Lu9onla Avenue The JUL 12 2001 Redland,CA 923749720 Gas Madmg Address: Company PO Box 3003.SCS031 RECEIVED - PLANNING Redland,CA 923730306 t A WSempra Energy'cdmpany July 9,2001 Gas Co. Ref.No.0 1-135 OD City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Attention: Larry Henderson—Principal Planner Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report—City of Rancho Cucamona General Plan Update. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced project. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the - _ time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities L Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available,gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter)Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit —I Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home,apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. OO Resolution No. 01-238 Page 88 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. L— I We have Demand Side Management programs availab!e to commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/industrial Support Center at 11-800- S-2000. Sincerely, Jorge Asp Technical Sup isor 81 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 89 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR L. Jorge Aspa.Technical Supervisor,Southern California Gas Company LI. This comment regarding typical natural gas demand is noted and is consistent with the average demand factor identified for all residential units in Table 5.9-9 on page 5.9-22 of the Draft FIR. I SchoRrCan dm �� Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 90 of 117 July 24, 2001 Brad B Her y0 9 O( °Gc Alan Warren FCF' 30 �� Planning Department i`(O '0, City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Ay�jy Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 Subject:Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Dear Sirs: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the City's General Plan Update. My general comments follow: I 1. The second page of my letter and corresponding attachment commenting on the IM - Notice of Preparation was inadvertently omitted(See Attachment 1). Please include in the administrative record. 2. I would like to submit a subsequent letter that I submitted to the City concerning m a the same subject for the administrative record(See Attachment 2). 3. 1 concur with USFWS comments that"interspersing development,even low I density and hillside residential development'will adversely affect"reserve m'3 integrity and the ultimate utility of a reserve for conservation'. 4. Please also place into the administrative record a letter dated June 26, 1991 in I which CDFG goes on record to advocate the"prohibition of development north of the utility corridor"to"accomplish the preservation and continued value of M-4 �—T LL habitat'. CDFG has not deviated firm this position during the last ten years and 1 t 1 has repeatedly remigded the City in several subsequent correspondences about the sensitivity and biological significance of the habitat on the North Etiwanda Fan (See Attachment 3). 5. Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is the predominant natural community on the North Etiwanda Fan and is globally imperiled. The State ranks this natural M community SI.I meaning that there are fewer than six element occurrences or Ill 5 1000 acres. Please place the attached State Element Rankings in the administrative record(See Attachment 4). Page I of 8 83 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 91 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 6. 73%of all Riversidian Sage Scrub is in private ownership,with only 7.3%in managed public ownership(Source: California GAP Analysis Report) ►'y� / 7. 42 sensitive species(fully 79%of the animal species included in the Valley 1 I 1_(0 Multi-species Plan)are known to occur on RAFSS in North Etiwanda(Braden). 8. 34 sensitive species are known to breed in this same area(Braden). I am particularly concemed with the various projects that are moving through the planning and approval process with complete disregard for the cumulative impacts on the environment. Once again,a major development project has been approved with grossly insufficient environmental mitigation. Let me be as clear as I can be. The . environmental degradation that i am referring to has to do with development projects that: ❑ Result in the loss of high quality habitat ❑ Are a detriment to wildlife by seriously fragmenting existing habitat ❑ Have significant impacts on the area's biological resources ❑ Disrupt wildlife movement corridors and permanently preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat value ❑ Degrade overall habitat quality of the MSHCP planning area and undermine wildlife recovery and the perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity ❑ Cause edge effects to North Etiwanda Preserve that can not be mitigated to insignificant levels ❑ Have the potential for reducing numbers of rare or endangered plant and animal species Council's recent approval of the Etiwanda Estates Project without requiring a commensurate offset to the environmental damage that this project will cause is yet m— another example of the disregard(if not disdain)the City shows towards objective scientific data,Responsible Agencies'admonitions,and habitat protection in general. Councilman's Dutton's sarcastic remarks conceming the federally endangered San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatcher,his long litany of misleading statistics,and his assertion that this development was needed for"our children"just reinforces this perception(I've lived in Rancho Cucamonga most of my adult life and do not know of anyone whose children can afford to purchase a home in a gated community with starting prices in the$3004400 thousand price range). I cannot fault the developer,A&J Resources, for wanting to profit from its investment, nor can the City prevent development from occurring on this property. However,the _ City is well within its legal right(and I believe it has a moral obligation and public duty) to require a property owner to replace the destroyed habitat with like-kind habitat in amounts that are proportional to the damage that his/her project will do to the environment.. Offsetting donations of land that are commensurate with the environmental damage a project causes are fundamental to a sound conservation strategy that seeks to save the last remnants of a of a very threatened natural community. The California Department of Fish and Game recognizes this and has consistently maintained,since Page 2 of 8 84 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 92 of 117 1992,in letters of response to specific projects involving RAFSS that"RAFSS is one of the rarest habitats in the state"and"that impacts to RAFSS are significant and need to be mitigated on a ratio greater than 1:1". CDFG further recommends that impacts to RAFSS should be mitigated at a replacement ratio of 3:1 or greater even if the habitat is not occupied by an endangered species. USFWS also writes,"Replacement rates for m-7 ! impacts to alluvial scrub and/or alluvial chaparral should be,at least,3 acres of scrub or chaparral preserved in perpetuity for each acre destroyed or degraded...."(Letter to Chaffey Joint Union High School District dated August 10, 1999).This position is consistent with CEQA which requires that significant environmental impacts be mitigated to insignificant levels. North Etiwanda Specific Plan _ The City acknowledged the rarity of RAFSS in its Resource Management Plan for the North Etiwanda Specific Plan stating,"This vegetation type is now confined to remnant patches along unaltered streams and outwashes,because urban development and flood control projects have eliminated it from most of its former range". The RMP further states,"Because of its increasing scarcity,RAFS habitat is considered a high priority for rn_g preservation by several resource management agencies including the CDFG,the USFWS, USFS,and the California Native Plant Society(CNPS)". Moreover,a major goal of the RMP is to"preserve the maximum feasible amount of RAFS"and list the following design feature: • RAFS removed from open space designations as adopted in the ENSP, April 1, 1992,shall be replaced at a ratio of not less than 2:1 The Last of the Last Furthermore,the RMP estimated that 3,272 acres of RAFSS habitat existed on the North Etiwanda Fan. Since its adoption date in April 1992,however,several hundred acres of RAFSS have been(or will be)eliminated by various projects approved by both the County and the City. Fewer than 2000 acres of this globally imperiled habitat now exists. This fact,coupled with the designation of North Etiwanda Fan as critical habitat for the federally endangered California Coastal Gnatcatcher,has prompted the Responsible Agencies to recommend replacement ratios of 5:1, m-9 A&J Resources'agreement to mitigate its project at less than a 1:1 ratio is totally unacceptable(172 acres off site with a vague promise for 110 more). The project effectively destroys roughly 15-20%of all remaining RAFSS on the Etiwanda Fan,takes (in all likelihood)federally threatened and endangered animal species,obliterates a blue j line stream(s),encroaches upon the Etiwanda Preserve,adversely impacts the North Etiwanda Creek Sanctuary under management of The Habitat Trust, fragments a significant wildlife movement corridor, reduces the numbers of sensitive plants and animals,and seriously undermines any chance for success of the West Valley MSHCP. Page 3 of 88 VS Resolution No. 01-238 Page 93 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 The contribution of land of which I speak is not an exaction,toll,or extortion of funds(as I heard one Council member say). It is an offset for the destruction of public trust assets and resources(wildlife)that the development project will unavoidably destroy. I do not believe that Council members considers RJR's offer of$4,000,000 for public park construction plus an equestrian center as mitigation for the project an exaction,toll,or extortion. Conservation Banking Areas north of the utility easement should become conservation banks for projects that adversely impact sensitive habitat. All development north of the utility corridor should be discouraged to the fullest extent possible. Property owners in the targeted conservation area should be encouraged to participate in the conservation bank. Developers who destroy sensitive habitat should be required to make meaningful, yy� I O proportional contributions to the conservation bank. This recommendation is consistent *I r with Responsible Agencies'longstanding position that no development should occur above the Utility Corridor. The following is taken from a report entitled"Innovative Tools for Natural Resource Management"prepared by the State Resource Agency and the Department of Fish and Game. It is provided for information purposes in the event decision makers are unfamiliar with the report. The 7995 State Policy on Conservation Banking In April 1995,Secretary for Resources Douglas P.Wheeler and Secretary for Environmental Protection James M. Strock took an important step to build on the progress of mitigation banking and to promote effective regional resource conservation by establishing a new State policy encouraging a"second generation"of mitigation banks called conservation banks. Like a mitigation bank,a conservation bank is a parcel,or a series of parcels of land, whose natural resource values--habitat types or species present--are sold to those who must compensate for resource impacts on land elsewhere. Conservation banking, however,represents an important evolution. Most mitigation banks are or can be m— conservation banks. All conservation banks are not mitigation banks. Conservation banks are designed to focus on the conservation of biological resources that are high priorities in specific regions.Further,conservation banks are designed to address the protection of - habitat types and dependent species at the same time.Specifically,the State seeks to encourage banking in those parts of California that are engaged in regional habitat protection on a formal basis. A regional preserve system that assures the protection of a wide range of habitats and species allows much more flexibility in conservation banking because the protection of specific amounts of each significant habitat type is assured. In addition,under Page 4 of 8 86 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 94 of 117 conservation banking,mitigation credits may be allocated for the acquisition of land as well as its restoration.Finally,conservation banking facilitates the development of anticipatory regional conservation strategies.This allowance can effectively increase the value of the conservation bank lands. In conjunction with long-term regional conservation strategies,the State conservation banking policy identifies as objectives the protection of. o The habitat of species currently listed under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts or those that are likely to be listed; o Tidal and seasonal wetlands,including vernal pools,surrounding uplands, and associated watersheds; o Riparian habitat and adjacent lands;and o Wildlife corridors that provide connectivity(the opportunity for wildlife movement)between adjacent natural areas(preserves,parks,etc.). The land in a proposed conservation bank must possess habitat value that is determined by an authorized wildlife agency(for instance,Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. t�/1 I I Fish and Wildlife Service)to have substantial regional habitat value,be in need of I ' I protection and/or restoration,and be worthy of permanent protection.Rules are established as to what habitats can be mitigated at the bank,as well as the extent of the service area of the bank. i Terms for purchase of credits in conservation banks are determined by the regional market for mitigation.The price of each credit and financial arrangement surrounding the purchase of credits are determined strictly between the bank owner and credit purchaser. The number of credits likely to be purchased depends upon the level of development activity in the region,the uniqueness of the biological resources in the bank,and the amount of competition from other banks in the area.When demand for mitigation credits is high,banks can quickly sell out their credits. When all conservation credits in a particular bank are sold,the property is managed in perpetuity as a wildlife preserve.The long-term management is funded by an endowment established through the sale of the credits.Depending on the specific circumstances, long-term management of the preserve is the responsibility of the bank owner,a nonprofit organization,or a public agency,including Fish and Game. Environmental Benefits of Conservation Banking Conservation banks provide for the protection of important habitats and linkages between key habitats. In addition,they offer an environmentally beneficial alternative to the y� current practice of requiring piecemeal mitigation for individual project impacts.Isolated mitigation projects that have little connection with their surrounding ecosystem often are more prone to failure than a mitigation project that is incorporated into a larger, ecosystem-based conservation bank or regional conservation plan. I Page 5 of 8 97 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 95 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 In addition,conservation banks can take advantage of economies of scale that are often not available to individualized mitigation projects.Further,conservation banks provide incentives for private landowner participation and represent one of the best examples of private/public partnerships in an era of substantial fiscal constraints at all levels of government. Conservation banks also can serve as a major funding component for the creation of an ecosystem preserve under a regional conservation plan. Finally,conservation banks simplify the regulatory compliance process. Economic Benefits of Conservation Banking Project-by-project mitigation often involves lengthy regulatory processes and significant 1'Vl�la costs for private landowners seeking project approvals. Conservation banks can greatly I ' t ease these burdens,reducing mitigation compliance to a single transaction and giving project proponents the certainty of having complied-with mandated mitigation requirements. Further,conservation banking allows landowners to recoup a higher value for their land, rather than suffer from constraints on land use due to environmental considerations.The availability of a conservation bank--and the availability of conservation credits-- effectively makes the protection of habitat an economic asset that can be bought and sold by any third party that needs to mitigate for a project that occurs apart from and after the creation of the conservation bank. As a result,conservation credits are commodities themselves that have monetary value and that,eventually,may be traded in a manner similar to air pollution credits. Natural Resource Protection Program_ In addition to establishing a Conservation Bank,I would ask that the City consider the creation of a Natural Resource Protection Program that seeks to protect the sensitive habitat and scenic lands that lie to the north of the City. For an example of how this program would work or be structured,I would direct you to the City of San Luis Obispo. http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/naturairesources/ rn-�3 San Luis instituted this program in 1995,and has achieved phenomenal success in a relatively short time. The City of San Luis actively promotes collaborative efforts to save its open space and natural resources and works with local interest groups and Federal and State agencies to obtain grants to finance the work they are doing. The program's primary purpose is to protect the City's natural heritage,but it is also used as a vehicle to educate the public,city staff,and decision makers about the environmental issues facing the City and the richness of its natural surroundings. Page 66 ooff�8 a� Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 96 of 117 i II Conceptual Area Protection Plan(CAPP) To its credit,the City of Rancho Cucamonga has submitted a Draft CAPP to the Wildlife Conservation Board for consideration. I wholeheartedly support this effort and urge the City to aggressively seek approval for the CAPP. To demonstrate its commitment to this " 1 approach,however,the City will have to express a willingness to match a portion of the overall acquisition and/or management costs. Funding for this commitment could come from grant applications. Again,I would point you to the City Of San Luis Obispo since they have considerable experience in this area. Existing Lands Committed to Conservation To my knowledge the following lands have been committed to conservation: • The 762-acre Etiwanda Preserve dedicated to conservation as mitigation for 30 Freeway • The 135-acre North Etiwanda Creek Sanctuary that was mitigation for University Project • A 200-acre area within Day Creek Wash placed into permanent open space in October 1986 as mitigation for the Day Creek Water Project • 200 acres of the 700-acre Rock Crusher mining site were set aside,but it is not y� r clear whether mitigation dedicates this acreage to conservation • USFWS was party to a mitigation commitment of approximately 42 acres within San Sevaine Wash • Two parcels were committed to conservation (one 50-acre parcel and one 26-acre parcel)as a result of Chaffey Joint Union High School District's illegal take of the federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatcher. I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request more information about these protected lands. I am requesting the APN of each parcel so that I can identify them on County assessor maps. I would also like a list of any other properties that have been committed to conservation in Rancho Cucamonga or its Sphere of Influence. Please also include private in-holdings in the national forest that have been conserved in perpetuity. Please provide APN,acreage,and agency requiring dedication to conservation or open space. Conclusion The City is currently at a crossroads. We are faced with a major challenge to balance our need to grow with our need to protect our natural landscape. But we also have an _ opportunity to create a lasting legacy—an ecological reserve that is viable,self- sustaining,and a substantial representation of what was once here. Rancho Cucamonga has been criticized because it lacks a sense of place. But I would argue that the beauty of the region and our proud historic past convey a sense of place to our community. i Page 7 of 8 89 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 97 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 We have the opportunity to do the right and just thing. By protecting our natural heritage we are notjust benefiting wildlife but ourselves as well.I pray that the City will stop standing behind amoral legal positions and arguments,but would take the moral high ground knowing each time we tear away at the fabric of life we diminish the richness and fullness of God's creation. I fear we will be remembered(and judged)more for what we have destroyed than what we have fashioned with our on hands. Thank you in advance for the requested information. Please provide Council members and Planning Commission with a copy of this letter including all attachments. Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Alta Loma,CA 91701 C City Council Planning Commission Mary Beth Woulfe,USFWS Nancy Ferguson,USFWS Glenn Black,Natural Heritage Division,CDFG Lisa Northrop,Land Use Services Department,SBC The Habitat Trust ATTACHMENTS Page 8 of 8 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 98 of 117 iME,ovT June 13,2000 Larry Henderson Alan Warren Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 Subject: Notice of Preparation for SEIR for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Dear Sirs, I would like to submit the following comments on the City's Draft Preferred Land Use Plan and,in particular,preferred land use in the City's Sphere of Influence.This is also to confirm that the attached statement was omitted from the draft vision statement in error and will be included. The Plan is not consistent with NCCP Conservation Guidelines First,I would like to say that the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is a marked improvement over the existing Land Use Plan. However,as the City acknowledges in its initial study, the Plan will have significant impacts on any future HCP being contemplated by the County of San Bernardino—the lead agency in this effort. Generally: i • The plan gives up far too much Coastal Sage Scrub to residential development; • It does not provide adequate linkage between permanently protected"reserves'. The "Oak Summit"reserve is flanked on both its south and west sides by hillside residential designations effectively isolating it from the"MWD"reserve and the Deer Canyon Flood Control Basin. These same designations in the NE portion of the Sphere of Influence also disrupt continuity between areas of high quality habitat; _- • Land dedicated to conservation is not of sufficient size to sustain viable populations of raze,threatened,or endangered plants and animals, let alone promote species recovery as required by Federal law;and • Simply,the proposed land use is not consistent with the following basic reserve design tenets which were taken directly from the NCCP Conservation Guidelines: I. Conserve target species throughout the planning area 2. Larger reserves are better 3. Keep reserve areas close 4. Keep habitat contiguous 5. Link reserves with corridors 6. Reserves should be diverse 7. Protect reserves from encroachment I 1 1 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 99 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 The Plan does not adequately address high quality habitat that will benefit rare plants and animals in the long term. Although the threatened California Coastal Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Merriam Kangaroo Rat have not been confirmed in the City's western foothills,as many as nine(9)sensitive species have been identified there. These areas contain"very threatened"alluvial scrub and support vast assemblages of plants ands animals. The high quality habitat that is present will certainly benefit HCP target species in the long term. I am particularly concerned with the level of development planned for Cucamonga Canyon and its environs. This area has both well-suited habitat and linkage to both planned and established reserves(through the San Bernardino National Forest). The Cucamonga Canyon and surrounding areas contain"primary constituent elements of ' critical habitat"for both the Coastal Gnatcatcher and Merriam Kangaroo Rat that would certainly permit these target species to establish themselves there(if they do not already occupy the area).Current literature also indicates that the elevation is suitable for these animals as well. I would again ask that you closely coordinate the City's General Plan Update with Trustee and/or Responsible Agencies. The County has appointed Lisa Northrop to work on habitat issues and her comments and input should be solicited as well. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your initial study. If you have any questions,please call me at(323)869-3749. Sincerely, 94 Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Alta-Loma,CA 91701 c Mary Beth Woulfe Nancy Ferguson Lisa Northrop - Attachment 2 �� Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 100 of 117 I T H E C I T V O F R A N C n 0 C U C A M O N G t1 November 8, 1999 I I Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Alta Loma, CA 91701 Dear Mr. Schiavone: At its November 3, 1999, meeting,the General Plan Update Task Force reviewed a staff modified version of your suggested environmental passage for the General Plan Vision Statement. The statement needed to be reworded to ft into the"future-past"tenselcontext of the Statement. The Task Force approved of its addition into the 'Shaping Our Surroundings"section, as drafted below: "The City has recognized the importance of the natural resources within its purview and is sensitive to the threatened ecosystems that are present here. The City has worked cooperatively with neighboring communities and the County to promote the planned conservation of endangered natural habitats" I have forwarded this passage to the project consultant for incorporation into the Vision Statement text. You may contact me at extension 2254 if you have any questions regarding the General Plan Update process. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, Alan Warren,AICP Associate Planner AW:ls I I I ;.cr .. J Aig,CrCer .�.vI.CC:ir.e�'.C�, BCW Bwre D,cne;�i:ifiami COuncOf'nember Bob Dunon �.CDCry ,manager Ccuncl:member James V Ccrarcb na-c:- Ccc=crgc.CA=._':J . [Crm 677-7-0 c, , .-rc. , e,c Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 101 of 117 7 ,4 7- o� October 16,2000 Brad Buller Larry Henderson Alan Warren Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 Subject: Proposed Annexation of Land Dear Sirs, This letter pertains to the proposed annexation of roughly 500 acres north of Banyan and east of Rochester. First,I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to the annexation nor am I opposed to development occurring on this land. What will be opposed are inadequate and artificial mitigation efforts that will be proposed and considered for projects occurring in the annexation area. Environmental mitigation is - inadequate if it 1)defers compliance with federal permit requirements 2)does not promote the recovery of species as federal law requires 3)disregards science and the recommendations of Responsible Agencies and 4)undermines MSHCP planning. My comments are as follows: 1. The land proposed for annexation is in the process of being designated as critical habitat for California Coastal Gnatcatcher—a federally listed threatened species. ' 2. The presence of these birds was confirmed during protocol surveys conducted by the Chaffey Joint Union School District for Los Osos High School. 3. The area in question has been designated a`Significant Natural Area"and one of the rarest habitats in the state. 4. Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub(RAFSS)is a very threatened natural community and is present throughout the area in question. S. The annexation area occurs within the known or historic ranges of other federally listed species including the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat,endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly,and endangered slender-homed spineflower. 6. Any development in the annexation area would trigger a mandatory finding of significance. ' 7. Removal of critical habitat must be replaced with like kind habitat. 8. Mitigation efforts must contribute to regional habitat conservation planning and a viable reserve system on the Etiwanda Fan. 9. Since any impacts to RAFSS are deemed significant,they must be mitigated at ratios greater than 1:1. The Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service both recommend replacement ratios of 3:1 or greater even if the habitat is not occupied by an endangered species. I � A 9y Resolution No. 01-238 Page 102 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 10. Any development proceeding in the area would likely require a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Developers and landowners cannot be faulted for wanting to profit from their land,but they must understand that there is a price to pay for harming endangered species and their habitat. Mitigation for their projects must be meaningful. The purchase of 50 acres of San Bernardino Flood Control lands as mitigation for Los Osos High School accomplished little. The land was already publicly held and probably would not have been developed anyway. Our City has a wonderful opportunity to leave a lasting legacy to our children,our heirs, and our posterity-a viable reserve system that perpetuates irreplaceable biological resources. Moreover,the City has a legitimate,God-ordained role in guarding justice and fostering a proper balance between private property interests and the common good. We can continue to expand existing reserves and build our City if we have the will.It's going to take wise oversight and careful stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions,please call me at (323)869-3749. SingeA rely, Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Alta Loma,CA 91701 c Mary Beth Wolfe Nancy Ferguson Lisa Northrop 2 2 9S Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 103 of 117 LETTER 7 1 STATE OF CAO"NI1—ME EESONCES AOEeCl YET• NILSON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME —,. 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 ong Beach, California 90602 213) 590-5113 . June 26, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Miki Bratt 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0607 ! Dear Ms. Bratt: Department personnel have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, SCH 89012314. The project is a general plan amendment and prezoning for approximately 6840 acres prior to ! annexation of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence and provides for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and to preserve 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (SR 30) , south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the city of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. Approximately one-half (over 3,000 acres) of the specific plan area is a gently sloping alluvial fan. This alluvial fan includes the Day Creek Wash, Etiwanda Creek Wash, and San Sevaine Wash areas and contains the associated Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation and riparian habitat. The alluvial fan sage scrub habitat was once widely distributed along the southern outwashes of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains but has now become confined to remnant patches along unaltered streams and outwashes, as residential and flood control projects have eliminated it from most of its former range. The Department has the following concerns regarding this project. Streambed Alteration - Department personnel have been working with your city and the County flood control agency to develop a streambed alteration agreement for the proposed channelization of Etiwanda and San Sevaine wash areas. Fill or channelization of these washes is unacceptable to the Department and any proposed debris dams must allow the storm events to pass througt 7.1 the dams without reducing the volume and velocity of the water below the dams. Agreement has not been reached as to specific width of the channels with the streambed alteration aspects. I 96 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 104 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Ms. Miki Bratt , June 26, 1991 Page Two Hydraulic Condition - The final DEIR should allow for the 1 J re-creation of the hydraulic nature of the fan sage scrub habitat adjacent to Day Creek. This would include the reworking Of Day Creek Basin and elimination of the existing cross channel. These measures could serve somewhat as mitigation for 72 the loss of habitat associated with development. The Department concurs with the city's decision to avoid and preserve the drainages. These areas should remain a natural open space to provide continued use as wildlife corridors and valuable raptor foraging areas while providing a buffer from the developed areas. Buffer Zones - The buffer zones presented in the DEIR are in adequate for the continued use of open spaces by fish and wildlife that currently exists in the region. The proposed development design will result in fragmentation of the wildlife 7.3 populations and cause disruption of the movement corridors, thereby reducing the resource value of the region. We have specific recommendations for the following areas: Streambeds - All development and resultant activity must be prohibited within 100 feet of the high water mark of any 174 streambed with an additional 50 foot transitional zone. Peat Bog - The DEIR provides unclear information and proposed activity regarding the peat bog area that resides in the upper northwestern corner of the specific plan area. The document does not delineate the precise boundaries of this unique and highly sensitive bog area making the proposed 200 foot buffer zone of questionable value to its preservation. To 75 proper amount of buffer around the bog area, no developments the should occur north of the utility corridor. This would preclude any alteration of drainages that occur north or northeast of the bog and eliminate any potential for upstream interference of the bog's delicate ecological balance. Natural Springs - The DEIR identifies the need for the preservation of the natural springs that occur on the proposed project site using an "adequate" yet undetermined buffer zone of I natural open space for continued wildlife access. These springs all occur north of the utility corridor and are essential for 7.6 use by fish and wildlife on site and on adjacent National Forest lands. Development proximal to the springs and the bog will reduce their resource value and will greatly degrade the existing wildlife access. Prohibition of development north of the utility corridor will accomplish the preservation and continued value of the habitat. 77 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 105 of 117 i Ms. Miki Bratt June 26, 1991 Page Three Bighorn Sheep - The DEIR identifies two bighorn sheep winter ranges that within the National Forest and adjacent to the specific plan area and one that lies within the northwest corner of the area. The bighorn sheep is State-listed Threatened and 7.7 fully protected by the State. Considerable development is Proposed adjacent to the Forest Service boundary and its influence will adversely impact the wintering areas. Again, the solution resides in the prohibition of development north of the utility corridor. All buffer zones and open spaces shall retain native species indigenous to the region and all revegetation palettes should also reflect these native species. The document recommends that these areas be designed to prevent motorcycle and off road vehicle use and the Department concurs. The use of physical 78 barriers such as fencing and native bramble vegetation will restrict the misuse and degradation of open space intended as compensation for development and will also impede the ability of wildlife to stray into developed areas. The resources management plan for these preserved areas should include maintenance of barriers and adequate patrol and protection. Funding for such necessary functions will be bourne by the City. Loss of Habitat - The Department is intensely concerned with the preservation of the Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub community unique to this area. Balancing the development needs ..j of the landowners with the resource need of maintaining viable wildlife populations is a concern properly examined by the City. Compensation for the loss of this fan sage scrub habitat should reflect a replacement ratio of 2:1. Loss of foraging habitat 7.9 to all wildlife, including raptors and species of special concern must be compensated as well. The appropriate compensation should be the preservation, in perpetuity, of the drainages previously mentioned and the all property north of the utility corridor. These large open space dedications would resolve much of the current fish and wildlife concerns of the Department. I Proximity to San Bernardino National Forest - Intense development adjacent to any National Forest is unacceptable to the Department. Human encroachment will result in adverse impacts to the extant biota in the Forest and the existing significant buffer zone will be forced past the Forest Service boundary. Preservation of the wildernesslopen space north of utility corridor will act to salvage the existing buffer zone of the Forest. /O Resolution No. 01-238 Page 106 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Ms. Miki Bratt June 26, 1991 Page Four 0 Listed Species and 'Species of Special Concern - The surveys l� presented in the DEIR regarding the absence of the endangered Santa Ana River woolly-star and the slender-horned spineflower 7j� are not convincing. The surveys were done during severe drought conditions and should have been followed up with a current survey. Compensation through habitat preservation for loss of habitat to and take of the orange-throated whiptail, San Diego coast horned lizard, and other species of concern to the Department has been previously discussed. In summary, the Department recommends the development plan be redesigned to include adequate long-term protection of all the major drainages and sufficient wildlife movement corridors to interconnect them. These unique and sensitive habitat areas support significant biological resources and require approriate action. Preservation can be accomplished through protection of the drainage areas as well as the property north of the utility corridor. Until the Etiwanda North Specific Plan incorporates these concerns, the Department recommends against certification of the current document. The project sponsor is subject to the user fee provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, and the fee is payable to the County Clerk when the Notice of Determination is filed by the lead agency. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c) , the user fee is $1,250 for a Negative Declaration and $850 for any type of Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. If you have any questions please contact Kimberly K. McKee of our Environmental Services Staff at (213) 590-5137. Sin ely, Fred �Worthl _ Regional Manager Region 5 cc: M. Giusti, R-5 Sharon Dougherty, San Bernardino National Forest, Cahone Ranger District, Star Rt. Box 100, Fontana, CA 92336 J 99 Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 107 of 117 ELEMENT RANKING GLOBAL RANKING The global rank(G-rank)is a reflection of the overall condition of an element throughout its global range. SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITY LEVEL GI = Less than 6 viable element occurrences(EOs)OR less than 1,000 individuals OR less than 2,000 acres. G2 = 6-20 EOs OR 1,000-3,000 individuals OR 2.000-10,000 aces. G3 = 21-100 EOs OR 3,000-10.000 individuals OR 10,000-50,000 acres. G4 = Apparently secure;this rank is clearly lower than G3 but factors exist to cause some concern;i.e.-there is some threat,or somewhat time.habitat. G5 = Population or stand demonstrably secure to ineradicable due to being commonly found in the world. SUBSPECIES LEVEL Subspecies re¢ive a T-rank attached to the G-rank. With the subspecies,the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species,whereas the T-rank reflects the global situation ofjust the subspecies or variety. For example: Choriwnthe rabusta via.hartwegii. This plant is ranked G2TL The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e.,Choriramhe robusra. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of var.haonvegii. STATE RANKING The stare rank is assigned much the same way as the global rank,except state ranks in California often also contain a threat designation attached to the S-rank. SI= Less than 6 EOs OR less than 1,000 individuals OR less than 2,000 ares S I.1=very threatened S1.2=threatened S 1.3=no current threats known S2=6-20 EOs OR 1,000-3,000 individuals OR 2,000-10,000 acres 52.1=very threatened t 52.2=threatened 52.3=no current threats known t S3=21-100 EOs or 3.000-10,000 individuals OR 10,000-50,000 acres 53.1=very threatened 53.2=threatened 53.3=no current threats known S4 - Apparently secure within California;this rank is clearly lower than S3 but factors exist to rause some concern;i.e. there is some threat,m somewhat narrow,habitat. NO THREAT RANK. S5 - Demonstrably secure to ineradicable in California. NO THREAT RANK. Notes: 3. Other symbols I. Other considerations used when ranking a species or natural community include the pattern of distribution GH All sites are historical;the element has not of the element on the landscape,fragmentation of the Bern seen for at least 20 years,but suitable populatioNsaands,and historical extent as compared habitat still exists(SH=All California sites to its modern range. It is important to take a bird's are historical). eye or aerial view when ranking sensitive elements GX All sites are extirpated;this element is rather than simply counting EOs. extinct in the wild(SX=All California sites are extirpated). 2. Uncertainty about the rank of an element is GXC Extinct in the wild;exists in cultivation. expressed in two major ways: GIQ The element is very rue,but there is a taxonomic question associated with it. By expressing the rank as a range of values: eg..S2S3 means the rank is somewhere between S2 and S3. By adding a?to the rank: cg-S2?This represents more certainty than S2S3,but less than S2. i Revised 7196 /OD Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 108 of 117 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft EIR M. Frank Schiavone,Resident M I. This comment is noted.The inclusion of the inadvertently omitted page is included in this responses to comments document and,therefore,is part of the administrative record. M2. This comment is noted and Attachment 2 is included in the administrative record. M3. This comment regarding concurrence with a USFWS finding is noted. Please also we response to J7 regarding the City's intent in designating areas for conservation. M4. This comment is noted and Attachment 3 is included in the administrative record. M5. This comment is noted and Attachment 4 is included in the administrative record. j M6. This comment regarding percentage of habitat and number of species is noted. Since there is no specific comment on the Draft EIR,no further response is required. M7. This comment regarding previously approved projects is noted.The mitigation measures in Section 5.3.4 of the Draft EIR provide programmatic measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. As future development is proposed, specific measures will need to be developed to be consistent with the programmatic measures in the Draft EIR. M8. This comment regarding the rarity of the alluvial fan sage scrub is noted. Since there is no specific comment on the Draft EIR,no further response is required. I M9. This comment regarding the alluvial fan sage scrub and a wildlife movement corridor is j noted. Since there is no specific comment on the Draft EIR, no further response is required. M10. This comment regarding areas north of the utility easement is noted. Since there is no specific comment on the Draft EIR,no further response is required. M11. As noted in Attachment B,the City has identified future areas as potential conservation areas. Please see Response to Comment J7 regarding the designation of these future areas. M12 Please see response to comment MI I regarding future conservation areas. M13 The City's intent is to support the preservation of lands having biological significance as j identified in Policy 2.3.4.3 in the General Plan. At this time,the City does not intend to -� establish a Natural Resource Protection Program. The City is currently supporting the County in establishing the San Bemardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Plan. I M14 This comment regarding support for the City's Draft Conceptual Area Protection Plan is noted. M15 This comment regarding those areas that have been committed for preservation/conservation is noted. Detailed information for each of the currently committed lands that are within the City could be obtained at the City's Planning S:QtanchoRTC827 Joc /O/ Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Page 109 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draft E!R Department However,those that are within the County area would need to be obtained from the County. s.vw,«osrce27. « /OQ- Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 110 of 117 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Planning Department Attn: Brad Buller,Larry Henderson,Alan Warren 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 Sent via email to Larry Henderson July 25,2001 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR),City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council)is a 501(c)3 non-profit project and coalition of Native Americans,scientists,citizens and environmental groups dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage,including endangered species,habitats and sacred lands. The Sage Council has members and supporters that reside in the City and San Bernardino County who recreate,enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development.One of our members, Frank Schiavone,has previously commented on the City's proposed General Plan update.Again, the Sage Council supports our member's expressed concerns and those of the California (�(` I Department of Fish&Game(Department or CDFG)and U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service(Service Y or USFWS).The Department and Service are the lead public trust agencies for natural resources. (See Spirit of the Sage Council v.County of San Bemardino and Mitsubishi Cement Company). The Sage Council currently holds an appointed position on the County of Riversides Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan on the Advisory Committee.One of the tasks that the MSHCP Advisory Committee has is to review and comment on the County's General Plan so that it is consistent with the MSHCP.For all purposes,the County of San Bernardino and Cities, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga,that are signatories to the Valley-wide MSHCP should also i Page l of 3 /03 Resolution No. 01-238 Page 111 of 117 Cross Reference 01-227 I be taking measures to ensure that General Plans are consistent with the conservation of habitats and species identified in the VWMSHCP MOU contract. The Sage Council requests that the City General Plan include maps that identify privately held lands, county lands,county Flood control lands,school district lands,water district lands and lands that have been previously set-aside as mitigation areas.We would also like a separate map of just identifies mitigation lands that includes an appendix that reveals the name of the projects that provided the mitigation lands.The Sage Council has a growing concern that lands that are already mitigation for past N.I ' projects are being sold and/or used again for new project mitigation sites. While the City may not be "double-dipping"mitigation sites,except for the recently approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates development,the Sage Council believes that the County is actively doing so.We also have reason to believe that County Flood Control is selling lands that already have conservation easement on them.The Sage Council is strongly opposed to double-dipping of mitigation lands.We believe that the City can easily avoid this from happening within their jurisdiction if the General Plan would provide the public with maps etc. identifying lands that have historically been set-aside for mitigation and those with existing conservation easements. While the Sage Council supports the comments of our member Frank Schiavone,we have some addidtional concerns regarding mitigation banking.Whether habitat lands are conserved through mitigation or conservation banking,it is important for the City to clearly state in their General Plan that monies alone contributed towards a conservation bank does not equal habitat mitigation.Within the past few years the Courts have decided that habitat mitigation for rare species,or habitat alone,cannot be accomplished based sooty on financial donations(See AP news regarding the case of the Alabama Beach mouse and loss of beach habitat ham://sagecouncil.com/news2.html#Alabama ).The County of Riverside is currently in legal jeopardy over their Stephen's Kangaroo-Rat HCP for accepting money contributions towards a conservation bank type of HCP Preserve system).Habitat mitigation lands must be identified PRIOR to the approval of a development project,water or road project etc.Furthermore, the acquisition of the habitat mitigation site must also be in place and not merely a concept.If the mitigation site is fora specific type of habitat loss or species take,the mitigation site must provide equal i or greater replacement values.The Sage Council requests that the Final EIR for the City's General Plan I include this information so that the interested public and City decision makers understand the legal requirements of natural resource conservation. i The Sage Council,in this letter is updating some of the information provided by Frank Schiavone in his letter on the DEIR General Plan. I Existing Lands Comeaided to Conservation , • The 762-acre North Etiwanda Preserve dedicated to conservation as mitigation for 30 Freeway. `J This mitigation area was acquired through federal funds provided by the U.S.Federal Highways Administration.Funds were given to the States CALTRANS that in tum provided the funds to N-3 SANBAG for acquisition from The Resoulution Trust auction.The City of Rancho Cucamonga had little to nothing to do with the acquistion and conservation of what is now the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve. However,City representatives on numerous occasions have j misrepresented the City's involvement in the conservation of this area. Most recently the Mayor Page 2 of 3 goy Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 112 of 117 and Councilman Dutton misrepresented the City's involvement in the conservation of the site on July 18,2001 at the City Council meeting regarding the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. Furthermore,the City's approval of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project jeopardizes adequate conservation of the NEHP site(See NEHP Conservation Management Agreement and comments provided by CDFG,USFWS and local scientists.) • The 135-acre North Etiwanda Creek Sanctuary that was mitigation for University Project.The City once again had nothing to do with having this site conserved.It was only through litigation filed by Spirit of the Sage Council that this Nature Sanctuary was put in place. • A 200-acre area within Day Creek Wash placed into permanent open space in October 1986 as mitigation for the Day Creek Water Project.This habitat mitigation area was established through the US Army Corp of Engineers,USFWS and CDFG.Again the City had nothing to do with N 3 establishing this conservation area. • 200 acres of the 700-acre Rock Crusher mining site were set aside.This habitat area was set- aside through CDFG 1600 agreement requirements.Again the City had nothing to do with ensuring habitat mitigation and conservation. • USFWS was party to a mitigation commitment of approximately 42 acres within San Sevaine Wash.However,the County has violated this agreement by destruction of habitat onsite. USFWS is currently consulting over this habitat loss. • Two parcels were committed to conservation (one 50-acre parcel and one 26-acre parcel)as a result of Chaffey Joint Union High School District's illegal take of the federally threatened California Coastal Gnatcatcher.Again,the City had nothing to do with conserving habitat or endangered species.USFWS has demanded habitat mitigation. Conclusion For 10 years the Sage Council has been monitoring and commenting on projects within the City's and County's jurisdiction.During that time I cannot think or point to one example of the City having taken pro-active measures to conserve natural resources and California's natural heritage.Rarely does the City enforce its General Plan.More often than not the City regularly amends its General Plan and Specific Plan to appease a developer and the proposed project.The Sage Council continues to be disgusted by such poor land planning and politics.We also continue to hope and urge the City to take appropriate measures through the General Plan update to conserve natural resources within your jurisdiction. -- For the wild ones, Leeona Klippstein,Co-founder - Executive Director Spirit of the Sage Council 30 North Raymond Ave.,Suite 303 Pasadena,CA 91103 (626)744-9932 www.sagecouncil.com i Page 3 of 3 /OS Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 113 of 117 I Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update—Response To Comments on Draf!EIR N. Leeman Kfippstein,Cofounder,Executive Director,Spirit of the Sage Council NI. Except for the designated conservation areas, mitigation areas within the Planning Area are not identified as a land use category. Typically, mitigation areas are not a land use category on city and county general plans. Specific information regarding these mitigation areas could be obtained as described in Response to Comment MI5. N2. This comment regarding adequate mitigation is noted. As individual projects that are consistent with the General Plan are proposed for development,each project will need to adequately mitigate potential effects on biological resources. N3. This comment regarding those areas that have been committed for prewrvationtconservation is noted. i i S.amchoarcazzmc 106 Responses to Comments Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 114 of 117 i II I ATTACHMENT A LAND USE PLAN i i i I ' ► � r> 01-238 air IF Low(24 DUN I IND) m�ln 'tn 24th communclal Once SAINYAN IS ' m' YII'S .0 Irr i rt' a- . Communki j ` Gumaral . I ammrJilil FIj N �T 1� I .,. L . 1-210(F��LL FREEWAY) Mixed U"� STa. a_in . It Open Space BASELINE BASELINE RD GAreel lmu,tral - . ° open Sipace Communion Recreadmal FOOTSILLBLID FOOTHIKI BLVD Open 40M ARROAR net n -e111. SchoolsIN PON Proposed Riihl�-Wiuy IN N.NAzAN, IN IF m SOURCE me,ftming 0,10, t rll v u, /..\ 11 :1 'x■ Resolution No. 01-238 Cross Reference 01-227 Page 116 of 117 I I I ATTACHMENT B OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION PLAN I , I ' i I mse Reference 01-227 Pagei 17 of 11 I IJ I _ E - - - - ' I LLSIDE 11 • `', ' � •N sr an con Esis1m9 oPsPa=. na servati au+.nx on � % aau a a Pro{aaetl COnssnation Mem - E 'S1ug PeM1a' lnh�l . JaL H Ilsih ReaM U Fl Cconw Wmr cmnW, irc RD Nem ��mme � a � I �- �, ensEiia u mamas nreee Ir r II v e e ' .........w..�...... a Rorvn F ' F uwow nn - r ITI 3 Y Y _ I g Y i w egWROEE Ph�mlry enbr W(m um flm-�I!`iC — Open Space and Conservation Plan m�a.lemmm���. O3Q30tl,] .,2W, RTXe1q eYGMOMIA tZHFIGLPVN VPMIE