Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-102 - ResolutionRESOLUTION NO.2025-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2025-00255 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER CHAPTER RELATED TO FLOOR AREA RATIO ON TABLE LCA AND POLICIES RELATING TO FIRST FLOOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DIMENSION AND BLOCK LENGTHS, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY AND ACCESS CHAPTER TO ADD DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR STREET TYPOLOGIES, REMOVE THE PROPOSED 8TH STREET TRAIL, AND AMEND THE TRUCK ROUTES MAP PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 98, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO.2021050261) FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") has initiated General Plan Amendment DRC2025-00255 to amend the Land Use and Community Character and Mobility and Access Chapters of the General Plan. The City has prepared a set of amendments to the General Plan, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendments are referred to as the "Amendments." 2. The City has prepared an Addendum to the previously certified General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050261) and the Addendum evaluated the proposed Amendments under the General Plan FEIR. The Addendum is attached hereto in Exhibit "B," incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein. 3. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and the Addendum, opened the public hearing, and continued the meeting and the hearing to November 12, 2025. 4. On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on the Amendments, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-040, recommending that the City Council adopt the Amendments and adopt the Addendum. 5. On December 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendments, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. 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: Resolution No. 2025-102 — Page 1 of 3 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution, are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed Amendments are in the public interest to clarify development standards to ensure orderly and appropriate development by providing clarity on the intent of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) being a target, establishing clear dimensional standards for first floor nonresidential height dimensions, block lengths, and street typologies. b. General Plan Amendment DRC2025-00255 conforms to and do not conflict with the General Plan, and the proposed Amendments will maintain internal consistency within the General Plan and provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. C. The proposed Amendments to the truck routes map ensures compliance with Assembly Bill 98, enacted in 2024, which required the City to evaluate truck routes to avoid sensitive receptors and either adopt a truck route map or amend an existing truck route map in the General Plan by January 1, 2026. d. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified FEIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan has been undertaken since the certification of the FEIR have occurred. The proposed Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the certified FEIR, nor would the proposed Amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with Planning Department staffs determination that the proposed Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the proposed Amendments, along with the certified FEIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2025-00255 and amends the General Plan as set forth in Exhibit "A." 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-102 — Page 2 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 171h day of December, 2025. i . De Q Michae , or ATTEST: Oc W KiM Vvy, Cit Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 17"day of December, 2025. AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Stickler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Executed this 181h day of December, 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. im Sevy, ity Clerk Resolution No. 2025-102 — Page 3 of 3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.2025-102 GPA DRC2025-00255 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 17, 2025 Page 4 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2025-00255 0 Mobility & Access MOBILITY AND ACCESS IS... the opportunity to move around the city in an efficient manner using a variety of methods. Everything from walking to skateboarding, transit to trucks is included in this chapter. The ability to move around enables us to get tojobs, goods, services, and education and enjoy entertainment, family, and friends. While the car has been the dominant mode of transportation for years, as the city grows there is an opportunity to develop more mobility choices that focus on connecting people to places in the city. These new opportunities will promote health, sustainability, and economic benefits for the residents and change how the city is developed. While autonomous vehicles, car share, electric scooters and the like are evolving technologies, they are not yet a large part of the mobility picture for the city. 148 PLAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS California law requires that the General Plan include an element that identifies existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the Land Use Element of the Plan. The law also stipulates that the City plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. A balanced network means a system that provides for all users of all ages and abilities; including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. HEART OF THE MATTER Planners have all sorts of terms to talk about mobility, but it all comes down to giving people choices in how they move about their city. The automobile is the dominant choice for most people because it is convenient but it also the most expensive for the person and the City. Because of the emphasis on the automobile there is an urban landscape where cars can move about more easily than people, and the lack of access is a barrier to much the City has to offer. The lack of connectivity between neighborhoods discourages walking and biking for mobility rather than only recreation. For some the lack of access also means a simple trip to the store is more difficult than it should be. For example, some areas of the City lack complete sidewalks which makes walking difficult. This chapter does not advocate the abandonment of the automobile, but rather requires that roads be designed to include people who are not in automobiles. It should be possible to walk or bike to any part of this world class city safely, therefore this chapter includes policies to extend improvements into older areas of the City where people lack these choices. 149 Streets for all users and all modes of Tr_ ,�� OVERVIEW OF THIS CHAPTER Mobility needs to connect people to places. In Rancho Cucamonga, this includes connecting residents to their employers, connecting residents to destinations within the city, and connecting the rest of the Inland Empire to Rancho Cucamonga. Ultimately, the mobility system needs to provide for safe, enjoyable, and healthy accessibility within the city. The following mobility goals serve to guide and direct long-term planning in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. + Goal MA-1 Regional Mobility Hub. A multimodal transportation hub that connects regional and local destinations. + Goal MA-2 Access for All. A safe, efficient, accessible, and equitable transportation system that serves the mobility needs of all users. + Goal MA-3 Safety. A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs while preserving sustainable community values. + Goal MA-4 Goods Movement. An efficient goods movement system that ensures timely deliveries without compromising quality of life, safety and smooth traffic flow for residents and businesses. + Goal MA-5 Sustainable Transportation. A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs. This is accomplished through a focus on the available rights -of -way to create better connections within the city using utility corridors and flood control channels to create an active transportation system and repurposing ..extra" roadway width to provide additional bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. In this fashion, the City is implementing complete streets by designing for people of all ages and all abilities. This chapter also furthers the coordination with others to make Rancho Cucamonga the mobility center of the Inland Empire. Some of the big ideas include support for the following innovative mobility options: Brightline high speed rail connection from the High Desert and Las Vegas to the Cucamonga Station, connecting the Cucamonga Station to the Ontario Airport via a tunnel, and a future regional north/south transit connection from the Cucamonga Station to Riverside County generally paralleling the 1-15 corridor. The overarching approach to mobility and access is to provide options for people to move around the city and the region 150 PLANRC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BECOMING THE REGIONAL HUB -� OF THE INLAND EMPIRE The following planned regional connection activities are already underway r and will assist the City in becoming the regional hub of the Inland Empire: e HIGH-SPEED RAIL Brightline West, a 260-mile privately funded high-speed rail system, is planned to connect Las Vegas to the Los Angeles area. The proposed Brightline West extension would terminate at the Cucamonga Station, providing connectivity to the existing regional Metrolink system and future connections to the Ontario Airport. The area around the Cucamonga Station is planned for transit -oriented mixed -use development as shown in Volume 2 Chapter 2: Focus Areas. CONNECTION TO ONTARIO AIRPORT This chapter supports the ONT Connector, a 2.8-mile tunnel, that would connect from the Cucamonga Station to Ontario Airport. The tunnel is more efficient and cost effective than above -ground rail and will use the latest electric vehicle technology. LA METRO L LINE EXTENSION The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) has developed plans for extending operations to San Bernardino County with the planned extension of the L Line (also referred to as the Foothill Gold Line). The two options under consideration are along the Pacific Electric right-of-way to Foothill Boulevard or along the Metrolink right- of-way and then along either Cucamonga Creek or Vineyard Avenue to Ontario International Airport. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is currently proposing to replace the portion of the L Line Extension in San Bernardino County with Gold Link, which utilizes a different technology to connect to the Metrolink system. The City Council adopted a resolution supporting enhanced train service to the Ontario Airport via the Cucamonga Station and a connection to the wider Metrolink network via high quality transit to provide better regional connectivity. BUS RAPID TRANSIT SBCTA has initiated the West Valley Connector (WVC) project, a 35-mile- long Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route connecting Rancho Cucamonga, Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, and Fontana. The first phase of the project will include the Milliken Alignment, starting from the Pomona Regional Transit Center to Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga. Bright l ine Weed High Speed Rail ONT Connector LA Metro L Lir 151 �ona� Station PROPOSED REGIONAL CONNECTIONS The convergence of high-speed rail, the connection to the Ontario Airport, and redevelopment around the HART District in the City of Rancho Cucamonga provides a unique opportunity for the City to become the mobility center of the metropolitan region. Although much of this activity is ongoing, this Mobility Chapter further supports the connection of transit south into Riverside County; connecting Rancho Cucamonga to Eastvale and Corona. In addition to this new north -south transit connection, this Plan proposes a new circulator route within the city that connects the Cucamonga Station (including high speed rail, BRT and the ONT Connector) to Victoria Gardens, the Civic Center, and the mixed -use corridors on Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. This will provide access to the key destinations within the city and support connectivity to the transit investments that converge at the Cucamonga Station. The planned and proposed transit connections are shown on Figure M-1. The City also identifies the need for a loop route to connect the northern part of the city to the Cucamonga Station along with some intermediate connections. These proposed connections are also shown on Figure M-1. LOCAL MOBILITY HUBS Enhanced transit by itself does not usually connect people from their origin to their ultimate destination —people need assistance making the connection between the transit station and their destination. This seemingly small distance (often less than a mile) is referred to as first/last mile connection and is often the hardest part of thejourney to solve for people. The idea of a mobility hub is to bring major transit and last -mile solutions together in one place. This could allow for ride -share or car pool pickup/drop off points, electric bicycle charging, lockers for bicycles, and similar design elements. One way to assist with that connectivity is to identify key local mobility hubs at major stations along Foothill Boulevard. A mobility hub concept is shown on Figure M-2 and shows how concept mobility hubs could be implemented to facilitate multi -model connectivity to/from the transit stations. These concepts illustrate specific attributes, such as designated locations for car share, drop-off/pick-up lanes, bicycle/scooter share stations, and designated bus stops, that serve the first/last mile connectivity concerns by providing a consolidated accessibility hub that connects the community to the enhanced transit network. 152 PLANRC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-1 TRANSIT PLAN C,`OF linl Nn 5 A N OE RNA RC INC NATIONAL FORE IT E-1— _ •1 ./ I n' I IIENIE •'� I ...................... _ - ceiaar t �......... 0..... 0 b sr. L. CITY OF ONIARrO ON TA RIO INTERN ATI�NF Planned Hlgh Speed Rail R4 Planned Bus Rapid Transit —0— Planned Tunnel Connection iiO m Proposed Bus Route •Q- Proposed Bus Rapid Transit —O— Proposed Local Circulator Ippsslble Tunnel Connection) �► Proposed Transit Connection Omnitrans Bus Routes I.: CITY OFFONTAN V 0 0.5 1 2 Miles O AlkVORT L I I I ..—.._ City Boundary Fen, aeers. 2021 — — — — Sphere of Influence MCucamonga station Metrolrnk Tracks HiINi1t Railroads Parks 153 FIGURE M-2 LOCAL MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTS Hiah Density Area Aluna 9areettrant P Parallel Parking Information Kiosk Pm Bikeshare A Bike Rack,. Medium Density Area around Community Space Carshare and/or EV Charging Stations --------- -- P Diagonal Parking--; P Parallel Parking e s "�M ■ Scooter Share -- 4% Ridesham pw Carshare Q Transit Stop rip Ilt�. r i s P Parallel Parking ■ Scooter Share----- -Ab Bike Racks A Ridesham _.88 Microtransit r Information Kiosk lkm Bikeshare Q Transit Stop 154 PLANRC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMPLETE STREETS According to Smart Growth America, streets should be appropriately designed to meet the needs of all users of all ages and abilities. To accomplish this goal, commonly known as "Complete Streets," the City will consider the following components when implementing complete streets: + Improve safety for all + Consider all users of all ages and abilities + Focus on vulnerable users + Consider innovative street and intersection designs whenever possible + Prioritize modes based on guidance provided in the General Plan + Implement Complete Streets during planning, engineering, and maintenance activities While some transportation experts interpret complete streets implementation to mean that all streets within ajurisdiction must accommodate all users to the same level, others see it as more appropriate to develop specific networks of streets to prioritize specific modes, although most modes should be accommodated on most streets where possible and practical. The City supports the latter approach to implementing a complete streets policy and opted for implementing the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) layered networks approach. This approach is intended to assist the City in identifying the priority mode along corridors depending on the context of the adjacent land use. The layered networks approach identifies preferred travel modes (auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit) for each street. Non -preferred travel modes are accommodated along the street, but their service is not prioritized. Figure M-3 depicts the City's layered network complete street system and identifies the City's complete streets strategy for prioritizing modes based on street typology. A street network that prioritizes pedestrians and bicycles is shown on Figure M-4A. Figure M-41B was developed as part of the ConnectRC effort in 2023 to identify active transportation enhancements in a more refined manner to improve bicycle and pedestrian enhancements in the City. Figure M-5 shows the network of streets where automotive travel is prioritized. As shown on the maps, it isthis network of priority modes that provides a comprehensive mobility system within the city. Complete streets I•, 11 romlc� :d... and safe environm,nt_ fur all us,r 155 FIGURE M-3 LAYERED ROADWAY NETWORK Freeway Arterial Roadway Boulevard Collect., street Bicycle Corridor Multi -Use Trail Local streets •.ri I...Lr r..l Mrririr:rrr,.. t Ai iI r r_ S A N 'BE RN A F D I N 0 NA110 N AL FUREST -- Gly Boundary S,here of lnnuence Cucamonga Stator, Mctrolmk .—e.—r Rallloads Parks Priority Modes o(Travel Fehra Pi2WI Freeway P X X P Arterial Roadway P A A P Boulevard A P P P Collector street P P P A ¢Icycic Comdol A P P A MUIb Uso Trail X P P % Local street A P P A P-PnPI Ity Idade.A=Allowable Mode. X=Probiblted Mode 156 P LAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-4A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ' Sam aeonnl. Mop-" 5 4 N eE RN:=. r'J NG NAT L94. FIFE ST _________� r_-� r— .. f" \ �_ 1 67 1 lot .I .... .... .�-... 1 .., .... c jam • .. N�1mre Geltlem U ■ f �1 E[7m IV, ONTAR'o %'ERKATIOAFL AIRCCORT Bic9ecand PeJesVia�Po ..--_Gir B,.nda'� ■■♦ � �ar�dos ---- Sohole of lnp,�ence ...... EQ,,Str -. I'.i •. CpT ,t. Regional Pads Pares ® T.-�d Fcads 0 0.5 1 2 Miles O Feld6o ,, INI 157 FIGURE M-413 CONNECT PC ACTIVE TPANSPOPTATION PLAN NETWORK 0 v 1 1 1 1 L a7— 1 1 1 1 Etiwanda 1 r Alta Loma ��0 1 �/� w camong — -- — — -��-a Ped Hill 1 Central South Southeast r— 7,L— — - C -0w Corridor Enhancemone. ® Access/cn,,n9 Enhancements Existing Bike/Trail Facility PIenPC Planned Pod/Bike P•lonty 0 0.5 1 2 Miles O 1 158 PLAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-5 AUTOMOBILE PRIORITY SAN BERNARDIN0 N A I 1 0 N u I EORL$T 0 0.5 1 2 Miles ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT t I I 1 I O 1 I 1 Note: See Figure M-8 for information on additional capacity needs in the Southeast Area ozl Auto Priority ,.., Proposed Rai l road Grade Separat ion � Plopasetl Street ••—••— City Boundary — — — — Sphere of Influence Cucamonga station Metrolink R.rN.�f Railroads Parks 159 Tools and State Legislation to Deliver Complete Streets MMLOS is an approach that evaluates the service levels for all modes of travel on a street. For example, a street with a lot of travel lanes and a high rate of speed, the service level maybe good from the driver's perspective but poor from a cyclist or pedestrian perspective. Although evaluating non -automotive Level of Service is still an evolving practice, the City can find value in this analysis and will monitor this evolution and evaluate priority modes identified for each street to ensure the street is designed to maintain service levels for that priority user. The City will update traffic impact study guidelines as needed to reflect the City's preferred methodologies for evaluating MMLOS. Rancho Cucamonga's residents do value high service levels along prioritized corridors. As such, MMLOS goals are established through this policy document for key corridors in the city. AB 98 is a recent legislative requirement whereby this element needs to incorporate truck route maps. In 202S the City undertook an effort to establish truck route maps and amend this Mobility Element to be consistent with the legislation. AB 960 is a legislative act whereby agencies need to incorporate FH WA's Safe Systems Approach such that safety projects are prioritized within the City. Each of the above tools/legislative actions will help the City implement complete streets. WHAT ARE COMPLETE STREETS? Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to prioritize safety, comfort, and access to destinations for all people who use the street, especially people who have experienced systemic underinvestment or whose needs have not been met through a traditional transportation approach, including older adults, people living with disabilities, people who cannot afford or do not have access to a car, and Black, Native, and Hispanic or Latino/a/x communities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, jobs, and schools, bicycle to work, and move actively with assistive devices. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk or move actively to and from train stations. Creating Complete Streets means transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads. By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to prioritize safer slower speeds for all people who use the road, over high speeds for motor vehicles. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for people walking, biking, driving, riding transit, and moving actively with assistive devices —making your town a better place to live. SmartGrowth America, 2021 160 PLAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ROADWAY TYPOLOGIES Functional classifications of roadway networks categorize streets by purpose, location, and typical land uses to which they provide access. In Rancho Cucamonga, the local street system is organized into a hierarchy - of nine roadway types according to the Circulation Plan in the 2010 Rancho "- Cucamonga General Plan. These nine types are Local Streets, Collector •—� r„� > Streets, Modified Collector Streets with Median, Secondary Streets, _e - - t Modified Secondary Streets with Median, Major Arterials, Modified Major Arterials with Median, Major Divided Arterials, and Major Divided Highways. Lip The functional classification system for roads is increasingly considered an It automobile -centric method of planning and does not typically consider travel characteristics and multimodal priorities (e.g., cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users); consequently, this classification is becoming less 1W common in California cities. Because streets oftentimes have multiple Two mgior freeways serve Rancho functions, defining street "typologies" beyond the existing functional Cucamonga—SG-_io and 1-15 roadway classifications could better support a multimodal transportation network, assist in implementing complete streets, and generally match the context of the land use environment. Due to Rancho Cucamonga's commitment to expanding opportunities for connections and mode choices throughout the city, this chapter acknowledges the traditional road classifications, but establishes policies that go well beyond maintaining this outdated system. The following pages provide additional detail for each roadway typology identified in the City's layered network complete street system, including definitions, an example cross section and photo, and information on priority modes of travel. Maximum street dimensions are identified in this chapter, but alternative layouts that are innovative may be developed and approved by the City Engineer on a case -by -case basis. Although the maximum cross-section widths are identified in this element, the specific layout is dependent on complete street elements including the need and type of bicycle facility and the need for pedestrian space in addition to the traffic demands o n the roadway (which is dependent on the expected volumes on the road). The City utilizes this information to assemble the street but the maximum required cross-section shall be utilized to establish right-of- way dedication requirements for each of the following roadway typologies: + Freeway + Arterial Roadway + Boulevard + Collector Street + Bicycle Corridor + Multi -Use Trail + Local Street 161 FREEWAY Freeways, which are under the jurisdiction of and operated by Caltrans, provide for inter -regional travel by automobile. They have high vehicle speeds and can provide access for transit vehicles (although automobiles are prioritized). Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited on freeways. Freeways in Rancho Cucamonga include State Route 210 (SR-210) and Interstate 15 (1-15). SR-210 runs through the northern portion of the city and 1-15 extends through the southeastern area of the city. Interstate-10 (1-10) is located approximately 0.7 miles south of the city limit. Travel Travel Travel Travel Median van Travel Lane Lane Lane Lane Barrier Lane Example cross-section of freeway ARTERIAL ROADWAY Arterial roadways are the primary links in the city's vehicular transportation system even as they provide for all modes of travel. These facilities are oftentimes four to six lanes with raised medians and higher vehicle speeds are anticipated. Key facilities include portions of Base Line Road, Arrow Route, Archibald Avenue, Milliken Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, and 4" , Street. Portions of Arrow Route through Cucamonga Town Center and residential neighborhoods prioritize pedestrian and bike modes to contribute to and maintain the character of these areas. Prohibited 7AutoPrioritized Prohibited Prioritized Max Right -of -Way Determined by Caltrans Im Travel Travel Travel Lease Lane Lane Modes of Travel Roadway Pedestrian - Arterial Allowed Bike Allowed Transit Prioritized Auto Prioritized Max Right-of-Wav=l20' Travel Travel Travel Landscaped Travel Travel Travel Sidewalk Lane Lane Lane Median Lane Lane Lane Sidewalk Example cross-section of arterial roadway with larvae right-of-way Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Travel Landscaped Travel Travel Bike Lane Sidewalk Lane Lane Median Lane Lane Example ooss-section of arterial roadway with bike lanes 162 PLANRC2040 e CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Pedestrian Prioritized Bike Prioritized Transit Prioritized Auto Allowed Max Right -of Way r 150' BOULEVARD Boulevards promote economic development around high -quality transit service, including light rail (LPT), streetcar, and bus rapid transit (BPT), while fostering a pedestrian scale environment in which walking and biking actively complement public transit. As major generators of pedestrian traffic, heavy surface transit routes should be prioritized for pedestrian safety improvements in both the immediate surrounding area and major access routes within the transit access shed such as Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard. S _'L Bltr l+rr Trnel L+ne NrYM , BN Acp Bw Lme Trnel L+rle T-1L Mpl+n T+ttll+rc TraM Nn BUS Nrc Bur Slop VaYng T-1 Lure BiMlen SiJew+IL ILaallr+MCI 11-1lra 't Stlrv+lY BIY. Poore/ >rYmg Buf Srap BUL Ian Trnel L+re Trnel LIM AW T-1 L*m Tr+M l+re BUL Nrc Bm STm BUYIrg Bitr Pale/ S ik SNrmw Sliarrox B�Oewal4 BlYlan .'" lrawllan imelNn ieaMN lan Butliw Bur leer BofNn Bur Lop Tr INR Trarel Larc T'Le1Ure Pally BiLel+ne Id —A Mu14UupeTF ikallny Buf L+n Tr Lane 7—ILane Trnwl Lane MMlan Tr+ttllarc Tarel lan Travell+n BurNre gmly MUM -lire Wlo But Slop Bur Sloo Example cross -sections of arterial roadway -'TTonsvr stop plocemEnt and design shall reflect the current Ornnlbans Transt Design GwdOinec i2020J' in coordinoaon Inaib the Or, PTolne=r. 7. blips://nrnr'liuonsnrg/rap-ror;lta!/ul-rloods/202?/70/7ronsl-0r-slyn-Ouidelin�s-FIN4Lpnl 163 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD: BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES (FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO ROCHESTER AVENUE) Irm'ort�mnA tie.enrs llp ii,rs".larnisp"I-.1-1.iv.'I-or Ire ro...,, �I o nbclinynn. Croy rso�la�ui Cnro Aarcnr...on o�nar ry 5�.tla.nrv.Xi.•srrn�n�anrn. mn n-.rin.n Notes I. Final dimensions and on -street parking to be determined by city staff 2. Intersection curb extension treatments and offsets to be centime and determined by city staff V WME3 CHAWER4:MOBI R &ACMS ft HAVEN AVENUE (FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO NTH STREET) T.e ru i, mine oe- a �.. •amo�vw. - ' , [�m�eat - tin��r r.;—., Pit, aorf I. Final tlimansions and on -street parking to be determined by city staff - 2. Intersection curb extension treatments antl offsets to be cons and determined by city staff COLLECTOR STREET These are streets that are intended to connect neighborhoods together. They should provide accessibility for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; however, speeds should be managed to ensure that all modes safely travel together. These corridors are specified along numerous street segments throughout the City and can substantially vary in terms of width. For example, Church Street is a four -lane roadway and would include bicycle lanes as well as raised medians. In contrast, segments such as Banyan Street, are similar to local streets with smaller rights -of -way. These narrower streets would have Class III bikeways and "sharrows" as well as street furniture in some areas to encourage pedestrian activity. Note: Ashared lane, or "sharrow,"marking is a road marking which indicates a shared lane for both bicycles and automobiles. Shorrows differ from bike lanes in that they do not include a line separating the path between vehicles and bicycles. Modes of Travel Street Pedestrian - Collector Prioritized Bike Prioritized T ,nsit Allowed Auto Prioritized bfax Right -of -Way = 88' Sidewalk Parking Bike Route/ Travel Travel Bike Route/ Parking sidewalk sharrow Lane Lane Sharrow Example Gros=_ -section of collector street with small right-of-way Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Travel Landscaped Travel Travel Bike Lane Sidewalk Lane Lane Median Lane Lane Example cross-section of collector street with large right-of-way 167 Modes of Travel Corridor Pedestrian - Bicycle Prioritized Bike Prioritized Transit Allowed Auto Allowed Max Right -of -Way = 100' BICYCLE CORRIDOR These roadways provide the main bicycle network for the city. Specifically, vehicle speeds should be managed to travel at 35 miles per hour or less and bicycle infrastructure should be maximized. This typically includes buffered bicycle lanes or separated bicycle lanes on the roadway or, at a minimum, seven -foot bicycle lanes. Separation can be provided by plastic bollards, raised medians, and/or planters. Corridors include portions of Carnelian Street, Hellman Avenue, Hermosa Avenue, 19th Street, Base Line Road, Church Street, Jersey Boulevard and 61h Street. Raised landscaped medians may also be included in some areas to further encourage slower speeds. Note. Separated Bicycle Lanes, also called cycle tracks or Class IV bicycle facilities, are delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists that have a physical separation between them and a vehicle. Sidewalk Cycle Track Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Landscaped Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Cycle Track Sidewalk Median Example Goss -sections of bicvcle corridor Modes of Travel Corridor Pedestrian - Bicycle Prioritized Bike Prioritized Transit Prohibited Auto Prohibited i.t ax Right -of -Way = 16' MULTI -USE TRAIL Description: These facilities allow for pedestrians and bicycles only. They are envisioned along the utility channels in the City. These facilities provide bicycles and pedestrians with their own space for travel. These pathways are also known as Class I bikeways. Note: Class I Bikeways provide a separated corridor that is not served by streets and highways and is away from the influence of parallel streets; they are for non -vehicle use only. Example cross -sections of bicycle corridor 168 PLAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LOCAL STREET/THOROUGHFARE Local streets and thoroughfares are typically located in neighborhoods and provide access to adjacent land uses (typically housing). On -street parking is typically allowed on both sides of the street. They should be designed to accommodate automobiles, but at a slow rate of speed (ideally 15 to 20 miles per hour). They prioritize pedestrians walking on sidewalks and bicycles typically take the lane within the roadway; Class III bikeway 'sharrows' may be provided in some areas. Traffic calming attributes (such as bulb -outs or other devices that minimize speeds) may be present. Local streets/thoroughfares can be public or private. Pedestrian Prioritized Bike Prioritized Transit Allowed Auto Allowed Max Right-ofWay= 60' Sidewalk Parking Bike Lane Travel Travel Bike Lane Parking Sidewalk 6zri Ll- - _ sz II bike lanes Sidewalk Parking Bike Route/ Bike Route/ Parking Sidewalk Sharow Sharrow Example cross-section of local slreH with Class III sharrows 169 Max POW 120- 1Mvel Lane 10--12 II 11' Truck lout, l W Garb adjacent lane Sdewalk 6' 12' 0 Pakway 4.10' Class ll Blke lane 6' 9' 9' Median'-' 12-18' Max POW Bid, Travel Lane 10 12 11' 11' truck route) W curb adjacent line Parking Lane 8' Wh.r—r Parking LS Prseand Be, Lane Paler to OmmVan, desgn repwremenu Bus Island Peter to Onssarans design regwremen6 Sidewalk 12 20, 14 Parkway 4 10' Class ll Bike Lane 6' 9' 9' Claw IV Bikexay a 10' 9' Median"' 12'-40' Max POW- 26' Sidewalk fi 12' Parkway 4'10' Class l Bike Path 1e'91 (2lW ,munsn ins am nicasumd TTmitl b1olk 1.1., .. IL 11,'1 ,.row; scct,. s mrmole cornyors Max POW' BB' Travel Lane 10-11' 11' 11 mrb adlacenl lane Pinang Lane B' Wherever orn in,ei Ia—ded Side4•alk 6'-a' Parkway 4'10' Class ll Blke lane Class 9' Median"' 0-14' Max 11OW' 100' Travel Lane 10-11 P' 11' .rb ad,.—nl lane Pa,Wn9 Lane e' Wherever Parking is Provided Sidewalk 6-10' Pathway 4'-10' Class m Bike Lane 8+10' 9' Median"' 0'-10' Max POW' 60' Laval Lane 10 Parking lane a' Wherce, Parkin lc provided Sidewalk 6 Parkway 4Iw Class ll Bike Lane 6' Moden"' 0' MOBILITY CHOICES FOR PEOPLE A balanced transportation system in Rancho Cucamonga should provide safe and convenient options for people to bicycle, walk, or take transit to their destinations. PEDESTRIANS Walking is an environmentally friendly and cost-efficient mode of transportation that enhances both personal and social well-being. This mode of travel also provides many public access, health and economic benefits. Well -designed pedestrian facilities are safe, attractive, convenient, and easy to use. Most, but not all, areas of the city have sidewalks (about 76% of streets) and crosswalks. Areas with no existing sidewalks are mainly located in the northwest, southwest, south and eastern portions of the city. While the sidewalk gaps in the established neighborhoods in the northwest part may be intentional, the gap closures in the southern part are important to address as this area of the community was generally built prior to local requirements for including sidewalk in the street design, members of community in this area may be more likely to get around by biking and walking, and the area experiences a higher density of pedestrian - vehicle collisions. Figure M-6 shows key areas where the City will focus the implementation of pedestrian facility connectivity. BICYCLES In addition to meeting some of the community's transportation needs, bicycling provides many improved accesses to public amenities, and several health and economic benefits. There are many opportunities to improve the quantity and quality of bicycle facilities and the connectivity to key destinations (employment centers, residential areas, and high use activity centers). Bicycle facilities in Rancho Cucamonga consist of bike lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bike parking. On -street bicycle facilities are classified into four categories depending on their design and function: + Class I Bike Path. Provides a separated corridor that is not served by streets and highways and is away from the influence of parallel streets. Class I bikeways are for non -vehicle use only with opportunities for direct access and recreational benefits, have right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and designed so that cross flow conflicts with other modes are minimized. 170 PLAN RC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-6 PEDESTRIAN FOCUS AREAS S A N 6E R'N AR NINb NATIONALrI I --i vPHE RE lTF INf L UCe•(: . -..) m.- — —---------- -- Ill Li CIiY Of UGIANU t ph u1, EPn� Str •\ CITY ! PON iFNA 711ARI'. - ONTARIO INTEPNATIONAI AIRPORT Pedestnan Fucus Area ----City Boundary - Ex.suno Sidewalk - - - - Sphere of Influence - Missing Sidewalk COCamOngastat,on - Melrohi k �.,..-m Railroads Parks 0 0.5 1 2 Miles O I I I I I I I I I Feh, 8 Peer, 2021 171 Protected bike lane + Class 11 Bike Lane. Provides a delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists to enable more predictable movements, establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. + Class III Bike Route. Shared facility that serves either continuity to other bicycle facilities or designates preferred routes through high demand corridors. + Class IV Separated Bikeway or Cycle Track. Provides delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists that have a physical separation between them and a vehicle. This separation can include parked vehicles, bollards, curbs, or any other physical devise that provides this separation. Local streets with low vehicle speeds and volume help complete the bicycle network even without signage and formal bike facilities. Although the city has a comprehensive network of Class II bikeways, many of these are on high speed, wide roadways that limit rider comfort on the corridors (whereas the proposed bike path system provides a comfortable, low stress biking environment). As such, this Plan considers bicycle comfort and looks at increasing the connectivity of low stress facilities through street prioritization (e.g., layered networks approach) or through better connections between activity centers and the Class I trails system (e.g., the bicycle f reeway system). PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES The bicycle and pedestrian priority network as shown on Figure M-4A has been developed to enhance active transportation on these facilities. Additionally, Healthy PC completed an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in 2023 that will begin an in-depth look at facilities throughout the city which will further refine the guidance provided in this chapter. The ATP network defined in that study is presented on Figure M-46. Trails as Transportation Trails are not just for recreation, but also provide opportunity to walk or bike to work, school, and other destinations. While some trails are clearly intended for community members to enjoy the outdoors, others are an essential part of the City's mobility network. As the City grows, the network of trails will also increase providing opportunities for residents to walk rather than drive to their destination As such, some trails may be considered as part of the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) similar to roadways and sidewalks. 172 PLAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-7 BIKEWAY CLASSIFICATIONS Graded Shoulders Recommended Bike Lane S.11d Bike Lane Sign white Sign Stripe -1 Bike I Travel Lane I Travel Lane I Bike Lane Lane Bike Lane sdid Sign Mae r - I 5mm Bike Lane Sign Parking & I Travel Lane I Travel Lane I Bike Lane I Bike Lane CLASS I -Multi-Use Path Provides a completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossFlow minimized. MUTCD P44A (CA! SINE PATH NO NOTOR VEHICLES DR NOTOR12E0 BICYCLES CLASS II - Bike Lane Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. aMUTCD R51 (CA) BINE LANE CLASS II - Bike Lane Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Ed MUTCDPSI ICAI BINE LANE 173 FIGURE M-7 BIKEWAY CLASSIFICATIONS (CONT'D) I4'-5' I Travel Lane I Travel Lane I 4'-5' I Shoulder Shoulder Shared -Use I Shared -Use I Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sign Bike Lane Sign Bike I I Parking I Travel I Travel I I Bike Lane Lane Lane Lane CLASS III - Bike Route Provides a shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicle traffic, typically on lower volume roadways. WMUTCD Du-1 CLASS III - Bike Route Provides a shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicle traffic, typically on lower volume roadways. Mfd,UTCD D71-1 CLASS IV - Separated Bikeway (Cycle Track) Provides a protected lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. 174 PLAN RC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAFETY Safety for all modes of travel is of utmost importance for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This safety discussion addresses two key areas. The first is to manage and minimize collisions, especially collisions involving vulnerable users (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists), and setting a goal to reduce those collisions as much as possible. The second key area relates to emergency response and evacuation. COLLISION PROFILE While vehicle collisions occur throughout the city, collisions involving a vehicle and pedestrian and/or bicycle were more concentrated in the southwest part of the city. The number of fatal collisions of this type are comparatively higher than collisions involving two vehicles. This plan prioritizes focusing pedestrian infrastructure improvements in the southwest portion of the city to improve safety and incorporates principles of the Safe System Approach (SB 932). CONNECTIVITY One key aspect of this chapter is providing connectivity. Although connectivity supports walking and biking in the city, it also provides benefits for emergency personnel by providing additional resiliency and redundancy on the network. Connectivity also provides additional route choices for emergency personnel and improves access during evacuation events in the city. Connectivity is a key cornerstone for undeveloped areas of the city to improve walking and bicycling and to promote accessibility that promotes safety during emergency events. FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The City desires to adopt a differential level of service policy (e.g., the level of service (LOS) goal for each mode is dependent on the street type, the priority user of the street, and the place the street is connecting people to) customized for different streets. This allows the City to focus on bicycles, pedestrians, and/or transit modes in some areas of the city (such as mixed - use corridors) and also focus on the automobile for key corridors that serve as automotive thoroughfares (like Milliken Avenue). In each case, prioritizing key travel modes provides the City clear direction that guides infrastructure implementation. Additionally, some corridors of the city are built out to their ultimate configuration and further expansion of the system to improve vehicle service levels will result in increased right-of-way costs and/or increased impacts to the environment, both of which are not desirable. In these instances, the City acknowledges the limitations and can accept reduced service levels in these specific locations that are exempt from the City's level of service policies. 175 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY An additional key consideration for the City is to enhance roadway network connectivity, particularly the need to complete and connect the network north of State Route 210 (SR-210) and within the Southeast Area. New streets are critical to safe, effective, and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the city. These facilities are focused on the following key needs identified throughout the planning process: + Network connectivity as defined in Policies in LC-4.6 and LC-4.7. + Connecting Wilson Avenue throughout the city to provide another east -west travel way north of SR-210 + Completing 18:h Street to connect to Carnelian Street. + Investigating a westerly connection north of SR-210 to provide additional accessibility (especially in the event of an emergency). + New connections for circulation, accessibility, and emergency accessibility in the Southeast Area. This includes creating a new north - south connection west of Etiwanda Avenue, completion of the 6th Street connection into this area, and a new east -west connection between Rochester Boulevard and the Southeast Area. The improved network connectivity is also shown on Figure M-8. Because the city's utility infrastructure and service providers play an important role in the quality of life for the community, if the planned streets would unreasonably interfere with the primary utility function on utility owned parcels, the final location of those street segments would be designed to accommodate the current and prospective utility needs of the community to the greatest extent possible. Except for the one identified east -west road, this General Plan's circulation network omits any public streets through property owned by Southern California Edison in the Southeast Area, as depicted in Figures M-8 and FA-9. 176 PLANRC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-8 PROPOSED STREET NETWORK IN SOUTHEAST AREA OConsider improving Etiwanda Avenue and 4'" Street to facilitate active transportation and transit. © Consider improving Arrow Route, Rochester Avenue and 671' Street with buffered or separated bike lanes. © Extend Whittram Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to Rochester Avenue and under the 1-15 to provide better access to the Southeast Area. 6th St I t O'az persmretvw.m enCetl rontl oegnmeRs r not mtentletlromrerhre wan uubry ocemtiws Diagram is shown for illustrative purposes only. © Develop a more complete, modern, multi -modal street network for improved circulation and access. The street network in this area is at or near capacity. If the legacy heavy industrial uses redevelop, additional east -west street capacity between Rochester Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue and north -south street capacity between Arrow and 6th Street will be needed. QStrategically inf ill development in a range of building and lot sizes to accommodate various industrial activities. Q Inf ill development fronting Etiwanda Avenue and 4'" Street. 177 Freight rail train GOODS MOVEMENT Goods movement plays an important role in both the circulation network and the economy of Rancho Cucamonga. Often, it can be difficult to accommodate trucks and other vehicles without impeding other travel modes or the well-being of residents. Due to its important location between two freeways and its role of logistics in the local economy, effectively accommodating goods movement along city roadways is critical for local transportation planning. TRUCK ROUTES Truck traffic on city streets is restricted to specific routes that are designated for through -traffic of trucks over three tons. These designated truck routes have been adopted through City ordinance and are shown in Figure M-9 for context within this chapter. These truck routes help to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the city, while providing a connection between major f reeway facilities to local roadways. Trucks are allowed on designated routes even if they do not have an origin or destination within the city. Technological innovation is presenting opportunities to improve the efficiency of goods movement in the future, especially with the recent increase in online shopping and delivery due to COVID-19. The future of truck travel in the state will continue to evolve. Autonomous trucks and electrification of the truck fleet will be phased in over the next 5 to 20 years. Rancho Cucamonga supports this innovation, as this technology will improve safety and improve health for the community. FREIGHT RAIL Local freight service operates through trackage rights on the Metrolink San Gabriel subdivision (formerly owned by Santa Fe Railroad) through Rancho Cucamonga —the same line that carries Metrolink trains on the San Bernardino line. Citywide, railroad lines cross most streets at grade, including on Vineyard, Hellman, Archibald, Hermosa, Rochester, and Etiwanda Avenues. The grade separated crossings at Milliken Avenue and Haven Avenue have been constructed along these key travel corridors. A grade separation at Etiwanda Avenue and the BNSF Railway line is currently under design to better accommodate truck traffic. 178 PLANRC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIGURE M-9 TRUCK ROUTES —..I L..J 1 I L...................................... I I� i 1` Note: See Figure M-8 for information on additional capacity needs in the Southeast Area. cenr s ,er,. zozo sources op -or u—cM10 Cucvmonga. Ml9r Tuck Routes ••--- City eountlary Truck Routes 118- Foot Kingpin Limit) — — — — Sphem of Influence .CC Consider Potential Pamoval jE Cucamonga Station r--r Proposed Railroad Grade Separation Metrdlnk ••J+--r• Rartroads Parks 179 FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION " c To prepare for the wave of emerging changes in transportation technology, r. r' �_ ra= this chapter identifies policies and actions that would enable the City to meet its community goals. In this changing mobility landscape, there are _- great opportunities to be national leaders by connecting the dots between disruptive trends, existing transportation governance, and funding structures. It is also important to be aware about what the future mobility options should and should not do. The following disruptive trends have changed mobility choices over the .� - past five years and will change our mobility options into the future: 1 + Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): also called a ride -hailing service, are companies like Uber and Lyft that provide on -demand rides Connected and autonomous_ cars for passengers with mobile apps or websites. TNCs tend to increase demand for curb space but can decrease the demand for parking. They are useful to reduce the instances of driving under the influence and increase people's accessibility to automotive travel. + Autonomous Vehicles (AVs): are vehicles that are capable of driving with limited or no human involvement. There are six levels of autonomy (0-5) that range from issuing warnings and momentary interventions with the human driver to a fully automated machine which requires no human involvement to operate. AVs can either reduce VMT in the future (if they are priced accordingly and are implemented through a shared vehicle experience) or can increase VMT if they are implemented in an owned vehicle experience. + Connected Vehicles (CVs): are vehicles that can interact with one another and/or with infrastructure. Some CVs can also be autonomous vehicles; however, CVs can be human operated. Given the potential to integrate CVs with infrastructure, ensuring that future infrastructure is set up to handle the increased communications associated with CVs is important and can be inexpensive when considered early in the design process by including additional conduit capacity or power availability. The City will need to continue investing in its Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) to both manage traffic but ensure compatibility as more CVs enter the vehicle fleet and require information infrastructure for communications. + Car sharing services are services that allow consumers access to a vehicle without owning a personal car. Car share services typically charge a monthly or yearly membership fee and an hourly rate for access to its shared vehicle fleet. + Micromobility: is a combination of emerging trends including bike share, e-scooters, and e-bikes. + Bike Sharing Services: bike sharing services operate like car sharing services in that consumers can rent from a shared bicycle fleet. 180 PLANRC 2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA + Electric Scooters and Bikes: E-scooters and e-bikes are powered by an electric motor to propel riders along streets and up hills. + Mierotransit: is defined as a privately -operated transit system, which in many cases mirrors the operations of public transit agencies along select routes. Microtransit operators can be highly flexible, tailoring their operations to match short-term or long-term changes in travel behavior. GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL MA-1 REGIONAL MOBILITY HUB. A multimodal transportation hub that connects regional and local destinations. M A-1.1 Transportation Leadership. Take a leadership role in local and regional transportation related planning and decision making. M A-1.2 Cucamonga Station Redevelopment. Support redevelopment in and around the Cucamonga Station to support transit - oriented development. M A-1.3 Funding. Support federal, statewide, and regional infrastructure funding for transit and transportation. M A-1.4 Local Mobility Hub. Require new development at mobility hubs and key stops along the future bus rapid transit and future transit circulator system to facilitate first mile/last mile connectivity to neighborhoods. MA-1.5 Provide Mobility Options. Provide roadway connections and local mobility hubs designed to such that 80% of the population and employment growth south of Base Line Road can access multi -modal opportunities with a 1/2 mile or less walk to the hub. MA-1.6 Boulevard Implementation. Require boulevards with high - quality transit to not only account for how transit service is impacted by the geometry of the corridor, but also by signal timing, signal phasing, turns, and other operations that may jeopardize the quality of service. GOAL MA-2 ACCESS FOR ALL. A safe, efficient, accessible, and equitable transportation system that serves the mobility needs of all users. MA-2.1 Complete Streets. Require that new roadways include provisions for complete streets, balancing the needs of all users of all ages and capabilities. To this end, the design of new roadways shall incorporate the appropriate scale and elements (number, size, placement, etc.) that align with the neighborhood context and shall prioritize modes as outlined in this chapter. If the street is within a specific or master plan area, the specific or master plan content and mode priorities shall govern. 181 MA-2.2 New Streets. To achieve the vision for transportation and mobility in the city, the final design, location, and alignment of streets shall provide levels of access, connectivity, and circulation consistent with the conceptual layouts shown in this Mobility and Access Chapter and Policies LC-4.6 and LC-4.7. MA-2.3 Street Design. Implement innovative street and intersection designs to maximize efficiency and safety in the city. Use traffic calming tools to assist in implementing complete street principles. Possible tools include roundabouts, curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and separated bicycle infrastructure. MA-2.4 Street Connectivity. Require connectivity and accessibility to a mix of land uses that meets residents' daily needs within walking distance consistent with Policies LC-4.6 and LC-4.7. MA-2.S Street Vacations. Prioritize pedestrian and utility connectivity over street vacations. MA-2.6 Context. Ensure that complete streets applications integrate the neighborhood and community identity into the street design. This can include special provisions for pedestrians and bicycles. MA-2.7 Roadway Scale. Balance roadway size and design configuration to ensure that vehicular speeds, volumes and turning movements do not compromise the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. MA-2.8 Facility Service Levels. Maintain level of service (LOS) D for priority modes on each street; LOS E or F may be acceptable at intersections or segments for modes that are not prioritized. The City will develop a list of intersections and roadways that are protected from this level of service policy where 1) maintaining the standard would be a disincentive to walking, biking or transit; 2) constructing facilities would prevent the City from VMT reduction goals or other priorities, and ; 3) maintaining the standard would be incompatible with adjacent land uses and built forms. MA-2.9 High -Quality Pedestrian Environment. Enhance sidewalks to create a high -quality pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks, improved pedestrian crossings, buffers between sidewalks and moving traffic, pedestrian lighting, wayfinding signage, shade trees, increased availability of benches, end of cul-de-sac access, etc. MA-2.10 Block Pattern. Require development projects to arrange streets in an interconnected block pattern, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are not forced onto arterial streets for inter- or intra- neighborhood travel consistent with Policies LC- 4.6 and LC-4.7 as well as connectivity outlined in this chapter. 182 PLANRC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MA-2.11 Master Planning. Master plan sites to ensure a well - structured network and block pattern with sufficient access and connectivity; especially in all focus areas, including the Cucamonga Town Center, Etiwanda Heights Town Center, and the Southeast Industrial Area. MA-2.12 Transportation Demand Management. Require new projects to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies, such as employer provided transit pass/parking credit, high- speed communications infrastructure for telecommuting, carpooling incentives, etc. MA-2.13 Healthy Mobility. Provide pedestrian facilities and class II buffered bike lanes (or separated bikeways) on auto -priority streets where feasible to promote active transportation. MA-2.14 Bicycle Facilities. Enhance bicycle facilities by maintaining and expanding the bicycle network, providing end -of -trip facilities (bike parking, lockers, showers), improving bicycle/ transit integration, wayfinding signage, etc. GOAL i SAFETY. A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs while preserving sustainable community values. This includes a street network that promotes and enhances safety and a healthy community for all where fatalities due to preventable collisions are minimized. MA-3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. Maintain the Active Transportation Plan supporting safe routes to school, and a convenient network of identified pedestrian and bicycle routes with access to major employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit centers, and residential neighborhoods. MA-3.2 Local Roadway and Traffic Safety. Prioritize the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan's (LRSP) priorities and vision for a street network that promotes and enhances safety and a healthy community for all where fatalities due to preventable collisions are minimized. Continue to prioritize transportation system improvements that help eliminate traffic -related fatalities and severe injury collisions. MA-3.3 Vulnerable User Safety. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in the Pedestrian Priority Area shown on Figure 8 to promote safety in the southwest area of the city. MA-3.4 Emergency Access. Prioritize development and infrastructure investments that work to implement, maintain, and enhance emergency access throughout the community including east -west connections north of SR-210 to improve emergency access of this area. 183 MA-3.5 High Injury Network Improvements. Prioritize safety investments on the City's High Injury roadway network consistent with the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan. GOAL MA-4 GOODS MOVEMENT. An efficient goods movement system that ensures timely deliveries without compromising quality of life, safety and smooth traffic flow for residents and businesses. MA-4.1 Truck Network. Avoid designating truck routes that use collector or local streets that primarily serve residential uses and other sensitive receptors. MA-4.2 Southeast Area Connectivity. Require new development in the Southeast Area to provide the necessary infrastructure to maintain access and public safety as shown on Figure M-8. MA-4.3 Future Logistics Technology. Support and plan for electrification and autonomy of the truck fleet. MA-4.4 Rail Access. Avoid abandonment of rail access to industrial parcels or utilize such right of way to balance and enhance other connectivity goals within the City (such as pedestrian/ bicycle trails). MA-4.5 Grade Separation. Support the construction of grade separations of roadways and trails from rail lines. GOAL MA-5 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION. A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs. MA-5.1 Land Use Supporting Reduced VMT. Work to reduce VMT through land use planning, enhanced transit access, localized attractions, and access to non -automotive modes. MA-5.2 Emerging Technologies. Prioritize investments in critical infrastructure and pilot programs to leverage proven new transportation technology. MA-$.3 Funding. Remain flexible in the pursuit and adoption of transportation funding mechanisms that fund innovative transportation solutions. MA-5.4 Intelligent Systems Preparation. Upgrade the City's ATMS and communications systems to ensure that the City meets the intelligent transportation system demands of today while planning for future demands associated with AVs and CVs. 184 PLAN RC2040 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 VOLUME 2 • CHAPTER 4: MOBILITY & ACCESS 65 CHINO HUS r r ` ,e = — — -- ;t` n ---- "GLEE LC B .r., . . r. All. Eamd i wunn.. 5 11 COnitiI NPYE� e Cuc�ilpd _- ii i � Can�SaNN t •YL NEIGHBOPNOOOS COPPIOOPS BSLPCLS ENLEPS PEN SPACES 1p T . o-1NPC ;'.-'. , t.'' Of 1<11.. 1110.111,4 61 CALIBRATING DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE PLACES, NOT PROJECTS Density and Intensity TFO r¢ii ennal A-1 • wncl er,n On a"YI I.I.... lalmrl FMl IrIc- MY-'. m ta4l¢ I I., ,,I rorrn n 09 . rmma__ a"[v wo'l,P n r, r a an oea r r n, r -' III.lo-" n sd m¢ on e n applr nnrWr rre¢I • e11 M'- 'T¢n[rar. r¢ .. a a c n, . ra . vr[.'.R.r r¢yul, o Lr tl,a Glv I De eta[ n'Ca. ere:, .•.¢'-MM¢. .ry Vrur .Irv/ ¢r.11r1"al oo"vice.,an a acen:-d^r.n ," Il. arr..- III . r ,wluVmr n. n, de. vier.-e..w r..a .n - n r. n nenl ttopla[Oma`mq deaar Nea,ple¢are sI•+eel"al m In.. olaama¢myiFIII oat G Co n Tv,otya.11 d.we:.an. mar III.,t.C.p:...... I -el, -II 'III It, rr a:l rar,rv--aaceasr--.e r. rrt Owelnoerl c-.ItrR, rO..am CRmm.,rd, toolIII'at-011w.rr, 1111--l.Y Bm¢nalrx¢,,..c..ranm mZ"v Use -Mix Ratio infra lGlrtl nar I'aet' ntl-u is +:Im to ... to na _ •011lar r"Gon r¢I plan anm'III n¢vgM r¢n "I le a o. llrla l I.,or i�lo'I'I ,sort, nlm¢aa m an¢ n¢ .., r a 'I I'-- .....0luaa .e , r, r.'ll( m II'pro atvpurna e lmm•tlm9 w,mn,a•aet .-.R ra r,L,.,rem=nyx .aaa a.kt.. v. ice and uss roa.v.GiS lawwar art rrga I a ., or, a ra- roll It 111 aF.+ a a, r1l. FrIlt.1%a amixr r..-I naMss mclud•na morFrr n +•. v +m mica Oael tor"I.I Ire mrrv,re to av [Imes ar th-111ant iron an uv rea: eme m +fG-c-pun A.I.ugnallrs'r nev ermm¢mtr ItAl rvae5'.aI:"' wal4aele. oI u w a .+ ra. peer rr ,r.r t e >a.Ior.. rnuorv. II' ee ✓M" Lowr:ran c r ml v t or nrlarmNo-O.p . .-I 1_.61a . ra._ J- ..n .a lolp'.w. • Ren¢e Opns Y puVeo attic e.ae.r,. i . rso,¢.Lraar dcvalOpmem snm,m pnm 11r111„aa . wto.o-o enl-tiIt.. I.. or m III,J axle. tlw Inpm m'F. t 1Fea u I a. •u .to-,. Te . se--lil..atlinn ,rnn nr amun I canna, RUW.' No: co -I pvene mr.t, e laI ta.. ro,-Iad nn,.plpale II CM e Le;lr pracemlF. '.K'a"'I enM.caMe Res^ln wmoges un a+I 62 rLANRC:9a: - CIiY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Benefits Program nu.m,.rOrm w,I n 1%NIlI.1 pr.m lrcp,t 4- or ,I ,, IF...,, ,rrrnnn,a, In. ^m III omu „ -for oar rk'.rmnly v r aovcwpr n. andar .1..11,a , a. ldu.rMFo .,a,W Ynlding neigM1tTI.Cnp.s rnpllutlle anh ronexaewlopmenLrin.I a na,eoeglognerlr �n :ne Cene,,Gor Intl G.::Ic:Ovan a rarea. It o.em n:v cwc ,. to,.r.'q"IC no r uruan�ilrq:It-nlpp,nenl Codeirreeoo-nav Lenell-9­am ,' 'It '.p O.Fll Oern.g.- I., nor rn....n . vine. er.yn ¢r, F.1d" le CI,, Ge.e n[C:w at -It at , or,c, ,,, 11-2e proof-lr,. .ears rr o.. N-HInpr, nnl- to -re -..ale¢ oar Rene.,. M-Mwe:.11e vm,,,, v., n<rerp,rr.R dr:ne <ilY� :nr-ralre.ngw,nm..nlp penne:ca,e rd¢ntrnce hrm ac FAY R11.1 1111. leant me 111-m inr. cene.m Vial, Thracl axa IIIR-Wde IIInplon 1.,ae.alopms 1Omop-.11.e. omenlal UI 1. rnecomm,•npv KEY PRIMM COMMUNnY BENERTS I Axpree.1. B..AIts. Oro-, dnu HangIt ., allmd:mw ro menero:Im+o l om rrna¢mos I... M1nlnrnp r r.•ar•r nrI. ltll-lrrn o0.-I cu inp tra.. aapeC.:.uv In wnern.p R.uu.Roevob.mem.rrl. p-.Nr -Mi -a' I., Il 11 'Ro-c rrw, of NaIH :m'Rau-ro ..r r„,,.. R .. as .eaer tulle-Alll«¢a II, IMF plan Mice Ready Der¢bpmenl PdmdrrR Orr.ceneaoy pel RpOce al tr.e Voice, M1q'501 :Re M:ksor burld,las IN.. eaepro lmaO.e .nLL ptv,. +r9.o ¢nv.em rawaro. v.ree.ssl orpo er.. ... .A, ea mo. ,..n,r r. ,,, I ... .n.. ar ., mwwemm., reaMtmynom lda.•[. ..I'll .n.. rmoaC, F. .rt.-O. meor on�rl.Moe!�netOx¢rF , Roadway lmprOw Ms. pram IIIIN. or. F-or rwem m. I: oa rn. un" Ot la. _ ru 111, It.1 U.0 iirW lair pwe r,erla.-,I l.y t-a toll n..u�IUotw male r-Irl: FI tlr.---roman. onrlu:rrerI II-Y R ce., poall. lmprew n.. prw.arny.. e. rnU lowartl`".M.c.mprove-1, sr•cl. a s the nitallatrnn r m r Norwaterm mpemerrs.railroad nmwmare upmxs.etc.onn:apawa,,I,,a'I- urle,wlseoeOurrdtl to nt r1IRII. III ile-I or lre now d¢velopmen:. 9 Civic spa.. -dog or cor-Nrlaut,n,mwrtdO,ca, Oml wppON 1poto such.-tolor a w Wrr lie n.. rn 'ara,.Im.I ac. . rredm.Remue a.RmR'-Olny.-For, hw.nq:dw:.,u the r Ip orlo, of IM-1 ac ce,.. I,m r r, -II, . s n ev l•.rnrl connecl.Vns 9 EonelnebRllY-Related Sant prwid or, v"'rrtbul.n9 loxare, s t oo,.M. aodeeNVvI.c.c'nt nn,r.mc II ,n _ as c .... lmm.m n me.ma . Iv r Lmn,amlan and rlle m r- P o, vim nn a, HaY r,m TABLE LC-i NEIGMBOPXOOUOESIGNATIONESUMMAPV ReflGmlal Tatg9l Nen TMIgi OenerelPbn Deelpnolbn DInMY RealEenUal Patna IDU(ACI' I [IA.)Y IRo[INonRosl IFARI ,..n. oli.mn al 4 mU/D FIGURELC'A N1 IGNHOP.IOOL DESIGN<I I'll �MI � ALTA LOMA Enw<Noe -. N M �CENLIIAL HOPiX I arra _g r CUCAMONGA - --+ JiCENiPAL 50 VFH r S SOVTNFAyI 65 SEMI -RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD purpose s Imem Lantl Use 8 DovolnpmuN Imensny lr ... ne.e. ande,mma rN ,In ., • Tarpel NomPe[Een+ul lnlamtty. AF Bulls Form B Olarxtcr rv.inra.9e.n dr. r.xry Access a Connectivity .rr�=Ira on9 rt er tee>.. �. i. Parks 8 Open Space .arc �+ rne let 1 9n n . nareve ..lacaanC a �n n.nurai.ne oalr9rw.'q equinmenl TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD put post 6 IMunc L,d JI, F Do volopmenl Intensity . ior9or rvon.Pevaemial imen.ur. .. i.d. 6ui11 F." F Cnnracrel .i a .. vo in... ins g. d.9a4re o+.r.v a 1,in—Ia.do I I i�fa an.. ie enr Peeesr. .. ... an nu.�u Access a Connectivity ee9.e, a r I n. I_ n inr'lydnlodsr. ee , '111. 1 11 nn.a.nlr.l b 1,an... .... neamaelo. :. .. ..re r:. nla.ands..., nnna.,aei�emanr n.e�a: m,n .nraa -,n r,n,.ti.•.n..a I. Parks & Open Space n. .er.., �. .,. ..9nx..�>�..L.... I... .. a.. tea... 66 r. A N R CL+c - CITY O49ANCHO cucAM ONGA Lv SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD - VERY LOW Purpose B Intent Land Use h Development Intensity Po[bentlal Denshy. '.I I > � r. Tnrprl Non-Peild—L.l lntensl, N Built Form 6 Character Access B Connectivity Parks 8 Open Space . .,.- ,, ..ok a...,.. " nr o1 9e1 n. .n I -null— 11,em1 11:1 w m...r.._ SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD - LOW Pnrposr n Intent Lantl Ilse fi Dcvolpprnont Intcnsity PesiOenllal DensnY'' ' • 1ar9e\A- PeslOenrial 111,..1..irv: a�at Ferm a cnara�l,a Access & Connectivity Parks 8 Open Space 6E PLANIK-2W CllV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6g SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD - MODERATE Purpose & Intent Lantl Use It Development Intensity _ n vl lowetl rr . Pezltlenlral Pensrly.'... ., .,..,. • ar9nr Non eernenta nranztY r"r Built Form. h C��r.rr:<r PI I nna'cs & Connectivity Parks & Open Space r I. •+Vr n n,u yr .r nn, us. Irb .M1 II ".nn II..r1 ......T�nr�reourrtv��u•,�ot u ernfUxno.rcnrnI, , rr-agM1r»rt. o.r� Is !_nlee'-s' • Cm'Oi RPNCHOCUCW0rN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD Pupose 8 Intent Land Use & Development I mcns, ,r zra rrc,i.. r. ,rntlNlre z'a 5rantl.rbntnnnezrtl bo al1 nneo rm r_nm. . rues -�i L.t r _ noo6 gal ez .. i r_..rc. n.. rrnnords 9 r na nn r'e•]r.rr rtl. • Nesbenl alp NY ' -S, :r :rr r Tva�t Nonenaraenti�l ntenstty.C: —like BUN, Form a Character krSos= 6 COpnCCtl Vll) Parks & Open Space 71 rwm..unar us mellaa n. CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS .. .......... . Fli I Fl I - I tll,lll­; ..I !1 .1 1�1­ .111 ­ ­ ­­- ­ -Fl­­ i. TABU U-3 CORRIDOR DESIGNATIONS SUMMARY W "' HH ... hy BAR, AR pale n PLANRC2WO - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA FIGURE -C-S COPPIDOP DESJGNA-ION' c, a ALTA WMA MWANDA ------------ - ---- CENFRML NORTU a ip NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR Par,,," n m:om IT Lan Ucc S D[vcl o ID —cm IIll -nsitr . taramnno-ae:menam mr�nary. .. euilt Form 8 Character J latalln, and os g,.anatlm' I 1 11 1 1 1 a ui. . I nr„r .reame,sm 3P ,.r anacro.acle mmr aeiaa m n 9,. .nova ran. ST—r rtryIle sate and comrwras— nimnmen, In, aicy,hos sna III sn, v.. n n n -dr, I I--ra.ye 1,1, lme. -IL 'a, Ve an lrr�amrry5-I oaII I,, IIIIae g, Iaaa aa In I,. In I'll's ITI—I o. I ac- a n -,pane osy.,rooaia vaulter aan"'.." I.,.'thI Its n".1 Access 8 Connectivity •.gnDnr tee_ a n Ixaesrr T lI a_ n ri e.ap mo v r.n�Je 4w art' I. n_. u n , yan ,J-lI III. l rv.m ..., .....,a.ne nnv,=,.n,a....In.--_ ar.J nm ae. am,om n .mr�wr Parks 8 Open Space ca.n.aa—are„ ml I,a u:a. s're .,a mrra. aal . n e, starts Tnem staroas u an, a Ian d a, ac..e M10yes raa a.e n,a' o„maa_ y.1 nt .1—hoax a,,a r.as. a..n:.. yap ne..,y n n ny. a s nre.-n. In ay CITY CORRIDOR - MODERATE purpose &late" Land Use 8 Development Intensity . .—iI nnml oonarr, v 11 .. • Tareol Non- Pesiaenliol l nan,11, Built Form A Character Ill,tila aSl, I9 r11, Ir rr, Il t,. . wwr l..noPlmn_„o In— 'I . r I ,.r I I IT _n -YP a n.,, rtle sarl�t nu comlonnalu nnnror TI.In, I. r c.rinr .all 1-Ina.", I a, sr .r14s. l'1... .par i Ion rr'P Sans , I ru r . r. �I—. lean ru nal 'a"II..... aun.—'a, ul..�nurn. Access 8 Connectivity ­ -Inner .,, . nrnn w r rna , .n- .n„nm,y only',—r,nnUra ,...a .. .r<n i r-1, na.-11, au..,-1 nm wn ne-.1 e. ..._,.,I a -Ina too. — antl arkwr. I u o.ron<n•rrl.. Parks 8 Open Space r. a, a,, ,, Ina ton al IT va.•.auart.. al+'n,. rTr.-ti nr,o . rn.-..:oaro.Irn w,o nann lr.. ,_I I'a,rllr-ar,sia, xa to .c .,Wal .IIll 1111 r.. it In .,Par, lIII ..l,00.nwaa. .-a.. r-.u.11n Y a,a',.� a wev alerlr In Vt5Ne C'..- CRV 0111111 COCA.DaI 75 CITY CORRIDOR - HIGH P pose 8Intent m -. ,n .�n� -�-. no Gomnll eovlcova Land Use & Development Intensity 1 r. nHm.anal De ty. . tara.1.......1e.,,em InI-1, ...i. Built Form & Character a. nCl o. nIll- ,.I I h, -rc.. I T I I I I s I I t.IFI—"1 1, 1 r , tFc x connectivity ,.va14.1,1. i.eh..eel ..w lu.c�,.n 1, k[ovi�lic..reets Parks & Open Space `IrI� L P Zi 76 PtANRC'.OAC- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ]> CENTER DESIGNATIONS FIGURE LC-6 CAN-EPOFMGNGnONS MAP ,HI _ n m n., -., , ,a., , ....aa .. .r. n0 ll lil ., -T, - .•nc co, ... 9 Hill-1. ,ull CA, 1I J�' rvmienm,amlH—IHN,ivnn.o. e�nmmm,.ruarc'•.0 PLTRLOMA ETAAkNDA I, anPC rynrn v..n.vnm, n, r. r.n r•., ••.. Uei9ne rv�W: Cm,arncrcll,.rn my,n9trv.n•. i.:,n,•l'i.. v•. n.i �� - .. irg vno,e n.nr in br n .i•., Plnrrn I� ......... r 1#M Rin9 W MNHAo x Ul r,nn ,U, un n.[I Iti w CENTRAL NORTULW ai on �..� t,iv.n..nnn!Ixry[e...nic ronr...... vnm ur in u iy' ' nr EO NICK i L C.� n va '[ l t nP i.9 PhIll. aI L _ 1 •CENTRiLSOUTN .ri ..n, rl,C. e.oi n. ,o \ n i SOVTNEAB' TABLE lCG CENTER DESIGNATIONS 5 V MMAPY RnlMnlinl T-Do, Non tarps)Ur MIN naNn RMn DeAgnMbn OR-IIY Peailsn'inl Rn,la IDU/ACP nITAIN (RR[/Norl..) [O/BC 78 PLPNRC:0a9 CIry O, RANCHO CUCAMONGA P NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER P...... A Intent ,rrnaem wvetl Tara�l NonA[[IEonllol M.-ImC, Built Forme Character omw, ar«epw.w • .+a . n .o. q.. p ma.� speel r>o•.,,. a•e ,,. ,,.r ,�ngnpmiem,.me apmlonape 54m. -:ara ^r ar. .ear vya eu w...... Nu�e:v5 �e'9p.5 e. re lunl,er.a pra1N :oresOr� .: ...�i. :I 'rtl:n5 n[.q•,w•�w0 Access 8 Connect viry le— r,P.. ... .,,•:r�.Iess. Pepassr �n ann .. .. di. „naneu rLlr, nc Parks B Open Spice n � �,. o piropn wnwe ame In. o.. TRADITIONAL TOWN CENTER Pu,"', K Intent Land use 8 DeveloPmonl Intensity pn.. NnS • ia.9[I NonReilpenllal lnlensi[Y; �. a"•'_.I_ P-11 Form & Character B Can e.etvh u. L ul 4 JPr Sp pL L. Be PLAN Re G= CR OF RANC NO CUCAMONGA P1 CITY CENTER PII:Pa" S Inten'. Cane use 6 GevoloPlsnt Intore.lty • Ta.9sx on-gnraenlrvl lnl.nxilY Parks & OpeN space U PLAN RC'OdC- CITY OF RANCHO CLICAMONGA 83 DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS TABLE LC-5 OISTRICTS DESIGNATIONS SUMMARY ptlNon- Reiltlenlial OanaN y ReartlolltlN Tagel Uae Mllr RMIo Oexi9ne�Ion IRUIPCI' IRai/NonRoal (FAR) (FPR) .- rrr Irrrm IB-SO O6-IO �[ilN( �. Lclp t0^CIC I FIGURE LC-7 OISl LiC- UFSICNA'ION'• MAC JII +{[ ALTA LOMP ww...e.. J �1EO HIai urswllJ;' CUCAMONGA L _ CEN ETIWANDA ar CENTRALHORTH m E1 IF N RLANRC_.1- CilO[ RnNCMOCUCAM041 BS OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT Purpose 8 Intent mpuaMw F,,lwa I, a a r,. m,..,✓, ca. .._,iT Land Use & Development intensity Uses a rmorry mless: nalo . .ria arar .,r r, gwenr men arbservicel r.., a I.uu-:n,., a 1.. e. rem au. ­le.,anr enlaeNtmmerrexY-rs If • Taryn Non Rei Jenbal n1e stY .a Built Form B Character ",l F i. .,11 l .r., ..., rlrc r a ParFetl car=rrom pr, t.F.'r rv.r,r.r,. a.. Pevw✓ronevPirM1 cw✓nr,an: vve.nnll,s .M1.Sc rre..,.. i '..,, Access 8 Connectivity r r'IIa AreW,eNPnrer[m"F it, srreu ✓eare.,alkabl::,.. . s s n �ada_er tlie9�w. :rwae.e r r u JJ.r. r, i,. ma) {,r vrvnea vu bi c'y rr= ivaar r,. ana hrn:rvn 'xe nrrv�c alreels .vn9 r:.v.alea vMintl v: be1—aa.lar,,o in 5'.r'l.- iF.' r•..a:.:.. wa.:naaee. rra a:ra se... .aria eP w.n nac .,. rov o sr:e: ' J'. u. vlen Nnv P, rrom .woe,.. Po55.�tnLPatI. Firrr. P:vleJ ro 1M1e yea vl vu E:n95 parks & Open Space Gc vlre 'J KJI ; Mb �nV we anv..ap f eesva .�. � rrn lr.r¢ 21s' CENTURY EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT Purpose & Intent Land USC n OC v[e for—Cnl Inlen[ity -Fist Ill {I. tlt . .ty, n I. %Cc- F Connc Ctivity C k bOPC_ Spacer r v. NEO-INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT Purpose & Intent 'e nre r .... n ...... ene_ r.a rls.......i.ior n,wee.. Land Use & Development Intensity ir. .. .. ern,. u.. • v., vent'-ano.omnunal nr. _r a .w an �Yr'¢e rc�ai. e �nno-r,iar r' r rai usa, .eP x. rirclo, 11, an.r ,. ano marl rare auze. rttat arc corer. ,e i. r coliLr:. _ e. +ninimre� lll' err i`r„ini Paca.a nm�a.rr 1crr e'rra ,eusrr Y Le arrurve.mi.nnrr-•r. n.r Pos aonyl D¢nzhy: i- o.arilve-a • Tnpxt Neneexltlensixl lntenslly(i� [t�F4n Built Farm B Character nm,, rlwe.I,nam a aeran o.-ai:r,r ..,,. ., n. :n .rt �mm�ga a�aaa-nz1,1 .raw,a„eyr,n„ a,e neemee rorye ar,rT'.:.:1 �eT I. ,. n . a e .,: ii, la Ill re=_a.,er iaiea n� na tlnig',or �,In1a�r:�� r ea�tlenr egno nool vz .�_r ru are or elM oo rire.n ry nnnn:,j:ae.,a.. ,,oam Tne 6 6onnc 111v1,y rr.r vne ry n,:.ce, 9r er. P,n✓,c b Open Spac< INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT V urposc x Intun, Parmemumrnray es., Nan c—or,nnal ln:rnxay. Cull, i o I CI iaa:,L`: Access 8 Connectivity —1.-'u lbouNlo cl Fl 111. al).. nebit ...... .. a.,aua,v,a.a anc .maar, oll c..In,., I,, r... arm,a„ I vsvru� ,a, 11, al-I,dl-Ill I I I I I., t Vas le, I Ill lao c ins �. i. Ja.Y.a i. a :r •o s�.Jt` aI Parks 8 Open Space m� •....dry. a III r...a GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL LC-7 A CRY OF PLACES. A beautiful city with a diversity and balance of unique and wall -connected Places. LC-1.1 rmPloteurii Places.:ui,.rrrn ,.ulu u.1 r, vn• l r r l.� rrr, nrmMrana nv:y artr,ou­:.•...n.It n.vn.0 11 r. a a:Enm•n-a ana aan.•r,a or Inl aa.I .I ec-u bass, elVbw m:u•om r•,o, le rI.'rra.. tna.a v. m,af d r..,:.. n, n•. Le,.. closely of.... Syu "I oll I I le I— arve'.onmrnr ne'a_ ._ I _ „ . •ra maal-all my a Y,a..rr ,.o.... r, I I I I , ¢1.4 Connscul aad Moblllly.'l.'a': I. v..,a,.r...,.I.— o i.o a.La LC-15 suater Planning. ....:: 1 :'a.....a. r:r. rl ..rl^, rv.m•s. of ,• • I ,. r. •, :wn L.. r r.r LC-l.6 PlsaOvantap.E Com... u— Rioinrvelavrol,ma.r: tPol—•.au.: a l"e neaa: el a:,s. a9ra c nn,+ru.rl it o rtb a,'.ae, m rom na uawr.,a,a Lc -In wsynma.roty urn a .,r ra on m•oay 11 Ell a. me a or 1CF1 Ern 11 aIhr,Lear r rIWr al9 , an.Ilr,all.a„,,. Iron awl c c'rac o[I n,zr u, vw om•. Lcl-e Public A .Irr na meal I Lc 1.9 Inllll Pw.lopm.M, l nanlo anal rnt -,a ,,, .,,III III ry lay, Ira: wlmin. Cahl.... Ia„aal.rrvma rva a, rr, Fra,gh IrrhIr down rraa: ra,rrn. and amr mw:a•.r e.v- Lc.1ao Pewloemom Incemlv.s.,.Ir: r. • a.,IIrr. ev aae, ,Ilna Paoaa_ ulantralr= a aa:na nba r9Mn1111 n Ir ra ,lla ..Frnrr „..... tI r na: 1.a91,1a llnr, nan•I a. nl:nr d—camrnr ano,r a N FLANRC `oae - cm of FANCHo UCAMONGA 91 LGLII ctlell OcrcI r p:nent 'I n r "r LCT,4 set r ru.e �. -vdrni"I 1-C-113 LC -lure .1r.. r 1,a r.r rt. r'...r n..nc rm1 i... i,Jny .ua I nelr eI _ _ GOAL 1-C-3 HUMAN SCALED. A city planned and call for people fostering social and economic interaction, an active and vital public realm, and high levels of public safety and comfort. 1C., Building on na; r 1 r ..... Iu rd r mdl.'ans n - ardor too i, I ny ro d.I'rumr jd I I I li nizrrrcl Ic 3.x crrrFo.to— . r:. . 11, Ill LC-x.l 1111e1.1.1r1. r oug, LC-lA rnr PI-Itn I'd_ d I'Lll I LC 3.s Gradual Transitions W'.. aside I I 1.11 It LC36 r o- 'a1 se uremen 1 11 c a[I rt G, l're ld,— rug l e l'.nndues - —ru11 1 duto gl— asol Full Sculevartl aM Kue Nan AK (moth of CFurtb Street) t— It min mum IS loll lim to loose i n<Id. of _b bIny 1 110 ll er _ ine _I. wa re nad1l 'I 11d.-dId nl Inr' n a g,,r nfdd I o'Iltge vn lJl o:cur. b- —1.11, drel'r... 'I 1,,I.e street ncd oura,11,rv'n1— Intl dnlr dmriyn I I I—VIt1 to ee _ 9 19-1'oel lronl nr v =Inc I Idled, Ali 1 - oagm _ n nenl nl et.I..n G tlm n9It a. LCQ.] Ithru d3rtlng F r nNa,rk,-,q I -rt ler derl,, due do not tlomn eIt erIll— anua-lue-., u lrom dun c v—r.,ler," oorsio.r 'clo mneaueing. ury d.edrw o re —re Pu,-Is ut v. II Ill r n11 add mdug1l- tll"". ng to attend tnd-.noce re, p" upco,-1.,nr. It m-wn Lc ]e Ba a u - ..r 1 0 1 IL 1 11 110­bull- r.. r r 9e. r. nfuel ti r-uI I ellee, Quin ...I rr I.. in -tl �l .—I y detle. r r r _1I, e. 1'] I,I C, ll, I tell.- ru, Ill oron 11-1-baret rcea- tutor, rcvr wrw.our" It r., .. It I 13 ILANgC _111 - Ill OF rvI 111Ccll e3 uosi r"...mi „..e VC-ai BIwY but Fit, III aefP a I 0i man NeignWrneMr r.puee mm4r m Ix Jeuyrred rru lur+9er 11-4w lem nor u Perrmorer o.eeomna feno Imr f.�eRren.+.;mm Im. r,r, Fc mme nr rM tlra:renon oI1M firy to nliyn ne++'rrreotr vmn curtrng creotr GOAL LC-3 FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE. A fiscally sound and sustainable City. 1C-3.1 Commonirti Volue.. LC33 Cemmomr l .ne ' LCJ.I ammo IY rr e. ... r, LC.3.G ns rurnl i u-,. Lcx-I EBINnr GI.R.t/. +.-r.ro.+n 1FH1 rra'tlrvl+ rr r1, It n.,. i 1- 1, IF1111 I)srn r-y'n rn <..e na nlan.nl+a.nrroree.rnnwe � y LC-3b ai--EeonomYC-ar ae.. .......r on.rr LC3.7 Deralapry Dur E eono.Y LC39 ,rn1 F rnwnv- . L[alo 6cane cSYner9Y i'i: r.. i.. i..r r..: GOAL LC -A COMPLETE NEIGHBOPHOODS. A diverse range of unique neighborhoods, each of which provides an equitable range of housing types and choices with a mix of amenNies and services that s.ppbrt Rcflw, healthy lifestyles. LC-G.I Nngnaorneoe erererralion LC G3 Comp me Ne ynFornootlr. r[ c.3 onn J+FornooJ. 14 11 Noigntor. oatls. r ge oLANRC `WC' CITY Of RANCHO CVCAYONGA 95 Y eLeri 1 S 9nmwP en a :an • mamw ommumr ar .nr am open spare. '. 102 I, M1p[, . r ..,.,.ri.( FIGURE FA FOCUS.RE< I CJ'_cmOrvGc Q Crew mnnee:mru vq:w:Ispby Uay Cree4 Cnamn ,c E::wa.. e:Unt no NorpBff S:rtt :c CUWmon9JFon'n Cen1Pr Sou:f e':M1e Cuc ar9...,n.:nn,r..[L. un�er,M1e h::r.re f•:a 103 1 6y1 FOCUS AREA 3: HART DISTRICT I w-r_ zIM1e+ nrr zu. ., o r. - x c rt M1UL olaorur ulx, r rFlrc n e Wirl.me .rac:etl ,,i inn-, ufHSGl:r•+o +u++.n - n.nc-..,nzn . -ri rnnefex nnr nvalerrn ar..ianiln nnrlvn.ur.nelvnr•irnrnxa r n. une sul�l„ ie_. .co r n ccortlrn]Iv meCi:Y u.nnp.working colloL+m...+vel4 v.rl� VrnVO o+-1-1 ll- ooI .nv CI"', nrcrec I. I, "I', I, It ad, mxstl use, n..nxi. +ri c.i emcr J'I, "I elgnl .. Cxnrv+- _ eni nca bm y er+iu,, Ivi 11-Ill toneP IHA P+o-as. 11 1—. . s n-oino C." ,_- err n=+ acgy'o In—z c 11 e .i Cr 1 alcmVlM [c+re Ney priorities for Strategic Implementation a P„eger ,.. 'Poll .onu ioallr z+,¢e, ar n_a,ge CbcF In r 1oa. em ero st'07._trt ,_nner. rI1 MYllipurpwsirall GnmtettbneEspanoai,Ftaa.nerwukgr r orrryxneuvmull+pnpo.H.c,HrvHrtA+ytdiBrnY.rerri9nt-ar- waga9ptrenr-lo-tMt-Blar+nea-415RM1ne-4R,smlVBrgvgexBnmrJlnM tromtnr-$tminr�res:wrdtar-M<r.eamun9aTawnGanrer.erea--'.w:n :+sa lecomldrade,+rmle MYenMsorwdrNMalwcas:wartrio tM1e 9eycreeL <-nanerN-iwrbr{ Cryar,LaAvemMn-0ttrerimm+ecl mrMw o + ona GaN .atML <,rx s. nnn3o.xMvn4teHrc mpleYmem dArrrzm4nr/,sxtlxasr- fa. Adaptive eusea trial ........ no .sl +err ezanO s+x c.0 a. wre e.r o ...._ r,. n ru ,n,essez_ o- PI-It,......... r .vng Vnml e, ano tliverziry M—.. .. yr i ies mr,r eliLle.mrrn 114 pIQNPE -C^Ol iA\C HO CJCPMONGI LIGUPE FA-4 FOCUS APEC J HAW HI51 PICI Q I-t lu rvi rr rzt�cuva ,^ronzV rr.. on +J.tlIF nO, © r, in0 o ••'n"r ucnut ..rJF'Srreez mrr xa u.0 tl✓e Ivne p Qp,=an-4zu:,�[nwrlo;nnnrtcl.n,l lrcocn QE.rc ntlTSrruer re _cnnec. +nillr4r.n Pvonuc.o Qwr g Q D—Hp III ...ee HIP Inn——P"ge p,tllic Pl:.za QM"'M ,e+ Plon I.r Ccy C¢mer Coevel Cmem Q C.'I...p,mpremen: a:iun orrnc Ae ,C ax.an UTon lagnboCl—d 115 L44 w v9i\O'.YY]N OYJNvh�O.li] .—: Jtl1i4 �n 944 �f � y d i�•- jj F � x :c I � IiLL- 1IP FOCUS AREA 8: SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA n x,.v vnem <,. mr slr.,leg�mpe .nlal or. FIGLIgE GA9 f OCUc [.qE[ E SOIrryEAS INO:I S-4191 nFf © p Q I..ramn- mrMeopparF-eelrve i...r i 'x2lufemmuhipurpou r,.rr antlpmerlrall�ile .apoiCmehLhpnnel. p o --------- 13s P 111111 i I . , ", "", , 1, " 11 "INC I xas LAY x x x tl9NOWtlJIIJON]Nbtl fO ALJ- OCO: ]MNbld III fE �.:nJa ,-co ..�.��. ucnfu itaauuv ¢af_.a.w uolaPUVm43aw ui z. iz, f i. ai I ....... I. .5. VJ ni ui.i ..ui vw wio a ae.> o4.«i4f?a yan�R¢O ouoisv¢ds...a oa. w..fi,. Ma, eaia a,aonaany zI N�'aldwoJ ....s.P.... ..J —1-1-11011 .fo»IeIs.IlIII b ieL 13= aeafa .. ass •. i. , 41 f rutsf x4f Nu'IWNPzxK4�M-0awNWda{NdHua:e1P¢lvra I .,i�.,.i - E �aa i-I ltl- �4a4f-`�VxV. J J�fluw � z �_'•�-� .+.suau4.ao P li n. � .ai:::u Vaiy yan,J a.l -p 1 11 ac f� of.as f al.'. V ecl of unwwca f. af� ui IvIll1141 Iml_ tl:a u ...,f ..rn. u, d w �.�i. NOILtlLN3W]lJW4tl3tltl511. f z �ued 15 Wsyfed CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.2025-102 GPA DRC2025-00255 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 17, 2025 Page 5 EXHIBIT B ADDENDUM October 2025 1 General Plan El Addendum ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR SCH No. 2021050261 FOR THE 2025 GENERAL PLAN and DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared by. City of Rancho Cucamonga Contact: Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909.477.2750 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR 1.1 BACKGROUND This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City's update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision -making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in. an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intent of the project is to make minor updates to General Plan policies, diagrams and maps to clarify information as well as update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the changes proposed to the General Plan. The key amendments to the General Plan and Development Code are described below. 1. General Plan Land Use and Community Character (Volume 2) Changes a. Change from "Non -Residential Intensity (FAR)" to "Target Non -Residential Intensity (FAR)": Proposed amendments to Tables LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 clarify that nonresidential intensity (FAR) is a target for the land use districts, not a mandate for each individual parcel. This was explained on page 62 of Volume 2 of the General Plan, the lack of the word "Target" on the tables led to confusion and misinterpretation. b. Update Policy LC-2.6 for ground floor non-residential uses in mixed use developments: This amendment clarifies objective height standards, rather than FAR, for first floor non-residential uses. This establishes the standards that can meet the "Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio" for the designation. This implements the non- residential portion of a mixed -use development. c. Add a new policy to Goal LC-2 regarding block length: The proposed policy states, "LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than Neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets." This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human -scaled pedestrian realm. d. Modify Policy LC-2.10 for auto dependent uses: Policy LC-2.10 Pedestrian -Oriented Auto -Dependent Uses currently states, "Require auto dependent uses such as drive-throughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto -focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto -servicing use/activity in the rear. Prohibit auto -dependent uses from locating in pedestrian -priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods." The amendment would add "...or on streets that prioritize pedestrians" at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of auto -dependent uses locating within pedestrian -priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto -dependent uses. 2. General Plan Mobility and Access (Volume 2) Changes a. Addition of BRT and frontage lane layouts for Foothill and Haven: These layouts provide objective standards for the desired frontage lane that is articulated in the General Plan. b. Addition of dimensional standards for all roadway typologies: Adding objective standards for the roadway typologies provides clarity for future development to meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. c. Updated Truck Routes Map: This amendment, required by AB 98, updates the truck routes map to reflect changes in goods movements patterns within the city to remove two truck routes to consolidate freight activity and reduce freight movement from sensitive receptors in the City. 3. Development Code Changes for Consistency with the Changes to the General Plan a. Amendment to Table 17.130.050-1 (xxx) in Chapter 17.130 of Article XXX (Form Based Code): This will amend the table to clarify to remove non-residential FAR from the table as a parcel level development standard and update ground floor non-residential height dimensions consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. b. Amendment to Section 17.138.030 (xxx) in Chapter 17.138 of Article XXX (Form Based Code): This will amend the block length standards consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. 2. Findings The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation) for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The policies of the General Plan and the City's existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the project is designed to enhance clarity of the General Plan, meet the requirements of AB 98 and update the code to be consistent with the changes proposed in the General Plan Amendment. The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates. Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City's General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR. The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project. 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed project would better clarify the intent of the General Plan, eliminate truck routes from sensitive receptors and align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Consequently, the changes to the General Plan and Development Code would not change the conclusions of the EIR. 2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development. These Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because these changes are a result of the Development Code review anticipated by the General Plan Update, there is no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The impacts from the proposed project would be the same as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 4. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 5. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would ensure that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan. As such, development in the City would continue to be consistent with the buildout projected in the General Plan EIR, and the resulting impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR would remain the same. Therefore, no new Standard Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed project would be required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.