HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-64 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 01-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF
A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE EIR AS CERTIFIED BY
THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND APPROVING A
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTAS PREPARED BY
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO
ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-01, FOR A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM OF
632 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN
DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND EAST AVENUE, NORTH OF 25TH STREET,
AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN,AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 225-071-37, 47, 48,
50, AND-51, 225-081-09, 14, AND 15.
A. Recitals.
1. A & J Resources, Inc., filed an application for Development Agreement 01-01, as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development
Agreement is referred to as "the application."
2. The County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors previously certified an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) in 1991. The City of Rancho Cucamonga in conjunction with this project
prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).
3. On June 13, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
5. The subject property of the Development Agreement is legally described herein.
6. A true and correct copy of the proposed Development Agreement is attached as
Exhibit "A" to the attached draft Ordinance.
7. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the associated Environmental
Assessment prepared for said project.
8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-64
DA 01-01 —A &J RESOURCES, INC.
June 13, 2001
Page 2
2. This Commission hereby specifically finds that the Development Agreement and each
and every term and provision contained herein conform to the General Plan of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
3. This Commission hereby recommends approval of the Development Agreement attached
as Exhibit"A"of the attached draft Ordinance and draft City Council Resolution affirming the EIR as
certified by the County of San Bernardino and adopting the SEIR as prepared by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga attached as Exhibit"B." Further, the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as Exhibit"C in the
June 13, 2001, Staff Report
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: / : I
Larry T. cNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
rad Bull etary
1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 13th day of June 2001, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 01-01,
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND A & J RESOURCES, INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATELY 240—ACRE SITE WITH UP TO
632 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED
BETWEEN DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND EAST AVENUE NORTH OF
25TH STREET - APN: 225-071-37, 48, 50, AND 51, 225-081-09, 14,
AND 15.
A. Recitals.
1. California Government Code Section 65864 now provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"The Legislature finds and declares that:
a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a
waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other developments to the consumer, and
discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make
maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the
project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules
and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning
process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic
costs of development."
2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Any city...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having a legal
or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property as provided in this
article..."
3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows:
"A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the Agreement, the
permitted uses of the property, the density of intensity of use, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for
subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses
and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the Agreement..."
4. "Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this
reference is proposed Development Agreement 01-01, concerning that property generally
located between Day creek Channel and Etiwanda Avenue north of 25th Street as legally
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
DA 01-01 A & J RESOURCES, INC.
June 13, 2001
Page 2
described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the
Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development
Agreement."
5. On June 13, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held
a duly noticed hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on
that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution No. 01-64.
6. On , 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a
duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement.
7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, this Council has reviewed a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as
legally sufficient for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Development Project.
SECTION 3: Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced
public hearing on , 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a) The location, design, and proposed uses set forth in this Development Agreement
are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity.
b) This Development Agreement shall not become effective until General Plan
Amendment 01-01 D, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment 01-02 have been reviewed
and approved by the City Council.
SECTION 4: It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good
zoning practice require the approval of the Development Agreement.
SECTION 5: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement 01-01, attached
hereto as Exhibit "A."
SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same
to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,
a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730
(Space above for Recorder's Use Only)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
By and Between
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA
and
A&J RESOURCES, INCORPORATED,a California corporation
Dated: ,2001
EXHIBIT "A"
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND
A&J RESOURCES,INCORPORATED CONCERNING
THE REVISED RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES PROJECT
This Agreement(the"Development Agreement")is made and entered into this_th day of
2001,by and between A&J RESOURCES,INCORPORATED,a California corporation("A&J.")and the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation(the"CITY")pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through
65869.5 of the California Government Code. A&J. and its successors and assigns, if any, are referred to
collectively hereinafter as the"Property Owner." The CITY and A&J. are collectively referred to herein as the
"Parties."
RECITALS:
A. To provide more certainty in the approval of development projects,to encourage private
participation in comprehensive planning,and to reduce the economic risk of development,the Legislature of the
State of California has adopted Sections 65864,et seq.of the California Government Code,thus authorizing the
CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property,
in order to establish development rights with respect thereto.
B. Section 65865(b)of the California Government Code authorizes the CITY to enter into a binding
development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporated territory but also within CITY's
sphere of influence,provided that the effectiveness of the development agreement is conditioned upon the
annexation of such real property to the CITY within the period of time for annexation as specified in the
Development Agreement.
C. Property Owner owns fee title to approximately Two Hundred Forty Eight(248)acres of real
property located entirely within the County of San Bernardino(the"County")and more particularly described in
Exhibit"A"attached hereto(the"Project Site"). Previously,the Project Site was subject to land use entitlements
resulting from the County's approval in 1991 of the University/Crest»Planned Development,PUD No.W12149
(the"University/Crest PD"). The University/Crest PD entitlements combined two separately owned properties with
1,238 residential units, commercial development,school,park and open space of 1,111.29 acres. The Project Site is
the Crest portion of the University/Crest PD.
D. Property Owner has renamed the Project Site(the former"Revised Crest Project")to the present
name"Rancho Etiwanda Estates").
E. On February 26,2001 City Staff delivered a Letter supporting conditions of the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates Project citing City annexation of the project and Project requirements including Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report(SEIR"),Amendment of the City General Plan,Amendment of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Maps,Tentative Parcel Map,>>and Development Agreement.
F. As further set forth in Ordinance No._enacted by the CITY on ,2001
(the"Enacting Ordinance"),the execution of this Development Agreement and the performance of and compliance
with the terms and conditions set, forth herein by the Parties hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (ii)will
promote the public convenience general welfare,and good land use practices in the CITY;(iii)will promote
preservation of land values:(iv)will encourage the development of the Project by providing a level of certainty to
the Property Owner; and(v)will provide for orderly growth and development of the CITY consistent with the
CITY's General Plan.
Agreement
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants of the
Parties, and for other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the Parties agree as follows:
Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Effectiveness of Development Agreement
Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall only
become operative and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall only arise, if all of the following have occurred
before September 30,2001,unless that date is mutually extended in writing by Property Owner and the City
Manager for a period of not more than Ninety(90)days:
(i) The Project Site has been annexed to the CITY and said annexation is final as to any and
all administrative actions, and is not then subject to judicial challenge;and
(ii) The Project,City General Plan Amendment,Amendment to Etiwanda North Specific
Plan,»and SEIR>>have been approved by City and all entitlements have been issued for completion by
Developer.
B. Term
The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date of the enacting
Ordinance and shall extend for a period of ten(10) years thereafter(the"Term"),unless this Development
Agreement is terminated,modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement,
including,without limitation,the extensions provided below and any extension attributable to the"force majeure"
circumstances described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties.
Following the expiration of the Term,this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no
further force and effect;provided,however,that such termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from
project entitlements granted prior to,concurrently with,or subsequent to the approval of this Development
Agreement and the structures that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of
those structures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring,for land use
purposes,that those structures continue to be legal conforming structures and that those uses continue to be legal
conforming uses.
C. Assienment
Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement,Property Owner shall have the right to
convey,assign, sell, lease, sublease,encumber,hypothecate or otherwise transfer(for purposes of this Development
Agreement,"Transfer")the Project Site,in whole or in part,to any person,partnership,joint venture,firm or
corporation at any time during the terra of this Development Agreement,and to the extent of each such Transfer, the
transferor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such obligations under this Development Agreement at the
time of the Transfer,except to the extent Property Owner is in Default,as defined in Section 3C hereof,of any of the
terms of this Development Agreement when the Transfer occurs.
If all or a portion of the Project Site is Transferred and there is noncompliance by the transferee owner with
respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the transferor with respect to any portion of
the Project Site not sold or Transferred,such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that
transferee or transferor, as applicable,but shall not be deemed to be a breach hereunder against other persons then
owning or holding any interest in any other portion of the Project Site and not themselves in breach under this
Development Agreement. Any alleged breach shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3C hereof.
In no event shall the reservation or dedication of a portion of the Project Site to a public agency cause a
transfer of duties and obligations under this Development Agreement to such public agency unless specifically
stated to be the case in this Development Agreement,any of the exhibits attached to this Development Agreement,
the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public
agency.
Property Owner shall notify the CITY not less than thirty(30)days before any such Transfer,and such
notice shall contain all material information regarding the contemplated Transfer, including but not limited to the
identity of the transferee,and the material terms of such contemplated Transfer. Upon CITY notification,the City
Manager shall review Transfer»»»
D. Amendment of Avxeement
This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties
in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated
to the contrary in this Development Agreement,the Parties may enter into one or more implementing agreements,as
set forth below,to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement,without
amending this Development Agreement.
Property Owner and the CITY acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a
close degree of cooperation between Property Owner and the CITY and that, in the course of the development of the
Project Site, it may be necessary to supplement this Development Agreement to address the details of the Parties'
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRAFT 5-30
2
respective performance and obligations,and to otherwise effectuate the purposes of this Development Agreement
and the intent of the Parties. If and when, from time to time,the Parties find that it is necessary or appropriate to
clarify the application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending the Development
Agreement,the Parties may do so through one or more implementing agreements(the"Implementing Agreement"),
which shall be executed by the City Planner and by an authorized representative of Property Owner. After
execution,each Implementing Agreement shall be attached as an addendum and become a part of this Development
Agreement, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary. Such Implementing
Agreement shall not require the approval of the City Council of the CITY and shall only be executed by the City
Planner(on behalf of the CITY),if the City Planner has determined that such implementing agreements are not
materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement,and the applicable ordinances,rules,regulations and
official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of this Development Agreement. Any changes to this
Development Agreement which would impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be
deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purport to
change land use designations applicable to the Project Site under the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Entitlements, shall be
considered"material"and require amendment of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of California
Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868.
Section 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT
A. Land Use Entitlements
The land use entitlements approved by the City are depicted on the Land Use Plan>>attached
hereto as Exhibit"B". The Parties acknowledge that,without being obligated to do so,Property Owner plans to
develop the Project Site in substantial conformity with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements as
approved by this Development Agreement. During the Term,the permitted uses for the Project,or any portion
thereof,the density and intensity of use,zoning,maximum height and size of proposed buildings,building and yard
setback requirements,provisions for reservations or dedications,design and performance standards and other terms
and conditions of development of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project,shall be those set forth in the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. The specific terms of this
Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approved tracts total 632
lots and that lots may be shifted between tracts without increasing the overall number of lots and be in substantial
conformity with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement.
The CITY Planner shall exercise his reasonable discretion to review transfers of lots between tracts and make the
determination of substantial compliance.
Other certain specific modifications of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements to which
the Parties agree are set forth below. All Exhibits attached hereto constitute material provisions of the Development
Agreement,and are incorporated herein.
B. Rules and Regulations
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly
provided in this Development Agreement,the ordinances,rules,regulations and official policies governing
permitted uses of the Project Site,the density and intensity of such uses,and design,improvement,and construction
standards and specifications applicable to development of the Project,shall be the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project
Entitlements and those ordinances of the CITY,as implemented by this Development Agreement,rules,regulations
and official policies,but only to the extent that they are consistent with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project
Entitlements,as modified and/or amended by this Development Agreement(the"Existing Laws"), except that the
CITY's street improvement, lighting, storm drain, and Americans With Disabilities Act("ADA")standards shall be
followed,and the landscape standards applicable shall be those specified in this Development Agreement, and/or the
CITY's standards. In the event of any conflict between the CITY's ordinances,rules,regulations and official
policies and the Existing Laws, then the Existing Laws shall control. The CITY shall not be prevented in
subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies in effect
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRAFT 5-30
3
("Future Policies")to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Laws. Such conflict shall be deemed to
occur if,without limitation,such Future Policies:
(i) . modify the permitted types of land uses,the density or intensity of use,the maximum
height or size of proposed buildings on the property,building and yard setback requirements,or impose
requirements for the construction or provision of on-site or off-site improvements or the reservation or dedication of
land for public use,or the payment of fees or the imposition of exactions,other than as are in each case specifically
provided for in this Development Agreement;
(ii) prevent the Property Owner from obtaining all necessary approvals,permits,certificates
or other entitlements at such dates and under such circumstances as the Property Owner would otherwise be entitled
under this Development Agreement;
(iii) prevent or inhibit Property Owner from commencing,continuing and finishing on a
timely basis the construction and development of the Project or timely satisfaction of Property Owner's obligations
under this Development Agreement,in the manner contemplated by this Development Agreement;and/or
(iv) render any confornung use of the Project Site a non-conforming use or any structure on
the Project Site a non-conforming structure.
C. Design and Infrastructure Issues
1. Gated Community
Rancho Etiwanda Estates is approved as a private gated
community, including formation of a Homeowners Association which shall own and be responsible for maintenance
of common area streets and related purposes, drainage facilities,interim detention basin,utility easements,
landscaping and walls within Rancho Etiwanda Estates.
2. Street Sections
The CITY desires that the design of Day Creek Boulevard street sections be modified for
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements,to accommodate a wider landscape setback along the east and
south side of Day Creek Boulevard. Property Owner agrees to modify the design of street sections as depicted on
Exhibit"C-1"and "C-2". With the exception of grading and hardscape requirements,the improvements for Day
Creek Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
3. Dry Utilities
The Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements do not require that Burd vaults be
installed and the CITY and Property Owner agree that no Burd vaults will be required throughout the Project Site.
4. LMD No. 7 Slopes
Streetscape plans depicting slopes (as shown on Exhibits"D-1", "D-2" and"D-3")on
Day Creek Boulevard in Landscape Maintenance District No. 7("LMD No.7")shall be reviewed and approved by
the CITY. 2H:1 V slopes may be pemmitted for up to Twenty(20)feet in height. Hardscape>>above the Fifteen
(15) foot height may be used upon review and approval with CITY Planner and with retaining walls and/or crib
walls as approved by the CITY Engineer. Proposed specific slope treatments which shall be applied to the slopes in
LMD No. 7 are depicted on Exhibits"D-l", "D-2"and"D-3" .
5. Homeowners Association and Private Intract Slopes
Intract streetscape plans depicting slopes on Homeowner Association and private
slopes shall be reviewed and approved by CITY. 2H:1 V slopes maybe permitted up to Forty(40)feet in height may
i be used upon review and approval with City Planner with retaining walls and/or crib walls as approved by the City
Engineer. Proposed specific slope treatments which shall be applied are depicted on Exhibits `E-1","E-2" and"E-3".
6. Circulation Issues and Fees
a. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impacts Analysis
Circulation improvements necessary to serve the area in and around the Project Site,
currently within the CITY,are generally depicted on Exhibit"17-1." The Parties acknowledge that the Property
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRAFT 5-30
4
Owner plans to build improvements that participate in the Project Transportation requirements. The CITY agrees to
establish a circulation fee for the Project depicted on Exhibit"F-9" as a mechanism to reimburse the Rancho
Etiwanda Property Owner for construction of infrastructure in excess of Rancho Etiwanda Property Owner's fair
share. The fee shall be calculated on a per-acre basis,with the cost of the infrastructure allocated to the benefitting
properties. Exhibit"174"depicts the benefitting properties and their respective fair share. Exhibit"F-5"through"F-
8"depict the estimated costs of the infrastructure. Exhibit"F-2"and"F-3"depicts the street cross-sections.
Property Owner shall pay the fee as shown on Exhibit F-9,payable per housing unit,at time of issuance of building
permit. Upon formation of a Community Facilities District("CFD")Property Owner may include this cost as part of
the CFD financing.
Rancho Etiwanda Estates shall not be obligated to participate in any fair share contribution
for Transportation Impact Analysis Fees("TIA")to City for transportation improvements within City.
b. Other Circulation Improvements
The CITY has requested and the Property owner has agreed to:
(i) Construct Day Creek Boulevard from Southern California Edison Corridor to
Etiwanda Avenue,as depicted on Exhibit"C-1"and to complete the work by the date of issuance of the 150"
building permit on the Property or first certificate of occupancy or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(ii) Construct Etiwanda Avenue from the southeastern boundary of the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates Project,north to Day Creek Blvd,as depicted on Exhibit"C-1"and to complete the work by the date of
issuance of the 150th building permit on the Property or first certificate of occupancy or to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
(iii) If adjacent projects fail to extend Day Creek Boulevard from State Route 30 to
Rancho Etiwanda Estates,Project Owner and CITY will process Development Agreement Amendment to address
additional off site infrastructure required for Project.
(iv) CITY will support deletion of Etiwanda Avenue north of Day Creek Boulevard
depicted on Exhibit"C-1". CITY also discourages construction access on Etiwanda Avenue and any interim
construction access must be approved by City Engineer.
7. Storm Drains/Park Fee/Equestrian Fee '
CITY approves construction,by Property Owner, of an"Interim Detention Basin"located
as shown conceptually on Exhibit"G". The Interim Detention Basin shall be initially maintained by the
Homeowners Association(to be formed by the Project)until the Project is connected to the completed
COUNTY/CITY storm drain in the future. At the time the Project is connected to the COUNTY/CITY storm drain
the Interim Detention Basin shall be transferred to CITY and maintained as open space by LMD#7. The Interim
Detention Basin shall be landscaped by Project Owner as depicted on Exhibit"G".
(i) According to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements,the regional and
secondary portion of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine drainage fee is$ ,which Property Owner shall pay
to the COUNTY,if required.
(ii) No CITY storm drain fees shall apply based upon the construction of project
entitlements,interim detention basin,and construction of storm drain improvements by Property Owner.
(iii) Property Owner will pay City a sum totaling$4,171,200 for park purposes. The
sum will be paid from CFD formation and funding and prior to recording of the first final map.
(iv) Property Owner will pay City a sum totaling $632,000.00(based upon$1,000.00 per
unit calculated upon a minimum 632 housing units) for equestrian purposes The sum will be paid from CFD
formation and funding and prior to recording of the fust final map.
8. Grading
The Project is exempt from the CITY Hillside Grading Ordinance and Etiwanda North
Specific Plan grading requirements.
9. Dev elopment Standards
i. Lot Area: Single Family(SF 7,200 minimum)
ii. Width: Sixty(60)feet minimum,measured across building set back line of lot.
Width may vary dependant upon lot size.
5
iii. Coverage: Building:40%maximum of lot area for building structures. Paving,
driveways,patios,or pools shall not be calculated as part of building coverage.
iv. Building Setbacks:
a)Front Yard:
Should be staggered with a minimum Eighteen(18)feet with an average of Twenty(20)
feet throughout the Tentative Tract,as measured from the R.O.W.
b)Side Yard:
Fifteen feet minimum building separation is required with minimum Five feet and Ten feet
side yards measured from property lines.
c)Rear Yard:
Fifteen feet minimum
d)Garage>>Placement:
Where garages>>are entered from local streets and the garage doors face the street,the
setback shall be a minimum of Twenty(20)feet from the back of the sidewalk.
Where garages>>are entered from local streets and the garage doors do not face the street
(side entry garages>>)the setback shall be Ten(10)feet minimum from back of the sidewalk.
v. Building height:
Two story Thirty Five feet maximum
10. Design Review Process
The Project shall be subject to CITY design review process with the exception of hillside
grading standards.
11. Open Space Transfer Plan
Property Owner will transfer to the County of San Bernardino, in fee, 86 acres(Y:of a 172
acre parcel)of off-site land for permanent open space,along with funding in the amount of$110,000>>to provide
for long term maintenance of said land. The transfer and funding shall occur upon recording of the fust final map of
the Project. Other land transfers and funding may occur to others as part of open space transfer plan .
D. Timing of Development and Fees
1. Development of Remainder of Project Site
Neither Property Owner nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases
of the Project Site shall be developed, since such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the
control of Property Owner including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates,absorption,
competition, and other factors.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that Property Owner retains flexibility under this
Development Agreement to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the
exercise of the Property Owner's business judgment. The CITY further acknowledges that Property Owner may
desire to market,sell, or otherwise arrange for disposition of some or all of the Project Site,prior to development,
and that the rate at which the Project develops will likely depend upon the business judgement of subsequent owners
of the Project Site.
6
2. CITY's Cooperation
CITY shall use good faith,diligent efforts to promptly process and take final action on any
applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owner with respect to the Project. Such cooperation shall
include, without limitation,(a)using good faith,diligent efforts to process subsequent Development/Design Review
in accordance with state regulations; and(b)promptly processing all ministerial permits in accordance with Section
2I below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of[his Development Agreement,any future regulation,
whether adopted by initiative or otherwise,limiting the rate or timing of development of the Project Site or the extent
thereof,shall be deemed to conflict with Property Owner's vested rights to develop the Project under this
Development Agreement and shall,to that extent,not apply to the development of the Project.
Processing and review of development proposals shall be subject to established procedures
in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review,as specified in the Existing Laws.
However,the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal shall be based on the objectives,policies
and specific development standards specified herein.
3. Force Majeure
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement,
Property Owner and CITY shall be excused from performance of their obligations under this Development
Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, riots, strikes,picketing,or other
labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies,or damage to or prevention of work by reason of fire, floods,
earthquake, or other casualties, litigation,acts or neglect of the other parry,economic consideration or any other
cause beyond the reasonable control of CITY or Property Owner,as applicable. The time of performance of such
obligations as well as the term of this Development Agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of such
delay hereunder.
E. Future Entitlements
With respect to any entitlements that Property Owner may require in the future, including,without
limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals,conditional use permits,and Development/Design Review,the
CITY shall retain its discretionary review authority and the CITY's applicable ordinances,rules,regulations and
official policies. However,any such discretionary review shall be expressly subject to the provisions of this
Development Agreement and the CITY may only impose conditions upon such discretionary entitlements which are
consistent with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement,
except as otherwise specifically required by state or federal law.
F. Environmental Review
Other than the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the SEIR and the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements(and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated therein),no other
mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project, as presently
approved and as evaluated in the SEIR, shall be required. In connection with the CITY's issuance of any further
entitlement(as contemplated in Section 2F above), which is subject to CEQA,the CITY shall promptly commence
and diligently process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA,and to the extent permitted by
CEQA,the CITY shall use and adopt the SEIR and other existing environmental reports and studies as adequately
addressing the environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requiring new or supplemental
environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review,the CITY may
impose additional measures(or conditions)to mitigate,as permitted by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts of
such future entitlements, which were not considered at the time of approval of the Project;provided,however,that:
(i) Unless required by state or federal law,no new or additional mitigation measures shall be
imposed as a result of any Future Policies; and
(ii) The CITY agrees and acknowledges that the TIA incorporated in the SEIR has fully
analyzed the traffic projected to be generated from the Rancho Etiwanda Project,and, in accordance with all
applicable legal requirements including,without limitation,the TIA Guidelines set forth in the San Bernardino
County Congestion Management Plan("CMP"),no additional traffic impact analysis shall be required for
development of the Project Site as long as the number of vehicle trips generated do not exceed the vehicle trips
evaluated in the TIA analysis. In the event and at such time as the Project generates more vehicle trips than analyzed
-7-
in the TIA,the CITY may require a new traffic impact analysis in accordance with such CMP standards as may exist
at such time. Except in such event(and except for such traffic circulation/site-access analysis as may be reasonably
required to determine the configuration and alignment of Streets adjacent or internal to the Project),no further traffic
impact analyses shall be required by the CITY with respect to implementation of the Project.
G. CITY Fees and Mandates by State or Federal Laws
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the fees and impositions which may potentially be imposed
by the CITY on the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project and Property Owner(collectively, "Fees")fall within one of
three categories : (a)fees for processing land use and construction permit applications which are not otherwise
governed by the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code(but which are subject to the limitations set
forth in Sections 66013,66014 and 66016-66018.5 of the Government Code)(collectively,the"Processing Fees");
(b)fees or other monetary exactions which are contemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date
of this Development Agreement and which purport to defray all or a portion of the cost of impacts to certain public
facilities, improvements and other amenities from development projects, including any fees described in Government
Code Sections 66000 et seq.(collectively, the"Existing Fee Categories")(the Existing Fee Categories include any
increases, decreases,or other modifications to existing fees,so long as such modified fees relate to the same category
of impacts identified in the Existing Fee Categories); and(c)fees or other monetary exactions which may be imposed
in the future by the CITY for purposes of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities, improvements,or
amenities related to development projects,but excluding the Existing Fee Categories("Other Fees"). The Property
Owner's obligation to pay Fees shall be specifically governed by the following provisions:
I. Processing Fees. The CITY may charge Planning and Engineering Plan Check and
Pemtit Fees and Building Permit Fees which are in force and effect on a CITY-wide basis at the time of Property
Owner's application for a land use entitlement or a construction permit. The amount of any Processing Fees shall be
determined by the CITY in accordance with all applicable laws including, without limitation,Government Code
Sections 66013, 66014 and 66017-66018.5(or any successor laws,as applicable). Unless otherwise agreed by
Property Owner and the CITY, the Processing Fees assessed Property Owner shall be the same as those imposed
upon other development projects throughout jurisdictional limits of the CITY.
2. Existing Fee Categories. As set forth above, the CITY agrees that certain fee categories,
(including,without limitation, transportation improvement fees, storm drain improvement fees,and>>park fees)
have been or will be met by Property Owner through the construction of improvements or funding. In consideration
of the construction costs and funding to be bome by Property Owner, CITY will not collect a Beautification Fee
from the development of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project. Neither Property Owner nor the Project shall be
subject to any additional CITY imposed fees, impositions or monetary exactions with respect to any Existing Fee
Categories, for a period of ten(10)years following the effective date of this Agreement. The period during which
fees within any Existing Fee Categories are limited as described in this section(and as further applied in paragraph 3
below)is referred to hereinafter as the"Fee Limitation Period."
3. Other Fees. In consideration of the Property Owner's agreement to modify the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and implement the
timing of development in accordance with the terms set forth above,no other Fees shall be imposed upon Property
Owner or the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project during the applicable Fee Limitation Period,except as may be
specifically required to carry out any state or federal law or mandate enacted after the effective date of this
Development Agreement, as necessary to mitigate environmental impacts of the project in accordance with Section
2G above. Even in those cases where Property Owner or the Project may be required to pay Other Fees,any such
Other Fees shall be limited to Property Owner's fair share contribution to impacts created by the Project,shall not
discriminate against Property Owner(as compared to other property owners in the CITY)and shall not duplicate any
Exactions or other mitigation>>or fees contributed or paid by Property Owner or the Project,or home by property
Owner or the Project through in-lieu construction.
4. Fiscal Impact Analysis. CITY does not require Property Owner or the Project to complete
a fiscal analysis for application or issuance of any approvals or permits that CITY might issue under this
Development Agreement.
H. Non-Discretionary Permits
The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project,
-8
Property Owner will, from time to time,apply to the CITY for various ministerial permits, licenses,consents,
certificates, and approvals, including,without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals,grading permits,
construction permits,certificates of occupancy and permits required to connect the Project to utility systems under the
CITY's jurisdiction(collectively,the"Non-Discretionary permits"). Property Owner shall have the right to apply for
any such Non-Discretionary Permits in accordance with the Existing Laws(and any applicable Future Policies under
Section 213,above). The CITY shall issue to Property Owner,upon such applications,all required Non-Discretionary
Permits,subject only to compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement,the CITY's Existing Laws(and
any applicable Future Policies under Section 2B above)and payment of CITY's usual and customary fees and
charges for such applications and Non-Discretionary Permits(subject to the provisions of Section H above). The
CITY further agrees that upon its approval of any plans,specifications,design drawings,reaps,or other submittals of
Property Owner in connection with such Non-Discretionary Permits(the"Approved Plans"),all further entitlements,
approvals and consents required from the CITY to implement the Project which are consistent with and further
implement such Approved Plans, shall be expeditiously processed and approved by the CITY in accordance with this
Development Agreement.
I. Cooperation
I. Cooperation With Other Public Agencies
The CITY acknowledges that Property Owner may apply from time to time for permits
and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-govemmental agencies having jurisdiction over the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project,in connection with the development of or provision of services to the Project,
including,without limitation, approvals in connection with developing and implementing a tertiary water system,
potential transportation improvements and other on-site and off-site infrastructure. The CITY shall cooperate with
Property Owner in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals from such agencies(including,without limitation,
the Cucamonga County Water District,and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency,and shall provide any documents or
certificates reasonably required to process and obtain such permits and approvals.
2. Construction of Off-Site Improvements
To the extent that Property Owner is required to construct any off-site improvements as a
condition of developing the Project,the Property Owner shall make good faith,diligent efforts to acquire any off-site
property interests required to construct such public improvements. If Property Owner fails to do so,Property Owner
shall,at least 120 days prior to submittal of the fust final subdivision map for approval,enter into an agreement to
complete the improvements under Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the CITY acquires the property
interests required for the public improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Property Owner of all
costs incurred by the CITY to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security for a portion of those costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount stated in an appraisal report
obtained by Property Owner,at Property Owner's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the CITY prior to
commencement of the appraisal. To the extent that such off-site improvements,or the construction of any
substantial infrastructure on-site,substantially benefit other property owners or other portions of the jurisdiction of
limits of the CITY,the CITY agrees to assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in obtaining
reimbursement or other fair share contribution by such other benefitted property owners. Such assistance may
include,without limitation,conditioning the approval of development projects proposed by such benefitted property
owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share,pro-rata basis,to the construction costs of such
improvements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,the CITY agrees that with respect to the
infrastructure improvements>>,which are adjacent to and benefit other properties(whether such properties are
undeveloped or developed),any further discretionary approvals sought by such property owners shall be conditioned
to require fair share reimbursement to Property Owner for construction and related costs incurred in providing such
improvements to the extent legally permissible.
3. Public Financing
The Parties hereby acknowledge that substantial public improvements must be funded in
order to contribute to the Park Fee and Equestrian and School fees and the remainder of the Project Site and that
public financing of a substantial portion of these improvements will be critical to the economic viability of the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project. Subject to the CITY's ability to make all findings required by applicable law and
complying with all applicable legal procedures and requirements,the CITY agrees to cooperate with and assist
-9-
Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in developing and implementing a public financing plan for the
construction of the public infrastructure improvements. The implementation of such plan may include,without
limitation,the formation of one or more assessment districts,or Mello-Roos community facilities districts,or the
issuance of bonds,certificates of participation,or other debt securities necessary to implement such plan. The Parties
acknowledge that it is Property Owner's intention to request that the Etiwanda School District or City of Rancho
Cucamonga act as the lead agency for the plan,possibly with a joint powers agreement with CITY, for school
facilities fees,the Park funding,Equestrian funding,transportation fees and other CITY facilities. All formation
costs shall be bome by Property Owner subject to reimbursement by the Community Facilities District.
J. Inclusion into LMD No.7
The CITY and Property Owner agree that the Property shall be included within the existing and
established Landscape Maintenance District No. 7("LMD No. 7")upon recording of the individual final maps of the
Project. LMD No. 7 will be responsible for the landscape maintenance of Day Creek Boulevard.
Section 3. ANNUAL REVIEW
A. Good Faith Compliance
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1,the CITY shall,once every twelve(12)
months during the term of this Development Agreement,review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by
Property Owner with the terms of this Development Agreement;provided,however,that it is intended that this
review shall apply to the Project Site as a whole,as opposed to each individual Property Owner who may own a
parcel comprising the Project Site. In connection with such annual review,Property Owner shall provide such
information as may be reasonably requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of this
Agreement have been breached by Property Owner. If at any time prior to the review period there is an issue
concerning a Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement,the provisions of this
Section 3 will apply.
B. Certificate of Compliance
If Property Owner is found to be in compliance with this Development Agreement after annual
review,the City Planner shall,upon written request by Property Owner,issue a certificate of compliance
("Certificate of Compliance")to Property Owner stating that based upon information known to the CITY,the
Development Agreement remains in effect and Property Owner is not in default. The Certificate of Compliance shall
be in recordable form and shall contain such information as shall impart constructive record notice of compliance.
Property Owner may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of San Bernardino.
C. Finding of Default
If,upon completion of the annual review,the City Planner intends to find that Property Owner has
not complied in good faith with the material terms of this Development Agreement(a"Default"),he shall first give
written notice to such effect to Property Owner. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of all staff reports,staff
recommendations and other information concerning Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this
Development Agreement as the CITY may possess and which is relevant to determining Property Owner's
performance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds and all facts
allegedly demonstrating such noncompliance,so Property Owner may address the issues raised on a point-by-point
basis. Property Owner shall have twenty(20)days after its receipt of such notice to file a written response with the
City Planner. Within 10 days after the expiration of such 20-day response period,the City Planner shall notify
Property Owner whether he has determined that Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement
("Notice of Default"). Such Notice of Default shall specify the instances in which Property Owner has allegedly
failed to comply with this Development Agreement and the terms under which compliance can be obtained. The
Notice of Default shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance,which
time shall not be less than thirty(30)days from the date of the Notice of Default,and which shall be reasonably
related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance.
D. Right to Appeal
Upon receipt of a Notice of Default,Property Owner may appeal the City Planner's decision
_10-
directly to the City Council. Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk
within ten(10)calendar days following Property Owner's receipt of the Notice of Default. The hearing on such
appeal shall be scheduled in accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the CITY's Development Code. At the hearing,
Property Owner shall be entitled to submit evidence and to address all of the issues raised by the Notice of Default.
If,after considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing,the City Council finds and determines on the basis of
substantial evidence that Property Owner is in Default,then the City Council shall specify in writing to Property
Owner the instances in which Property Owner has failed to comply and the terms under which compliance can be
obtained,and shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance,which time
shall not be less than thirty(30)days from the date of such writing from the City Council and which shall be
reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance.
E. Property Owner's Cure Rights
If Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement,it shall have a reasonable
period of time to cure such Default before action is taken by the CITY to terminate this Development Agreement or
to otherwise amend or limit Property Owner's rights under this Development Agreement. In no event shall such cure
period be less than the time set forth in the finding of Default made under Sections 3C or 3D above(as applicable)or
less than the time reasonably necessary to cure such Default. Any such cure period shall be extended by the force
majeure circumstances described in Section 2D5 above.
Section 4. ENFORCEMENT
A. Enforceable by Either Party
Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law,this Development
Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the Parties.
B. Cumulative Remedies
In addition to any other rights or remedies,any of the Parties may institute legal action to cure,
correct or remedy any Default(to the extent otherwise permitted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et
seq.or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development
Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation,including suits for declaratory relief,specific
performance, and relief in the nature of mandamus. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not
exclusive of one another,and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election
with respect to any other available remedy. The provisions of this Section 4B are not intended to modify other
provisions of this Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise
permitted by law.
C. Attorneys'Fees
In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enforce any covenant or any of the Parties'
rights or remedies under this Development Agreement including,without limitation, any action for declaratory or
equitable relief,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and all reasonable costs,
expenses and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by
either of the Parties in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Development Agreement,shall be recoverable
separately from and in addition to any other amount included in such judgment,and such attorneys' fees obligation is
intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Development Agreement and to survive and not be merged
into any such judgment.
Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Successors and Assigns
Subject to the provisions of Section 1C above,the terms of this Development Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties,and their successors and assigns. Insofar as this Development
Agreement refers to Property Owner,as defined herein, if the rights under this Development Agreement are assigned,
the term"Property Owner"shall refer to any such successor or assign.
B. Project as a Private Undertaking
It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates Project is a private development,that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect under this
Development Agreement,and that each of the Parties is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms,
.11-
covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership,joint venture or other
association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between
the CITY and Property Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the
owner of such private property.
C. Captions
The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in
no way define,explain, modify,construe,limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation,construction or meaning of any of
the provisions of this Development Agreement.
D. Mortgagee Protection
1. Discretion to Encumber. This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Property
Owner,in any manner,at Property Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project
or any portion of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project or any improvement on the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project,
by any mortgage,deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to all or any part of the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project or any improvement thereon(a"Mortgage").
2. Effect of Default. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any
Mortgage subsequently placed upon the Property,or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon,including the
lien of any mortgage or deed of trust. Despite the foregoing,breach of any provision of this Development Agreement
shall not defeat,render invalid,diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value.
3. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding anything in this Development Agreement to
the contrary, (a)any holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage("Mortgagee")may acquire title to or
possession of all or any portion of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project or any improvement thereon pursuant to the
remedies provided by its Mortgage,whether by judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure,deed in lieu of foreclosure,or
otherwise,and such Mortgagee shall not have any obligation under this Development Agreement to construct, fund or
otherwise perform any affirmative obligation or affirmative covenant of Property Owner hereunder or to guarantee
such performance,and Mortgagee may,after acquiring title to all or any portion of the Project as aforesaid, assign or
otherwise transfer the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity,and upon the giving of notice of
such assignment or transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or transferee of the obligations of the
Property Owner with respect to the Property or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue from and after the
date of assignment or transfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and all further obligations
or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to the Project or portion thereof so assigned or
transferred;and(b)the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any portion of the Project
by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Mortgage, and such purchaser shall,by
virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof,be deemed to have assumed all obligations of Property
Owner with respect to the Project or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue subsequent to the date of
purchase,but such purchaser shall not be responsible for any prior defaults of Property Owner;provided, however,
that in either of the instances referred to in clauses(a)and(b)above,to the extent any obligation or covenant to be
performed by Property Owner is a condition to the granting of a specific benefit or to the performance of a specific
covenant by CITY,the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the CITY's granting of such
benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder.
4. Notice of Default to Mortgagee: Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If a
Mortgagee files with the CITY Clerk, a written notice requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Property
Owner under this Development Agreement and specifying the address for delivery thereof,then the CITY shall
deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with delivery thereof to Property Owner, any notice given to Property Owner
with respect to any claim of the CITY that Property Owner has not complied with the terms of this Development
Agreement or is otherwise in Default under this Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall have the right
(but not the obligation)for a period of thirty(30)days after the expiration of any cure period given to Property Owner
with respect to such Default,to cure such default;provided,however,that if any such Default cannot,with diligence,
be remedied or cured within such thirty(30)day period,then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may
be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such Default, if such Mortgagee commences to remedy or cure within
such thirty(30)day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding
-12-
the foregoing, if the Default is of a nature which can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such
Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default if such Mortgagee shall,within such thirty(30)
day period,commence efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through
implementation of foreclosure,appointment of a receiver or otherwise,and shall thereafter remedy or cure or
commence to remedy or cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3E above.
5. Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5D4 above,if a Mortgagee is
prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to
obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by
any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owner,Mortgagee shall
for the purposes of this Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to obtain
possession of the Property during the period of such prohibition if Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to terminate
such prohibition.
6. Amendment to Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to
modify or amend this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended
in any way,or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior written consent of each Mortgagee,which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contrary,the
CITY and Property Owner shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement,by suitable implementing
agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the
purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in this Development Agreement and
allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preserve the lien of the Mortgage on the occurrence of a
default under the terms of this Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner each agree to execute and
deliver(and to acknowledge,if necessary, for recording purposes) any implementing agreement necessary to effect
such request;provided,however,that any such implementing agreement shall not in any material respect adversely
effect any rights of the CITY under this Development Agreement or be materially inconsistent with the substantive
provisions of this Development Agreement,the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Entitlements and the Existing Laws.
E. Consent
Where the consent or approval of any of the Parties is required in or necessary under this
Development Agreement,finless the context otherwise indicates,such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
F. Entire Agreement
This Development Agreement and the documents attached to and referred to in this Development
Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development
Agreement.
G. Further Actions and Instruments
Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent
contemplated under this Development Agreement in the performance of all obligations under this Development
Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement.
H. Governing Law
This Development Agreement including, without limitation, its existence,validity,construction and
operation,and the rights of each of the Parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
1. Recording
The CITY Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of
the Recorder of the County of San Berardino no later than ten(10)days following the effective date of this
Development Agreement.
J. Time
Time is of the essence in this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition of
this Development Agreement.
K. Waiver
The failure of any of the Parties at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development
-13-
Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition shall
not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar nature which would have originally constituted a
breach of or default under this Development Agreement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or
default,and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullest extent provided by this
Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a
party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by any of the Parties.
L. Partial Invalidity
If any term,covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid,void or unenforceable,the remainder of the provisions of this Development
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.
M. Notices
All notices between the CITY and Property Owner and any transferee under this Development
Agreement,shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal delivery
or facsimile shall be deemed effective upon the delivery of such notice to the party for which it is intended at the
address set forth below(or, in the case of a transferee,at the address specified by such transferee in a written notice to
CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the addressee. The Parties' current
address are as follows:
To CITY: City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730
Atm: City Manager
With copies to: Mr.James Markman
City Attorney
Richards, Watson&Gershon
One Civic Center Circle
Brea,California 92821
To Property Owner: A&J Resources Inc.
1100 Avondale Rd.
San Marino, California 91108
Attn: Mr. Tony Yeh
With copies to: 1. Ben C.Anderson Inc.
4901 Birch Street,Suite C
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attn: Mr. Ben Anderson
2. Himmelstein&Associates P.C.
1200 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach,California 92663
Attn: Cheryl Ice,Esquire
Either of the Parties may change its mailing address or the person to whom notices are to be sent at any time
by giving written notice of such change to the other of the Parties in the manner provided above.
N. Indemnification
Property Owner hereby agrees to indemnify,defend, and hold harmless the CITY and its Council
members,representatives, agents,officers, attorneys, and employees(the "Indemnified Parties")from and against any
-14-
third parry claim, action,or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to attack,set aside,void,or annul the approval
of this Development Agreement;provided,however,that Property Owner's obligations under this Section are subject
to and conditioned upon the CITY and Property Owner entering into a mutually satisfactory joint defense agreement
under which the CITY shall cooperate fully with Property Owner in the defense of any such claim,action or
proceeding,Property Owner will be entitled to coordinate and direct the prosecution and defense of such claim,
action,or proceeding,and Property Owner shall retain settlement authority with respect thereto. The CITY and
Property Owner agree not to unreasonably withhold or delay their approval of such joint defense agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the
day and year fust above written.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A&J Resources.,Inc.
a California corporation
By: By:
Mayor Name:Tony Yeh
Its: President
ATTESTED TO:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Attorneys for A&J Resources, Inc.
-15-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE
A
EXHIBIT"A„
-16-
,J
T H E C I T Y O F
r
Q A N C IS O C U C A M O N O A
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, staff has analyzed the request for:
PROJECT NAME: Rancho Etiwanda Estates Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located within an unincorporated area of the County of San
Bernardino. More specifically, the project site is situated in the west portion of the West Valley Foothills
Planning Area immediately north of and within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
project site is located at the northern terminus of Day Creek Boulevard. Along the northern edge of the
property,the project site abuts the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP)and the Southern
California Edison (SCE)utility corridors. Adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the project site
are Southern California Edison (SCE)utility corridors. The recently approved University Project, and other
new residential development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga also border the project site on the south.
Please refer to Figures 1 and 2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project will result in the development of 632 single-family
residential units within a gated community. Please refer to Figure 3.
The Draft EIR is being circulated for a 45 day review period. The public review period starts on March 28,
2001 and closes on May 11, 2001. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law,your comments must be
sent at the earliest date but not later than May 12, 2001. Please send your comments to Mr. Salvador
Salazar,AICP,Associate Planner, Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Planning Division, 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. Mr. Salazar can be reached at (909)477-2750.
Date, time, and location of public hearing, if known: To be noticed separately.
Copies of all relevant material,including the project specifications, initial study,and the Environmental Impact
Report,and all documents referenced in the Environmental Impact Report,are available for review at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, Planning Division, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga and at the
Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga.
The project site is not listed on any list of hazardous waste sites prepared pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. Any information contained in a Hazardous Waste Substances Statement is attached to this
Notice.
Date: 3 - 2_7- 01 By:
y nCalvert-Hayes, AICP
P oject Manager with LSA Associates, Inc.
f r the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
a
Mayor William J. Alexander Councilmember Paul Bione
Mayor Pro-Tem Diane Williams Councilmember James V. Curatalo
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
10500 Civic Center Drive • P.O. Box 807 • Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 • (909)477-2700 • FAX(909)477-2849
1
� I
1
15
t
San
39 Bernardino
Angeles National
NationalForest I
Forest 1
PROJECT
LOCATION
--1 _—
'--� .._. 15 30 2t0
210 _ i �—��� 30 z10 ---:�����
30 .y....... ...1
Upland Rancho Fontana
Cucamonga
210
m
Pomona Ontario
Los
Angeles ' so
County
' San
Bernardino
County
71 / Riverside
' County
57O \`
range
County \ '
91 `
91
s.s2.5
®
5 \ 15 rnitFs
55
FIGURE I
LSA
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Regional Location Map
RACRG1721GrephiulnM\rC9i0M1.cdr(7!16/01)
r .v°•
t
� �V� �., 'L:•)s � y ' Z' Kms✓ �f
�i This pomon ,,,,
of Ne boundary � - " + •? }'�`�'
a � is eppsvxima[e ,-.� �
�.✓vl�dy.� 7 ''^-?.?--�'`a��r-„13.E .. _���i�F �_1 }P.v .tea,.'^��.� � .G � M^� �,'1=���C
' San-Bernardino
Natiliiial Forest y } _ PROJECT .-
AN
ROJECT -AN // r \ 5,;
ESTATES
'�• -TRS^ J T” �.�4 L .w0
• CHAFFEY �; �--PROPERTY '. p #.`
_—eCOY.LEGE 15
/ I u u j 4th
N Highland Avenu„_e
zoo®
q.
h
L,S A FIGURE
® PROPOSED PROJECT SITE ❑ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Rancho Etiwanda Estates
® REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT �NEOSHPPAREA Supplemental EIR
Vicinity Map
® PROPOSED OFF-SITE MITIGATION ® NORTH ETIWANDA PRESERVE
SOURCE:USGS 7.5'QUAD-CUCAMONGA PEAK,CA.1981.
R:\CRG 132\Gmphics\xmWi6n.cdr(3116101)
T-1
Emergency Accee. SCE CORRIDOR
r P...ible Street Connection
7'-
I I
JS
t
t7
1<
0
-A
7
121�1
PROPOSED
Z
DETENTION BASIN
Gated Entry SCE CORRIDOR
%
Gated -,ry._
j04/ 900 0 300*
Oe
SCALE IS"PROXIMATE
LOT SUMMA FIGURE 3
L S A PLANNING LOTSIZE NUMBER
AREA (S.F.RANGE) OF LOTS Rancho Etiwanda Estates
zPLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 1 9,600-38.000 92
2 9.600-32,000 112 Supplemental EIR
APLANNING AREA NUMBER 3 8,400-28,000 118 Conceptual Site Plan 4 7,200-21.000 140
5 7,200-21,000 81
2W-2 1,000 89
SOURCE:A&I RESOURCES,INC. 6 7, —i32
FEBRUARY 19,2001. TOTALLOTS,
R:\CRGI 32\GraphicS\n0a\site plan.cdr(3/26/01)
P /� LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. OTHER OFFICES:
J 3403 10TN STREET, SUITE 51E0 909.781.9310 TEL BERKELEY PT. RICHMOND
BIVEHSIDE, CALIFORNIA 935101 909.781.4277 FAX IRVINE ROCKLIN
MEMORANDUM
DATE. March 27,2001
To. Concerned Parties
mom, Carl Winter, LSA Associates, Inc.
SUBJECT, Rancho Etiwanda Estates Draft Supplemental EIR- Errata
Upon inspection of the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project, some
minor errors/omissions were discovered. These errors were identified after production of the
document had been completed. These errors/omissions are as follows:
Table of Contents- List of Figures Add Figures 5.2-3 and 5.2-4
Page 5.2-11 Impact 5.2.1 fourth paragraph: Replace Figure 5.2-3 with Figure 5.24
Page 5.2-12 Second to last sentence on page: Replace Figure.5.3-3 with Figure 5.2-3
The attached pages represent the figures which were omitted from the document. These figures
should be included as pages 5.2-16 and 5.2-17 of the document.
Should you have any comments regarding this memo,you may contact this office at(909)781-9310.
Thank you
3/27/01(R:\CRG132TEIR\memo-032701-ematR.wpd)
P LANNINO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DESIGN
.a
. Y S
,♦\ S�'' l,' ���" . " r. � ,.�v � '� -.i A 1 moi+' =�1,-�1
i � \'��1�. F ifi � National Forest �+ FiJj
t .
�j of the boundary df .. � • m!: k�- y .F y �,
- '� is approumate y -
'fc\S ��gvtf�-,r(.. � � 3 g1�,2� ��/���.al yl j��••- � y� yr L
��J 1� f1n� "Y.0 5 '{\ yY j �•' �t♦ '1 I � ' � ��s r 3+ ��I �� C
b.o ,� /f�,��, 'tom, ✓. ..r .+- � J r j//�U✓ �` ���°�lf��lA' � �� ��'s��y�w 1 Jt�� � L`'�
OWN
%///rcrcrc✓, + � F trr
37J1 r �... .i lkJ `�M•'� r /t'�•--f'� ,—, I ,, eSs ♦ v1 . " 4 �a �1
.' F M
` San Bernardino -.,'}t
National Fore9tvJl� �.`" W$ B� -IJECT
. ..._ ___ .. : -�=�-
�. i-�"Ji�sr .RANCHO - /� J��-:��/ `�Y .� •r ;J!._�;
c/i..T.,\ —r._Jt 4:ETIWANDA ` �// }� rJ
X -`';rye,.. i/ I \ i
a ,...;, �� ' ESTATES �- ./ �� �� 1i _,,... ..
,1•_X c-^' aryl-?'M�r,�' Ui J 'ice] i. / ;ir` ///\/may_ y
_UNTW
IVERSITY,_„-.
L.''. �•�- r I t �.-_,-:_
1COL1 ' / PROPER
bEGE TY
"y01 _tet ~� 15
mfr-fir/`
ce:/ir""- � ` cel z r✓
-- ( ........ > . 2
5�I' 8`✓V, �� .., ,
N C ,:Highland'_Av`enue_ l,c
Lu ��•' .-
�. x3000 0 t 2000 —�� ✓ " -f — ____
!x I _
j n
FEET
L' S A FIGURE 5.2-3
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
INPROPOSED PROJECT SITE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Supplemental EIR
finREVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT I . iNEOSHPPAREA NEOSHPP Area and
-
y /i PROPOSED OFF-SITE MITIGATION rL�JNORTH ETIWANDAPRESERVE North Etiwanda Preserve
SOURCE:USGS 7.5'QUAD-CUCAMONGA PEAK.CA.1981.
R:\CRG 132\Gnphics\EIR\n<oshpp.cdr(327/01)
.• .�, r I ✓ ,J§' Idw� ,]�'x t` ' .�,1„�� moi
A •Y `ts�' 'l :t,y snc �1� - '~J•• �JNI�.d
I NationalptlForest >
�irf •�� �',4 Cl ! qy�. y •5Y ,ayT � N � Y- T.
a � ,
J F /•iyN j (
f
nSan Bemardmo S B � r PROJECT rF / .....
=National Forest J a, 7 N F •- LOCATION .ti's r4 /
L�i ��:'.��:r 1\� ::;:RANCHO %//�?; ""� �.. ,. .-�--" -/ii, :.
i' -IETIWANDA � - �'-
"�q` ESTATES
.� 411
�!y� I ,�r i�---j-t1.-.r w`� "'J-.—%^ ' '�✓ % i�y��->�:� I i �I.�°' 4 � r -. � j. �� .J
UNI
VERSITY— !i
CHAFFEY ��- ..PROPERTY
MCOORL-EGE I),
alz> •-, .
N ;Hiighland�-AvcnTe-
linoo, u 2000—=
( i FEET ) > >r
I
of .�-.. a. . _..G. ...
FIGURE 5.2-4
LLSA 7
paRrj PROPOSED PROJECT SITE y /I PROPOSED OFF-SITE MITIGATION Rancho Etiwanda Estates
lEfe LlJ 172ACREPARCEL SupplementalEIR
REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT PROPOSED OFF-SITE MITIGATION
nil C 110 ACRE PARCEL Off-Site Mitigation Areas
j� CITYOFRANCHO CUCAMONGA
SOURCE:USGS ZS'QUAD-CUCAMONGA PEAK,CA.1981.
R:\CRG I32\GmphlCSTIR\ofiSiW midg.ed,(3/27/01)
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
' RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1988082915
LSA
EXHIBIT "B"
March 27, 200I
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1988o82915
1
Prepared for:
' City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730
Contact: Sal Salazar, AICP
(909)477-2750
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500
Riverside, California 92507
(909)781-9310
LSA Project No. CRG132
LSA
i
March 27, 2001
tISAASSOCIATFS,INC. DRAFTSUPPUMENTA EIR
MARCH 27,2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
RANCHOS ANDA ESTATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Document Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Statutory Authority and Relationship to Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 Organization and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1 1.4 Future Disposition of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
2.0 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.3 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.4 Summary of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.5 Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
I3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 Project Location And Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Project Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.3 Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.4 Changes in the Environment Within the West Valley Planning Area Since 1991 3-6
3.5 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.6 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Cumulative Impacts Methodology . 4-1
4.2 Proposed Project Approach to Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.2 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
' 5.3 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-1
5.4 Transportation and Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1
6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved
in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
1 6.2 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the
Proposed Project is Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
RACRG132\DEIR\T0C_DEIR.wpd(3/27/01) 1
DR SUPPUMENTA EIR LSAASSOCARFS,IAC' ,
T"UOFCON NE 2001 M CH27.2001
RANCHOS ANDAE Al
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued) '
SECTION PAGE
7.2 Reduced Density -Developing the Project Site Per the ,
Very Low Density Residential Designation as Provided in the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
8.0 LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.1 Environmental Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8.3 Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
9.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Approved University/Crest Project 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
3-1 Regional Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3-2 Local Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3-3 Rancho Etiwanda Estates Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3-4 Proposed Drainage Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 '
3-5 Proposed Water Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
4-1 Location Map of Cumulative Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
5.2-1 Biological Resources Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2-2 Vegetation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-4
5.4-1 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.44
5.4-2 Existing Analysis Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-6 ,
5.4-3 Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-7
5.4-4 Existing Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-8
5.4-5 Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-9 '
5.4-6 Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-10
5.4-7 Project Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-17
5.4-8 Project Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-18
5.4-9 Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-19
5.4-10 Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-20
5.4-11 Opening Year with Project Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-22
5.4-12 Opening Year with Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-23
5.4-13 Opening Year 2003 with Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-24
5.4-14 Year 2020 With Project Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-30 ,
5.4-15 Year 2020 With Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-31
5.4-16 Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-32
li RACRG132\DEIR\T0C_DE1R.wpd(3/27/01) '
LSAASSOCIAM3.INC. Dk SUPPLEM£NTALEIk
M CH27.2001 TABLEOFCONT
RANCHOS ANDA E. ATF
' LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
2-A Environmental Summary of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
4-A Related Projects List as of March 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
5.1-A Quality Levels Measured at Fontana/San Bernardino
Ambient Air Monitoring Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-2
5.1-13 Federal and State Carbon Monoxide Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-3
5.1-C Existing Modeled Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) . 5.1-4
5.1-D Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1-E Emission Significance Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8
5.1-F Worst-Case Projections of 1-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Year 2020) . . . 5.1-11
5.1-G Worst-Case Projections of 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Year 2020) . . . 5.1-12
` 5.1-H Worst Case Peak Construction Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-17
5.1-I Mitigation for Construction-Related Emissions . 5.1-18
5.14 Total Daily Emissions(Year 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-20
1 5.1-K Comparison of Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-21
5.3-A Approved Crest Residential Units -1991 . . 5.1-3
5.3-13 Land Use Designations and Acreage by Ownership Within the NEOSHPP . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
1 5.4-A Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-5
5.4-13 Project Trip Generation . 5.4-16
5.4-C Opening Year(2003)With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-21
5.4-D Opening Year(2003)With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis
With Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-26
5.4-E Year 2020 With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-27
5.4-F Year 2020 With Project Conditions Intersection Analysis With Improvements . . . . . . 5.4-29
5.4-G CMP Freeway Mainline AM Peak Hour Operations Analysis (Year 2020) . . 5.4-34
5.4-H CMP Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour Operations Analysis (Year 2020) . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-34
5.4-I CMP Freeway Mainline AM Operations Analysis
With Improvements (Year 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-35
5.44 CMP Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour Operations Analysis
With Improvements (Year 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-35
5.4-K Level of Significance At Impacted Intersections After Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-36
7.A Worst-Case Peak Construction Emissions Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project and
Reduced Density Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.13 Long-Term Air Emissions Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project . 7-4
7.0 Long-Term Air Emissions Reduced Density Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.1) Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.E Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.17 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project vs.
Alternatives Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
1 R:\CRG132\DEIR\T0C_DE1R.wpd(3/27/01) 111
DR SUPPIPMENTALEIR LSAASSOCA FS.INC. ,
T"UOFCONT 2001 MARCH]).2001
R CHO ERM DA ESTATES
1
APPENDICES 1
(Under Separate Cover)
Appendix A: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-I 1
Appendix B: Written Responses to the NOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-I
Appendix C: Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D: Biological Resources Assessment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 1
Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F: Letter from the Army Corps of Engineers dated August 3, 1999,
signed by Mark Durham, Chief South Coast Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
1
I
r
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
{v R:\CRG132\DEIR\TOC_DE1R.wpd(3/27/01) 1
ISA ASSOCIATES.INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MARCH 27.2001 INTRODUCTION
RANCHOS ANDA ESTATES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 DOCUMENT SCOPE AND PURPOSE
This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) State Clearinghouse No. 1988082915
addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of approving
and implementing the current development proposal for the Crest project. The current development
proposal for the Crest project is a revision of the University/Crest Planned Development(PD)that
was approved by the County of San Bernardino in June 1991. The University/Crest PD project was
approved with 1,238 single-family residential units, commercial development, a school, park, and
open space on 1,111.29 acres. Figure 1.1-1 (Approved University/Crest Project 1991) shows the
project as approved in June 1991. A detailed description of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project(previously referred to as the "Crest project") is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description,
of this document.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga, in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this proposed project, has
caused the preparation of this document in fulfillment of its environmental review obligations
pursuant to provisions of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)of 1970, Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act(State CEQA Guidelines), and the City's
local CEQA implementation requirements, all as amended. This document provides decision-makers,
other public agencies, private groups, and/or individuals with an objective assessment of the extent to
which significant environmental impacts may result from implementing the proposed project.
1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
DOCUMENTS
In the late 1980s,the County combined two separate properties to ensure comprehensive planning and
infrastructure efficiency. One of the properties was known as "University"and the other was known
as "Crest." The University/Crest PD(PD No. W121-49) was initially approved by the County of San
Bernardino in June 1991. The University/Crest PD is a master land development plan, which
formally depicts the types, intensities and distribution of all future land uses and requisite primary
support facilities within its boundaries. The University/Crest PD further provides development
1 standards,development intensity thresholds, and development phasing parameters in order to
facilitate plan implementation in an orderly, integrated and a timely manner. The types, location of,
and development phasing envisioned for, all land uses PD-wide are organized on a Planning Area
(PA) basis. As shown in Figure 1.1-1 (Approved University/Crest Project 1991)there are eight(8)
PAs within the University/Crest PD boundaries. The letters "A" through "H"designates these eight-
PAs. A ninth PA (PA I), a 675-acre area, is located to the north of the University/Crest area and is
not shown on Figure 1.1-1. As shown in Figure 1.1-1, two of the PAs, "B"and "E" are divided into
two sub-PAs. Each PA has an approximate boundary, land area, designated land use, and land use
development thresholds.
` R\CRG132\DEIR\Smionl.O.IntroductionAoc(3/26/01) 1-1
{AA.P.Cafes
SCI
FH G
. ) !
El i(E2
!
}C1 V
RECREATION HUB
4
t r
M2,M Av..
B1 D
r
- ` B2.` .... r !
'
x
9 4� .n ww :4� •• I L
v 4
V V
Ct COBMMUNITYHU
!
` A `
!
Har ro,c.,u
L S A FIGURE 1-1
FAMAJOR ENTRY RECREATION/COMMUNITY SERVICE HUB Rancho Etiwanda Estates
® NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY A_ry NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS SupplementalElR
Approved University/Crest Project 1991
NOTE:Planning Area 1.it a 675 acre parcel located north of the Univerrip/Crest Project. '
SOURCE:SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,CA.1991,
R:\CRG 132\Gnphics\EIR\npproved.cdr(3/27/01)
!
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
IHTRO DUCTION MARCH l), 2001
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES
The University/Crest PD met the requirements of CEQA through the preparation of a project level
EIR. A public hearing was held on February 17, 1989 before the County's Environment Review
Committee (ERC)to make a recommendation on the adequacy of the Final EIR. The ERC
determined that the information contained within the proposed Final EIR was adequate and
recommended certification of the Final EIR to the County's Planning Commission. However, further
action on the certification of the Final EIR and proposed PD were continued at the request of the
project applicant. The reason the applicant requested the continuance is explained in an Addendum to
the proposed Final EIR. As stated on page 2 of the Addendum to the University/Crest PD EIR, "The
proposed Final Project EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD). However, the PUD process has been replaced with the Development Plan process. In order to
be consistent with the newly adopted [San Bernardino County] General Plan, the applicant is now
processing a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP). In addition to the PDP, the applicant has
submitted [to San Bernardino County] for approval a Final Development Plan, Master Tentative
Tracts and subdivision maps in accordance with the San Bernardino County General Plan." In June
1991, San Bernardino County certified as adequate,the Final Project EIR and the Addendum for the
University Crest PD. To summarize, the environmental review for the University/Crest PD, as
approved in 1991 consisted of the following documents:
County of San Bernardino, "Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest
Project PD No. W121-49" [State Clearinghouse Number(SCH No.) 88082915],
dated August 1989.
' County of San Bernardino, "Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report
University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49" [State Clearinghouse Number(SCH No.)
88082915],dated May 1991.
These two certified environmental documents were not challenged in the lawsuit filed against the
University/Crest project, and remain legal CEQA compliance documents.
The previously approved PD provided the development framework for two separately owned
properties: (1)The Regents of the University of California(University); and (2)The Caryn
Development Company (Crest). The decision to combine and entitle the two properties under a
single land use approval was made to ensure comprehensive planning and infrastructure efficiency.
One component of the University/Crest PD was a condition of approval for an open space easement
over 675 acres of nearby undeveloped land. The 675 acre parcel was owned by Etiwanda Highlands
Properties who was required to dedicate an easement to the County of San Bernardino for open space,
recreational, scenic, and maintenance purposes. The University/Crest PD remained undeveloped for
1 years, eventually allow the open space to be sold to individuals that were not associated with the
University/Crest PD project. Eventually, the 675 acres were acquired by the Metropolitan Water
District(MWD) and have since been committed to permanent open space as environmental mitigation
for MWD projects.
Following the loss of the open space, both development areas (University and Crest)were sold to new
developers. U.C.P., Inc. purchased the University portion, while the Crest portion was purchased by
A&J Resources. In 1998 the new owners of the University property made an application to the
County for approval of revisions to the University portion including, severing the University portion
from the Crest component of the previously approved University/Crest PD. The "Revised University
1 R\CRG132\DEIMSection l.O.Int2oduction.doc(3/26101) 1-3
DR SUPP ENTA EIR I Ce A QCIAT .INC.
INTRODUCTION MARCH 2;.2001
RANCHOS ANDAP AT
Project" included a number of land use modifications to the previously approved University/Crest
PD. The primary changes included separating the University and Crest portions of the Planned
Development into two separate projects, adding 67 acres of former SCE right-of-way to the revised ,
University Project. In addition, since it was no longer possible to utilize the 675-acre parcel as
mitigation for impacts to biological and open space resources, the revised University Project
substituted a one-half interest in a 172-acre off-site parcel for the previously approved mitigation. A '
Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 9812109 1) was prepared to evaluate the changed
circumstances resulting from modification and separation of the University project form the
previously approved University/Crest PD. The revised University Project Supplemental EIR was
certified and the project approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on October 26,
1999.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga challenged the Board's approval of the Revised University Project
and certification of the SEIR through a Petition for Writ of Mandate filed in the San Bernardino
County Superior Court on November 29, 1999 (the "Action"). The Action challenged the adequacy
of the SEIR on a number of grounds, of which the primary concerns included inadequate traffic ,
impacts analysis, inadequate open space analysis and improper application of the City's zoning
standards applicable within its sphere of influence. The City, the Board and the Project proponent
entered into a conditional settlement agreement as regards the Action. Through the settlement
agreement the Project proponent agreed to enter into a Development Agreement to address the City's
concerns about potential traffic impacts, and to modify certain traffic design and construction timing
issues related to the development of the Revised University Project.
The primary benefits to the City arising from the settlement agreement were (a) the Project
proponent's agreement to enter into a development agreement as regards to the development of the
Revised University Project; (b)Project proponent's agreement to support the City's application to
annex the Revised University Project into the City; and (c)the addition of further clarifying language
into the SEIR pursuant to an Addendum, as the same is defined in Section 15164 of the Guidelines.
On August 16, 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a public hearing on the
development agreement and the adoption of the Addendum to the SEIR and the adoption of the
ordinance approving the Development Agreement.
The City applied for annexation of the University portion of the University/Crest project in June '
2000, and the annexation was finalized on December 4, 2000.
Since the original approval of the University/Crest project in 1991, substantial changes have occurred
with respect to the circumstances under which the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project is being
undertaken. In addition, there is new environmental information concerning the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project that is now available that was not known at the time of the original EIR certification.
The changes to the circumstances that have occurred with respect to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project and the new environmental information are fully described in Section 3.0(Project
Description) and Section 5.0(Environmental Evaluation), respectively, of this document.
This City has concluded that substantial changes to the proposed project and the circumstances under
which it will be implemented have occurred since the University/Crest Final EIR was certified, and
that these changes warrant preparation of a Supplemental EIR.
14 RACRG132\DEEi\Suuon 1.0.Inuuducuon.doc ,
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSA ASSOCIATES. INC,
I HT R O D UCTION MARCH 27 200i
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES
Public Resources Code Section 21166, sets forth the requirements for Supplemental EIRs:
"When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by
any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the
environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available."
This SEIR, which contains the revisions for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project is formally referred
to in the State CEQA Guidelines as a "Supplement to an EIR." Informally,this document is referred
to as a "Supplemental EIR." The authority for the preparation of a Supplement to an EIR is set forth
in Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, which reads as follows:
(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR, rather than
a subsequent EIR, if:
Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
(b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous
EIR adequate for the project as revised.
2 A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given
to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or
final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall
consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section
15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.
With regard to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project, the revisions that are currently proposed do not
substantially change the overall character, nor increase the scope, of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates
(Crest) portion of the University/Crest PD as previously approved. Given this, the information
' provided in the Initial Study (see Appendix A), and pursuant to the provisions of Section 15163 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City has determined that the proper environmental review
for the proposed revisions to the University/Crest PD could be achieved by modifying the 1991 Final
University/Crest Project PD EIR and Addendum to the extent necessary to make it applicable to the
1 R\CRG132\DEIR1Sectionl.O.Introduaion.doc(3/26101) 1.5
DRArI'SUPPUMEN EIR ISA ASSOC C[12.INC.
INTRODUC ON MARCff]).]001
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES
proposed project. For these reasons,the City has prepared this Supplement to the 1991 Final
University/Crest Project PD EIR and Addendum.
The environmental issues evaluated in this SEBR are: ,
3 Air Quality ,
4 Biological Resources
5 Land Use
6 Transportation and Circulation
The analysis of all other potential environmental impacts in the original 1991 Final University/Crest
Project PD EBR and Addendum remain adequate for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project.
In that this Supplement to the 1991 Final University/Crest Project PD EIR and Addendum addresses
the proposed project by modifying the information provided in those documents,both of these
documents for the University/Crest PD, in their entirety, are incorporated by reference. Other
documents that are incorporated by reference are: San Bernardino County General Plan,Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the North Etiwanda Open Space
Habitat Preservation Program. These documents are being incorporated by reference because of their
relevance to the planning issues associated with the proposed project site. The Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,and the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat ,
Preservation Program are briefly summarized in Section 5.3 (Land Use) of this document.
The 1991 Final University/Crest Project PD EIR and Addendum, the San Bernardino County General
Plan, and the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program documents are available for
public inspection at the County of San Bernardino, Land Use Services Department, 385 N.
Arrowhead Avenue, 3d Floor, San Bernardino, CA during normal business hours. The Rancho ,
Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan are available for public inspection at
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
CA during normal business hours.
6.1 ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT
This Supplement to the 1991 Final University/Crest Project PD EBR and Addendum is organized into
the following sections:
• Section 1.0, Introduction, describes the purpose of, and statutory basis for, this document.
• Section 2.0, Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, is self-explanatory.
• Section 3.0, Project Description, describes the location, boundaries, planning background, '
objectives, and important project characteristics of the proposed project.
t
1-6 R1CRGIMDEIR\Suuon I.O.IntroductionAm
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FIR LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
IHTRO D UCTION MARCH 27, SOMI
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES
• Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts,describes the means by which cumulative impacts are
addressed in this document.
• Section 5.0, Environmental Evaluation,contains the analyses and other substantial evidence
employed by the Lead Agency to amend the previous 1991 Final University/Crest Project PD EIR
and Addendum in order to make it applicable to the proposed project.
• Section 6.0, Long-term Implications of the Project,describes the"Significant Environmental
Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented," and the "Significant
Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it
be Implemented."
i • Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, is self-explanatory.
• Section 8.0, List of Preparers, is self-explanatory.
• Section 9.0,References, is self-explanatory.
1 6.2 FUTURE DISPOSITION OF THIS DOCUMENT
' The Rancho Etiwanda Estates Draft Supplement to the 1991 Final University/Crest Project PD EIR
and Addendum will be circulated for 45 days beginning on March 28, 2001 and ending May 14,
2001. Subsequently, all comments addressing environmental issues will be responded to and
incorporated into the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Final Supplement to the 1991 Final University/Crest
Project PD EIR and Addendum. Pursuant to Section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City
Code and Land Use Planning Law, the City Planning Commission must review and recommend
approval or denial of the project and certification of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Final Supplement
to the 1991 Final University/Crest Project PD EIR and Addendum prior to the City Council
approving the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project and certifying the Supplemental EIR.
RdCRG132DEIMSeclion 1.0.1raroduction.doc(326/01) 1-7
DRAFI'SWPLEMENI'AL EIR LSAASSOCIAT .INC, r
IN QDUCIION MARCH 9.8001
RANCHOS ANDA ESTATES
1
This page left intentionally blank. r
r
1
t
r
t
r
r
r
r
t
t
1.8 R:\CRG132\DERt\Smtion 1.0.Introduction.doc r
tISAASSOCRA ,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
. A cu 27,2001 SU.M.MARY
RANCHO ET NDA FSTATFS
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project comprises various revisions to the University/Crest PD, an approximately
1,111-acre master planned mixed-use planned community initially approved by the County of San
Bernardino in 1991. The University/Crest project was approved as a Planned Development(PD) for
1,238 residential units, commercial, school,park and open space. The approved PD provided the
development framework for two separately owned properties--the Regents of the University of
California(University)and the Caryn Development Company(Crest). The decision to combine and
entitle the two properties under a single land use approval was made by the County to ensure
comprehensive planning and infrastructure efficiency. One component of the University/Crest PD
was a condition of approval for an open space easement over 675 acres of a nearby unimproved
property. The owner of the 675 acres was required to dedicate an easement to the County of San
Bernardino for open space,recreational, scenic and maintenance purposes. After its approval,the
project remained undeveloped for a number of years. Within this time-frame,the property earmarked
for open space purposes was sold to individuals that were not connected with the University/Crest
project. Eventually, the 675-acre property was acquired by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California and has since been committed to permanent open space as environmental
mitigation for its projects. The removal of the area set aside for open space purposes altered the
status of the existing University/Crest PD approval. Compliance with the conditions of approval
became impossible and therefore,revisions to the project are necessary if the development is to occur.
Following the loss of the open space,both development areas(University and Crest)were sold
separately to new developers.
Following the loss of the open space,both development areas (University and Crest)were sold
separately to new developers. UCP Inc. purchased the University portion and presented a revised
project to the County that was approved on October 26,1999. A&J Resources purchased the Crest
portion and presented a revised project to the County. The project has since been renamed Rancho
Etiwanda Estates.
Subsequent to processing the revisions to the PD, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
was prepared and circulated for public review by the County of San Bernardino. Concurrent with the
distribution, the property owner commenced discussions with the City of Rancho Cucamonga
regarding potential annexation. Review and approval of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project by the
City is required, as annexation of the project site into the City will require the amending of the
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the approval of a
Development Agreement.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located within an unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino. More
specifically, the project site is situated in the west portion of the West Valley Foothills Planning Area
immediately north of and within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Sec6on 2.0 Surmnary.doc 2-1
DRAFT SUPPUMEN'PAL EIR ISAAS5 UT ,INC. ,
sUMMARY MARCII 27,2W1
EDWANDA AM
project site is located at the northern terminus of Etiwanda Avenue,which forms the eastern boundary
of the property. Along the northern edge of the property,the project site abuts the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power(LADWP) and the Southern California Edison(SCE)utility
corridors. Adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the project site are SCE utility
corridors. The recently approved University Project also borders the project site on the south. Please
refer to Figure 3-1 (Regional Location Map)and Figure 3-2 (Local Vicinity Map).
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The original University/Crest PD was composed of 1,238 residential units, commercial development
areas, school,park and open space on approximately 1,111 acres. Included in the 1,111-acre total is
675 acres of nearby, undeveloped property that was to be reserved for permanent open space
purposes.
The discussions and the decision to annex to the City of Rancho Cucamonga led to a number of
proposed changes to the project. The changes were made at the request of the City and are intended
to address the context of the project within the City jurisdiction and the projects' relationship to other
adjacent influences. The specific changes to the project include:
• Redesigning the project to provide identifiable neighborhoods to allow the project to respond
to a range of potential market sectors. The redesign also redefines the project's internal
circulation and each neighborhood by limiting inter-project pass-through trips.
• Lowering the overall project intensity from 660 lots to 632 lots(a 6 percent reduction). ,
• An overall project design that increases lot sizes as the project progresses northerly.
• Introducing a gated community concept that will limit public access both within the `
development and to a biological preserve area located north of the site. The gated Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project will thus act as a buffer between the North Etiwanda Preserve and
urban uses south of the project site.
• Changes to the overall regional circulation, including the potential vacation of Etiwanda
Avenue,north of its intersection with Day Creek Boulevard, further reducing potential
trespassing to the biological preserve located north of the project site.
• Removal of a local proposed park and requiring the project to provide funding for an off-site
City community park, a $4,171,200.00 commitment.
• Requiring the project to provide funding for off-site equestrian facilities,a$632,000.00
commitment.
• Annexation of the project site into the City.
2-2 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 2.0 Sun ry.doc ,
ISAASSO UTM,INC. DM SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MMCH 27,2001 SUMMARY
MW110 Ef1VCANDA ESTATES
2.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
As indicated in Section IV of the 1991 Addendum, the 1989 University/Crest FEIR analyzed three
alternatives including:
• No Project/No Development
• Reduced Residential Density
• City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
The 1991 Addendum also included a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative.
Section IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project of the 1991 Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR updated the alternatives analysis of
the 1989 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR. The
alternatives discussed in the Addendum were as follows:
• Alternative Site Location.
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines that were in effect at the time,the 1989 Final Environmental
Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR, and the 1991 Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR fully addressed a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project,or to the location of the project,which would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project,but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. According
to the 1991 Addendum to the FEIR,the potentially significant adverse impacts(after mitigation)
which would be expected with the development of the University/Crest project were close to or the
same as those described in the 1989 FEIR. The environmental review documents prepared for the
University/Crest project concluded the project would result in significant adverse impacts to traffic
and circulation, air quality,and biological resources.
This Supplemental EIR has reevaluated each of these three significant adverse impacts identified
under the University/Crest project. In addition, this Supplemental EIR addresses the issue of land use
and planning due to the numerous changes that have occurred in the environment within the West
Valley Planning Area since the approval of the University/Crest project Addendum in 1991. These
changes in the environment are fully described in Section 4.0 (Cumulative Impacts).
Upon completion of the Initial Study(see Appendix"A")by the County of San Bernardino for the
proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project, the County determined the four project alternatives
presented in the certified environmental documents for the University/Crest project remain legally
valid under CEQA for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. As a result,the three project alternatives
do not have to be updated in this Supplemental EIR for the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project.
The environmental evaluations that are provided in Section 5.0 (Environmental Evaluations) of this
Supplemental EIR reached the following conclusions:
1. The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would result in significant adverse impacts in the
areas of air quality,biological resources,traffic, and land use.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 2.0 Sum ry.dm 2-3
DR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 1 AA55(K1AM INC ,
SUMMARY MARCH 27.2001
RMCTIO EPI DA ESTATES
One of the general concepts contained in the State CEQA Guidelines is the prevention of significant,
avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of mitigation
measures or alternatives when the lead agency finds the changes to be feasible. As described above,
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project is expected to result in significant adverse impacts to air quality,
biological resources,traffic, and land use. The mitigation measures presented in Section 5.1 (Air
Quality)would reduce both the short-term and long-term air quality impacts attributable to the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates project to the extent feasible,but they would not reduce them to a level less
than significant. The mitigation measures presented in Section 5.2(Biological Resources) would also
reduce potential biological resource impacts attributable to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project,but
again they would not reduce them to a level less than significant. While mitigation measures
presented in Section 5.2(Biological Resources)would reduce the project impacts related to the loss
of open space,implementation of the proposed project would still result in significant adverse
cumulative impacts related to this issue.Mitigation was provided in Section 5.4 (Traffic)to reduce
impacts of the proposed project to less than significant; however,the proposed project will contribute
to cumulative impacts on SR-30/210. Since there is no mechanism for the project proponent to pay a
fair share contribution toward freeway mainline improvements, impacts remain significant and
unavoidable.
The environmental evaluation provided in Section 7.0 of this document compares the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project and the three reduced density alternatives. Of the five project alternatives
evaluated, one would result in no physical changes to the environment on the project site(No
Project/No Development [100%reduction in density]); three would reduce the density allowed on the
project site(Reduced Residential Density [50%reduction in density],City of Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan [22%reduction],and Reduced Density—ENSP [40%reduction in density]); and one
would maintain the same density,but relocate the proposed project to another site in the local vicinity
(Alternative Site Location [0%reduction in density. Four of the five alternatives(those alternatives
that would reduce the density)would avoid,lessen, or result in similar environmental impacts as ,
compared to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project.
The environmental evaluation comparison between the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project and the three
reduced density alternatives show that the reduced density alternatives would reduce the number of ,
traffic trips generated from the project site because they are calculated by multiplying the number of
units expected to be constructed on a project site(density)by a constant factor. That is,as the density
decreases the number of traffic trips reduces by a corresponding percentage. As evaluated in this
Supplemental EIR,the Reduced Density -ENSP alternative would reduce the long-term significant
adverse air quality impact associated with the production of ROG within the South Coast Air Basin
because it would reduce the number of traffic trips per day generated from the project site. The
Reduced Density- ENSP alternative would also reduce the traffic congestion within the immediate
area of the project site. The impacts to biological resources and land use for each of the three reduced
density alternatives are exactly the same, and each of them would remain significant after mitigation.
The environmental evaluation comparison between the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project and the
reduced density alternatives show that each of the reduced density alternatives is environmentally
superior. For further discussion,refer to Section 7.0.
2-4 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Smtion 2.0 Suf ry.dm ,
tISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAETSUPPLE.MENTAL RIR
MARCn 27,2001 su..M. RY
RANCIJO EaWANDA ESTATFS
2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
' Pursuant to Section 15123(2)of the State CEQA Guidelines a summary section must address, "Areas
of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public." In
addition,pursuant to Section 15123(3)of the State CEQA Guidelines a summary section must also
address, "Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to
mitigate the significant effects." Each of these issues is discussed below:
Areas of Controversy
The State Department of Fish and Game in their letter dated September 26, 2000 stated their concerns
1 with the proposed Crest project. These concerns were:
• The Department contends that with the County's approval of the University project, the previous
project is no longer valid or viable.
Response: The County's approval of the University project is not germane to the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project.
• The Department does not concur that the mitigation for the revised University project and Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project is adequate to mitigate impacts to biological resources.
1 Response: The mitigation for the revised University project is not germane to the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project. Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) describes the proposed mitigation for
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates, and it concludes that the biological impacts would be
lessened by the proposed mitigation,although not fully mitigated. Thus, impacts to
biological resources would remain significant.
• The Department recommends that impacts to Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub be mitigated at a ratio of
3:1.
Response: A typical replacement ratio for threatened habitat, such as alluvial fan sage scrub habitat,
without endangered or threatened species being observed occupying the site is 1:1
replacement with habitat of equal or greater value. It is anticipated that this replacement
ratio could be suitable as mitigation for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. As
proposed,the project would provide 196 acres(less than 1:1)of similar habitat to offset
the loss of 252.58 acres of habitat. This would include 110 acres of coastal sage scrub
habitat(an upland sage scrub plant community) and 86 acres of alluvial fan sage scrub
habitat(comparable to habitat present on the proposed project site)as mitigation. The
110-acre mitigation site also supports a blue line stream containing riparian vegetation.
This level of mitigation would lessen biological impacts,although not fully mitigate
them. Thus, impacts to biological resources would remain significant.
The United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)in their letters dated June 2,
2000 and October 4, 2000 stated their concerns with the proposed Crest project. These concerns
were:
• A new environmental impact report should be prepared for the proposed Crest project.
` \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRO132\DEIR\Smtion 2.0 Sul t dm 2-5
DRAFT SUPPLEMFM EIR LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.
stIMMART MARCII 27,2W1
Response: The County prepared an Initial Study(see Appendix A)that concluded that the
environmental information contained in the Final EIR and Addendum prepared on the
University/Crest project remain valid for the proposed project except as is being
supplemented in this document. The City of Rancho Cucamonga concurs with this
finding.
• The USFWS maintains that the site is occupied by gnatcatchers based on historical sitings.
Response: Focused California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted between April 13 and June 16, i
2000 pursuant to USFWS California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol
(issued July 29, 1997). The results of the survey are provided in Section 2.0 (Biological
Resources)and in Appendix D (Biological Resources Assessment Report). No
gnatcatchers were found onsite during the 2000 survey.
2.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
A summary of the proposed project's environmental impacts,mitigation measures, and the level of
significance after mitigation is provided on the following pages(Table 2-A). The information in this
summary is presented in a matrix format and briefly summarizes each of the project's potentially
significant environmental impacts,the mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid each
potentially significant environmental impact,and the level to which the mitigation measures are
expected to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.
I
I
t
2-6 \WV5\PR0JECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 2.0 Surtmury.dm ,
tL ASSOCIATES.INC. DRAW SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.
MARCH 27.2001 SUMMARY
RANCHOS ANDAE ATU
Table 2.A—Environmental Summary of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project
Analysis of Significance
I bmues/Im cts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
4.1 Air Quality
Less than Significant Impact
Long-Term Microscale Projections
The increase in traffic volume resulting from No mitigation is required.
development of the proposed project would result in
an increase in carbon monoxide(CO)emissions. CO
hot spot analyses were conducted for the future
condition with and without the project. The future
cumulative condition shows the project area would
not have CO hot spots with projected traffic volumes.
The proposed project would not have a significant
impact on local air quality for CO,and no mitigation
measures would be required.
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
I The increase in traffic volume resulting from No mitigation is required.
development of the proposed project would result in
more air pollution emission in comparison to the uses
that could develop on the site per the existing County
of Riverside General Plan. The Air Quality
Management Plan contains air quality attainment
goals based on air pollution emissions resulting from -
population and employment projections provided to
SCAG from local agencies.Estimated increases in
population resulting from implementation of the
proposed project are within the population projections
provided to SCAG for San Bernardino County.
Consequently,the proposed project is consistent with
the Air Quality Management Plan.
Potentially Significant Impact
Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts
1 Impact 5.1.1 Peak grading and construction 5.1.1A During construction,the contractor shall Short-term construction
emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation emissions would exceed the
Management District thresholds for the criteria measures listed in Table 5.1.1 are implemented. SCAQMD daily thresholds
pollutants of NOx and PM 10,which is 100 pounds per Note that to achieve the particulate control for the criteria pollutants of
day and 150 pounds per day,respectively. Emissions efficiencies shown,it was assumed that finished NOx and PM 10. Emissions
of other criteria pollutants would be below the surfaces will be stabilized with water and/or dust of other criteria pollutants
standards. palliatives and isolated from traffic flows to would be below the
prevent emissions of fugitive dust from these standards. Short-term
areas. In addition,the following water application construction emissions
rates have been assumed: would remain significant
with implementation of
• Roads traveled by autos, rock trucks, water mitigation measures.
trucks, fuel trucks, and maintenance trucks: up
to twice per hour.
LR:\CRG132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.dw(3/27/01) 2.7
DRArr SUPPUMEN`rA EIR L ASSOCIAT 'INC.
suMMARY MARCH 22.2001
RANCHO ANDAF A=
Analysis of Significance
Issuesdimpacts NBtiation Measures After Mitigation
• Roads traveled by scrapers and loaders; active
excavation area:up to three times per hour.
• Finish grading area:up to once every two hours
5.1.1E All construction equipment shall be
maintained in good operating condition so as to
reduce operational emissions. The contractor will
ensure that all construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained.
Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts
Impact 5.1-2. Development of the proposed project 5.1.2A The project shall comply with Title 24 Implementation of the
would result in significant impacts related to long- of the California Code of Regulations established mitigation measures would
term area source and mobile source air pollutant by the Energy Commission regarding energy reduce the magnitude of the
emissions. conservation standards. The project applicant significance of impacts
shall incorporate the following in building plans: related to long-term areas
source and mobile source
• Planting trees to provide shade and shadow to emissions;however,these
building; impacts would remain
• Solar or low-emission water heaters shall be significant and
used with combined space/water heater unit; unavoidable. The long-
and term regional air quality
• Double-pained glass or window treatment for impact due to the proposed
energy conservation shall be used in all exterior project would be significant
windows for NOx and ROG.
5.1.211 The project proponent shall determine
with the City and the electrical purveyor if it is
feasible to pre-wire houses for electrical charges
for EV cars and/or optic-fibers for home offices.
If feasible,install EV charges and/or optic-fibers
per the electrical purveyor's direction prior to
Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2 Bioloeical Resources
Less than Significant Impact
Impacts to Special Interest Species
The results of the literature review indicated the No mitigation is required. t
potential occurrence of 23 special interest plant and
animal species in the project vicinity. Of these 23
species, 12 are considered absent based on the lack of
suitable habitat. Of the remaining 1 I species
potentially present,7 are considered to have a
moderate to high probability of occurrence,and 4 are
considered to have a low probability of occurrence.
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat(SBKR)
Focused surveys for the SBKR were conducted in No mitigation is required.
1999 and 2000 concluded that the SBKR did not
occupy the site. Because the SBKR is absent from the
480 acre survey area,development of the proposed
2-8 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.dw(326/01)
LSA ASSOCIATES.INC. DRAPT SUPPLE.MEN M.Elk.
MARCH 2J,2001 SUMMARY
RANCHO E7EFW NDA ESTATES
Analysis of Significance
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
project,including the installation of off-site utility
infrastructure will not result in direct impacts to this
species;therefore,no significant impact would occur.
California gnatcatcher
Based on Spring 2000 focused surveys,the California No mitigation is required.
gnatcatcher was determined to be absent from the
' study area,which includes the project site and the
areas planned for off-site utility features;therefore no
signficant impact would occur.
Slender-Horned Spinejlower and Santa Ana River
woollvstar
Neither of these species was observed during No mitigation is required.
1 biological resources assessments of the project site.
The gravelly and cobbly site,with steep drainages and
lack of sandy bottoms,provides a low occurrence
potential for these species that require a sandy
floodplain habitat.Due to the low probability of
occurrence and lack of suitable habitat,focused
surveys are not recommended for these species.
Because no impacts to either of these species are
expected to occur,direct impacts to these two species
are less than significant.
Wildlife Movement
Implementation of the proposed project would narrow No mitigation is required.
(but would not completely sever)the swath of critical
California gnatcatcher habitat(a corridor of critical
habitat the California gnatcatcher may use to move
between populations in Los Angeles and San
Bernardino Counties)within the vicinity of the project
site from a width of approximately 1.5 to 1.0 mile.
Impacts to regional wildlife movement are therefore.
not considered to be significant
Impacts to Etiwanda and Day Creeks
By prohibiting storm flow rates from exceeding pre- No mitigation required.
development conditions, the proposed on-site
1 detention basin will reduce flood potential to
downslope properties. No additional discharge into
Etiwanda Creek will occur; therefore impacts to the
Etiwanda Creek or associated biological resources
1 will not be significant.
Underground storm drain pipes will be extended from
the western boundary of the project site to convey
storm water from the western portions of the project
site across the SCE easement to Day Creek Channel.
Biological resource surveys conducted for the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project included the SCE easement
located between the western property boundary and
R:\CRG132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.doc(3/27/01) 2-9
DR SUPPUMENTAEEIR ISAASSOCIAMS.INC. ,
sUMMARY MARCH 2>.2001
RANCHO ErIWANDA ESTATES
Analysis of Significance
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Day Creek Channel. No endangered or threatened
species were located within the easement. The
installation of storm drain facilities within this area
will not result in significant impacts to biological -
resources.
Local and Regional POlicies/MSCHP t
The 7,243-acre NEOSHPP program area was No mitigation is required.
established in 1994,three years after approval of the
University/Crest PD;therefore,the urban
development(and associated impacts)envisioned by
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project has been
anticipated;therefore no significant impact related to
this issue will occur.
The County of San Bernardino,the USFWS,the
CDFG,and 14 affected cities are currently involved
with the preparation of a regional a Valley-wide
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan(VMSHCP)
for target species and associated habitats. This
conservation plan is not yet approved and,therefore,
cannot be reviewed as to its potential relevance to the
proposed project. By prior agreement of the affected
parties,neither the VMSHCP nor any of its precursor
actions,does not constitute any pre planning nor
constitute a moratorium on the processing of projects.
Also,these VMSHCP-related actions have no basis
for determining significance of project-related impacts
during this CEQA review since they are not approved
planning documents.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 5.2.1 Development of the proposed Rancho 5.2.1A Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Application of the above
Etiwanda Estates project would result in the loss of the property owner shall purchase a minimum of stated mitigation measures
251.58 acres(247.8 acres project site in addition to 110 acres,consisting of chapparal and coastal would not fully reduce ,
3.78 acres of off-site utility features)of Riversidian sage scrub plant communities,or its equivalent. impacts to RAFSS;
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The loss of 251.58 acres of Any off-site property purchased by the applicant therefore,impacts to
this plant community is a potentially significant as mitigation for project related impacts shall by RAFSS would remain
impact. approved by the City prior to land disturbance significant and
within the project site. Any off-site property unavoidable.
purchased for mitigation shall be transferred in fee
to an appropriate entity,for permanent
conservation purposes. An endowment,
sufficiently funded to provide for the long-term
maintenance of any off-site mitigation area,shall
be established prior to the commencement of on-
site grading activities.
5.2.111 The project applicant shall pay an
endowment to the appropriate conservation entity
required by the City for the long-term
maintenance of any offsite mitigation areas.
5.2.1C New focused surveys for the SBKR and
the California gnatcatcher shall be conducted if
2-10 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Tab1e 2-A-new.doc(3/26/01)
I ASSOCIAl .INC. DR SUPPLEMENI'ALEIR.
MARCH 27.2001 SUMMARY
RANCHO E ANDA=A=
Analysis or Significance
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
construction activities have not commenced prior
to the expiration of validity of the Spring 2000
SBKR and California gnatcatcher surveys.
Appropriate mitigation as determined in
consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service in the Section l0A or 7 permitting process
shall be required in the event that new focused
surveys identify any endangered or threatened
species on site.
5.2.11) Any off-site areas temporarily disturbed
by project related activities shall be reseeded.
Plant materials shall be those adapted to local
conditions. Arrangements shall be made to ensure
that plant materials are located and available for
scheduled planting time. Sufficient time shall be
allocated for a professional seed company to visit
1 the project site during the appropriate season and
collect the native plant seed. If locale propagules
are not available or cannot be collected in
sufficient quantities,materials collected or grown
from other sources within a 5-mile radius of the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates project shall be
substituted.
Impact 5.2.2 Development of the proposed project 5.2.2A The project proponent shall purchase 3.22 Mitigated to below a level
will result in the elimination of an existing blue-line acres(2:1 mitigation)within the Team Amndo or of significance.
stream,tributary to Etiwanda Creek.The elimination other approved mitigation bank to compensate for
of this water feature is a significant impact. the loss of the 1.61 acres of on-site CDFG
jurisdictional waters.
Impact 5.2.3 Biological resources of the preserve 5.23A No direct pedestrian or vehicular access Mitigated to below a level
within the North Etiwanda Preserve may be directly to the Preserve from the project or individual lots of significance.
and indirectly impacted by activities associated with shall be permitted.
the construction and occupation of residential uses.
These impacts are potentially significant.
5.2.3B Public lighting within the project site
shall be installed and maintained in a manner to
reduce the effect of night lighting on adjacent -
open spaces. Specific measures to reduce the
effect of night lighting shall include:
• the use of low intensity street lamps;
• the use of low elevation lighting poles;
and/or
• the of shielding of exterior light sources.
5.23C Plant materials utilized in projecr
landscaping shall be of a type or variety
compatible with adjacent natural areas.
5.231) Purchase documents for individual
1 residential units within the project site shall
include information regarding:
• the presence and purpose of the Preserve;
• access restrictions to the Preserve;
• the prohibition of uses within the Preserve;
R:\CRG 132\DEIR\Tzbie 2-A-new.doc(3/27/01) 2-11
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISAASSOCIATES.INC.
SUMMARY MARCH 27 2001
RANCHOS ANDA ESTATES
. . Analysis of Significance
Issues(Impacts - Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
• the effect of domestic pets have on native
wildlife populations;and
• the effect human activity has on native
habitat and wildlife populations.
5.23E Covenants,Conditions,and Restrictions
(CC&R)shall be established which limit the
installation of excessive night lighting and
exterior sound amplification/sound reproduction
systems on residential lots located adjacent to the
Preserve.
5.2.3F A solid masonry wall,measuring no less
than six feet in height shall he constructed at the
property line of any residential lot abutting a
natural area.Any such wall shall he constructed
without breaks and shall be constructed and
maintained in a manner to prevent the passage of
persons and domestic animals over/under said
wall. Other barriers which meet all the
requirements of this measure may be constructed
in lieu of the solid masonry wall.
Impact 5.2.4 The Plummer's mariposa lily,a plant Mitigation Measures 5.2.]A-C apply. Mitigated to below a level
species identified by the CDFG as a species of special of significance.
concern and the California Native Plant Society as
rare,threatened or endangered is located on-site.
Development of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project
will significantly impact this plant species. ,
53 Land Use
Less than Significant Impacts
Consistency with Adopted Land Use Regulations
City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan ,
While the project site is not currently located within No mitigation is required.
the City of Rancho Cucamonga,it is located within
the City's Sphere of Influence. Annexation of the
project site into the City concurrent with approval of
the project and certification of the environmental
document is proposed.The City's General Plan
designates the site as"Residential-Very Low"which
allows less than 2 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed project would result in an overall residential
density of 2.50 units per acre and is not consistent
with the City's General Plan. Therefore,since the
proposed project is not within the allowable density,
the project is requesting a General Plan Amendment
to"Residential—Low"which would allow 2-4
dwelling units per acre. Because a discretionary
action is being sought for the proposed project to
amend the City's General Plan,no significant impact
associated with this issue would occur.
2-12 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.dw(3/26/01)
LS SOCIATES.INC. DRAf'r SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.
MARCH 27.2001 SUMMARY
RANCHOS ANDA ISTATES
Analysis of Significance
Issues(Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mftf ation
IEtiwanda North Specific Plan
The project site is designated as Very Low Density No mitigation required.
Residential(VL)in the land use plan for the ENSP.
The VL designation allows a maximum density of 2
dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet. The proposed project would be
inconsistent with this density designation with lot
sizes at a minimum of 7,200 square feet to a
maximum of 38,000 square feet,and an overall
residential density of 2.50 units per acre. Among the
discretionary actions being sought for the proposed
project is an amendment to the ENSP. This action
will amend the ENSP,changing the on-site land use
designation from Very Low Density to Low Density
(2-4 dwelling units per acre). The amendment will
also incorporate project development standards into
the ENSP. Because the ENSP will be amended to
incorporate the design and development standards of
the proposed project,no incompatibility between the
ENSP and the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project will occur. Therefore,no significant impact
associated with this issue would occur.
Foster Population Growth
The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project proposes the No mitigation required.
development of 632 residential units. Based on a
factor of 3.162(California Department of Finance)
persons per unit,implementation of the proposed
project would result in a population increase of 1,998
persons.The population increase associated with the
proposed project is well within SCAG's forecasted
population growth in the City.
Community Disruption
The project site is undeveloped and lies north of No mitigation required.
�. established communities within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The proposed project would not
physically disrupt or divide an established
community. No significant impacts related to
community disruption would occur as a result of
project implementation.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda No mitigation required.
Estates project will not result in any significant land
use impacts.
IR:\CRG132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.doc(3/27/01) 2.13
DR SUPPUMEM' EIR I ASSOc1 =.INC.
SUMMARY MARCH 27.2001
RANCHO EIr DA ESTATES
Analysis of Significance ,
Issues/Im-acts - - - Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
5.4 Traffic and Circulation
Potentially Significant Impacts j
Impact 5.4.1 Three intersections are forecast to fall Mitigation from the 1991 Final EIR That is Still Mitigated to below a level
below the minimum LOS D under the 2003 plus Applicable to the Rancho Eriwanda Estates of significance.
project condition in the AM or PM peak hour. These Project
intersections are:
TC-1 Maintain LOS C along secondary arterials
Day Creek BoulevardfHighland Avenue and collector streets in the area by restricting
• Etiwanda AvenuefHighland Avenue parking and controlling access.
• Etiwanda AvenuefVictoria Street
TC-2 Landscape plantings and signs shall be
The project creates or contributes to these limited in height in the vicinity of project
unsatisfactory conditions, which is considered a roadways to assure good visibility.
significant impact.
TC-3 Local streets should have a minimum radius
of 300 feet(25 mph design speed).
TC-4 Cul-de-sacs should not exceed 600 feet in
length to facilitate emergency access.
TC-5 Streets should intersect at as near to a right
angle as possible,and at not more than 10 degree
skew.
TC-6 Streets should intersect others on the
outside curve rather than the inside of a horizontal
curve.
TC-7 Streets should intersect on a crest vertical
curve,unless adequate site distance is provided.
TC-8 Design local and collector streets in
accordance with applicable standards established
by the City of Rancho Cucamonga-
TC-9 At least two different ingress/egress routes ,
should be included except as noted under the cul-
de-sac discussion in the 1991 Final EIR.
TC-10 No street,or turnaround road should have
a center line radius or curvature or less than 50
feet.
TC-11 Vertical curves and dips in the roadway
shall be determined based on design speeds
established for them.
5.4.1A Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the project developer shall pay its fair share
contribution to the following improvements.
• Day Creek Boulevard/Mghland Avenue `
Construct southbound left tum lane
Construct southbound free right tum lane
2-14 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.dw(3/26/01)
L MSOCIA' .INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.
MARCH 27.2001 Su MMARY
RANCHOF ANDAE AMI
Analysis of Significance
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Construct eastbound left tum lane
Construct eastbound through lane
Construct westbound through lane
Construct westbound right tum lane with
overlap
Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda Aveue/Higldand Avenue
Construct northbound right tum lane
Construct southbound right tum lane with
overlap
Construct westbound through lane
• Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street
Install Traffic Signal
Impact 5.4.2. Ten intersections are forecast to fall 5A.2A While the above stated impacts will not Mitigated to below a level
below the minimum LOS D under the 2020 plus occur until 2020, the project proponent will shall of significance.
project condition in the AM or PM peak hour. These be required to pay the fair share contribution for
intersections are: the following improvements prior to the issuance
of building permits.
• Day Creek Boulevard/Wilson Avenue
• Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue • Day Creek Boulevard/Wilson Avenue
• Day Creek Boulevard/IR-10/210 westbound ramp Install traffic signal
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/210 eastbound ramp
• Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue • Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue/Wilson Avenue Construct southbound right tum lane
I • Etiwanda Avenue/Summit Avenue Construct westbound left tum lane
• Etiwanda Avenue/Highland Avenue Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda AvenueNictorla Street
• Etiwanda Avenue/Base Line Road Day Creek Boulevard(SR-30/210 westbound
ramps
The project creates or contributes to these Install traffic signal
unsatisfactory conditions,which is considered a
significant impact., • Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/210 eastbound
ramps
Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda Avenue/Wilson Street
Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda Avenue/Summit Avenue
Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda Avenue/Base line Road
Construct northbound through lane
Construct southbound left tum lane
Construct eastbound through lane
Construct eastbound right tum lane
Construct westbound through lane
• Day Creek Boulevard/Base line Road to
Highland Avenue
Construct four lanes
' R:\CRG 132\DEIR\Table 2-A-new.doc(3/27/0 1) 2-15
DR SVPPI ENT VR LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.
suMMARY MARCH 27.2001
RANCHO EITWANDA ESTATES
r
Analysis or Significance
Issuesnnapacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/210 to Summit
Avenue
Construct 4 lanes
• Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue to 0.3
miles north of Wilson Avenue
Construct 2 lanes
• Day Creek Boulevard/0.3 miles north of
Wilson Avenue to project boundary
Construct 2 lanes
• Etiwanda Avenue/terminus to project ,
boundary
Construct 2 lanes
• Wilson Avenue/0.3 miles east and west of Day
Creek Boulevard
Construct 2 lanes
• Summit Ave./0.3 miles east of Day Creek
Boulevard
Construct 2 lanes
Impact 5.43 Under Year 2020(plus project) 5.4.3A The addition of the following freeway There is no mechanism for
conditions,three freeway segments of the westbound lanes would improve freeway operations with year the project proponent to pay
and/or eastbound SR-30/210 between Day Creek 2020 plus project traffic volumes to LOS E or fees or make fair share
Boulevard and Archibald Avenue are forecast to fall better contributions towards
below the minimum LOS F during either the AM or improving mainline ,
PM peak hour. These freeway segments are: • SR-30/210 westbound between Miliken freeway lanes,and even if
Avenue and Archibald Avenue—addition of there were such a
AM one eastbound and westbound lane. mechanism,there is no way
to ensure that such
• Westbound SR-30/210 between Day Creek payments would be directed
Boulevard and Miliken Avenue to a specific freeway
• Westbound SR-20/210 between Miliken Avenue improvement project.
and Haven Avenue Consequently,there are no ,
• Westbound SR-30/210 between Haven Avenue feasible mitigation
and Archibald Avenue. measures for these impacts.
The impacts remain
PM significant and ,
unavoidable.
• Eastbound SR-30/210 between Archibald
Avenue and Haven Avenue
• Eastbound SR-20/210 between Haven Avenue
and Miliken Avenue
• Eastbound SR-30/210 between Miliken Avenue
and Day Creek Boulevard
r
2-16 RACRG132\DE1R\Tab1e 2-A-new.dm(326/01)
tLG ASSOCIAMII INC. DRAFT'SUPPL MEN-rA EIR
MARCH 27.2001 PROJECT DF CRIMON
RANCHO ETIN'ANDA F A 9
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
,. 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES
IThe project site is located within an unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino. More
specifically, the project site is situated in the west portion of the West Valley Foothills Planning Area
immediately north of and within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project
site is located at the northern terminus of Day Creek Boulevard. Along the northern edge of the property,
the project site abuts the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP) and the Southern
California Edison (SCE) utility corridors. Adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the project
site are Southern California Edison(SCE)utility corridors. The recently approved University Project,and
other new residential development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga also border the project site on
the south.
Figure 3-1 shows the location of the project site in its regional context. As shown in Figure 3-1, the
project site is currently located within an unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino. Regional
access to the project site is provided by Interstate-15 via Summit Avenue. State Route 30 (projected to
open in 2002) will also provide regional access to the project site via Day Creek Boulevard. Figure 3-2
shows the project site in its local setting. As shown in Figure 3-2,the project site is located west of the
northern terminus of Etiwanda Avenue and north of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As a part of the
University Project,Day Creek Boulevard will be extended from Highland Avenue in a northerly direction
to the northern boundary of the University project site. Day Creek Boulevard will serve as the main
entrance to the project site.
3.2 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The project site is bordered by the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, residential
development, SCE Utility corridors to the south, the Day Creek Channel to the west,and a future
development on the east. About %-mile to the east of the project site is East Etiwanda Creek. Other
surrounding land uses include an area to the north of the site preserved through the North Etiwanda
Preserve(NEP)Cooperative Management Agreement north of which is the Angeles National Forest. The
NEP was established in 1998 as mitigation for SR-30 construction. To the southwest is the recently
I approved University Project. A Southern California Edison easement is present within and parallel to the
northern project boundary and south and parallel to the southern project boundary.
The project site is within the San Bernardino County North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat
Preservation Program(NEOSHPP)area.
i
1
' RACRG 132\DEIRISection 3.0 Project Description-new formet.doc 3-1
' 1
15
I
San
39 Bernardino
Angeles National ,
National Forest
Forest
' PROJECT - ---- - - -- - �
LOCATION �
-- - --- ---
� -- - - - ------ - �- -t —;_� ---� ��� , __ _���___ 15 __���_ 30 210 __
210 r 30 210 .! ���
30 .......... ...
Upland Rancho Fontana
Cucamonga
zlo
10
Pomona Ontario ,
Los
Angelesso ry - -
Coun
' San
Bernardino
County
11 Riverside
-� County
si Orange `\
County '
s1 ,91
N
5 \ z®
15 MILES
55
L S A FIGURE 3-1
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Regional Location Map
R:\CRG I32\EIR\Gmphics\rcgio=1.cdr(3/15/01)
r
..�., '�,q� r F a . , F m'0. :• ��'f' �„ r,� -w:�/'�
v + A
1' �( National F,orest� r- �1,e1 >r
1y
Iffil
TI
]this pomon Y- '-�
,k of
app boundary 1l.,_
I... xmg
P!
� t/Y s�'' J i ,✓�~`F�y�C°Y �`t ��-�r •cr Y n�yx='.r'Y� �}r, w+� r'�--�\ '�
San Bernardmox- �
777I
L RANCHO
r"t ' t > tea•-"
k 9-.�Pc��
•_ " -1�<,—,-�t' . ETIWANDA i�
V � �1 ESTATES
r
UNIVERSITY„
k:Z CHAq
FFEY L'
rcoLLECE PROPERTY
r _
15
.to QC a:
27
1�
k N G -Highlandl
T, � ' ' s... - _•�"� _ ��
2000 0 2000
"1 FEET —+� �. /� _
L S A FIGURE 3-2
'�■ PROPOSED PROJECT SITE ❑ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Rancho Etiwanda Estates
REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT NEOSHPPAREA Supplemental EIR
I� PROPOSED OFF-SITE MITIGATION NORTH ETIWANDA PRESERVE Vicinity Map
SOURCE:USGS 7.5'QUAD-CUCAMONGAPEAK,CA.1981. LJ
R:\CRG132\EIR\Graphics\vicin.cdr(3/15/01)
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISAA.SS(X;IATES.INC. '
PROJECT DESCRIPTION MARCH 27.2001
RANCHO ETTWDA ESTATES
l
The project site currently exists in its natural condition. The project site is part of a broad alluvial fan I
positioned at the base of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains,with topography gently sloping to the
southeast. All soil in the proposed project site is mapped as"Soboba stony loamy sand, 2-9% slopes"
except for a minimal amount of Psamments and Fluvents on the eastern edge of the Day Creek Channel
(Soil Conservation Service, 1979). The soils onsite are rocky to cobbly to gravelly to sandy. The
majority of the project site was covered in rock and cobble. The elevation of the project site ranges from
approximately 1,880 to 2,150 feet above mean sea level.
Many individual and braided drainage channels are located onsite. These drainage channels are not
considered potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. by the Army Corps of Engineers.'
The vegetation onsite2 is best classified as alluvial fan sage scrub composed of two dominant vegetative
forms: (1)white sage series, and(2) the chamise series with birchleaf mountain mahogany as an
important component. The white sage series occurs over a majority of the project site and is dominated
by white sage with yerba santa also predominant. The chamise series is dominated by chamise and
birchleaf mountain mahogany. This plant community is located within the north-central portion of the
project site. Other plant species present include California sagebrush(Artemisia californica),California
buckwheat, and deerweed. In addition, three small stands of Eucalyptus are present on the western
portion of the project site.
3.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The original University/Crest project is a Planned Development(PD) for 1,238 residential units,
commercial, school,park and open space on approximately 1,111 acres that was approved by the San
Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in June, 1991. The approved PD provided the development
framework for properties owned by two separate entities: the Regents of the University of California
(University)and the Caryn Development Company(Crest). The decision to combine and entitle the two
properties under a single land use approval was made to ensure comprehensive planning and
infrastructure efficiency.
One component of the University/Crest PD was a condition of approval for an open space easement over
675 acres of a nearby unimproved property. The owner of the 675 acres was required to dedicate an
easement to the County of San Bernardino for open space,recreational, scenic and maintenance purposes.
After its approval, the project remained undeveloped for a number of years. Within this time frame, the '
property earmarked for open space purposes was sold to individuals that were not connected with the
University/Crest project. Eventually, the 675-acre property was acquired by the Metropolitan Water
District and has since been committed to permanent open space as environmental mitigation for their own
projects.
The removal of the area set aside for open space purposes altered the status of the existing
University/Crest PD approval. Compliance with the conditions of approval became impossible and
therefore revisions to the project are necessary if the development is to occur.
I Letter from the Army Corps of Engineers dated August 3, 1999, signed by Mark Durham, Chief South Coast '
Section(see Appendix F).
z See Section 5.2(Biological Resources) for a complete description of the vegetation onsite.
3-4 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 3.0 Project Description-new fornut.doc
MAASSOCIAM.INC. DRAFT S I IPPUMENTA I.IR
A1nROf 2J,2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RANCHO IMWKNDA ESTATES
Following the loss of the open space,both development areas(University and Crest)were sold separately
to new developers. UCP Inc. purchased the University portion and presented a revised project to the
County that was approved on October 26,1999. A&J Resources purchased the Crest portion and
presented a revised project to the County. The project has since been renamed Rancho Etiwanda Estates.
Subsequent to processing the revisions to the PD, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
was prepared and circulated for public review by the County of San Bernardino. Concurrent with the
distribution, the property owner commenced discussions with the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding
potential annexation.
These discussions and the decision to annex to the City of Rancho Cucamonga led to a number of
proposed changes to the project. The changes were made at the request of the City and are intended to
address the context of the project within the City jurisdiction and the projects' relationship to other
adjacent influences. The specific changes to the project include:
I • Redesigning the project to provide identifiable neighborhoods to allow the project to respond to a
range of potential market sectors. The redesign also redefines the project's internal circulation
and each neighborhood by limiting inter-project pass through trips.
• Lowering the overall project intensity from 660 lots to 632 lots(a 6 percent reduction).
• An overall project design that increases lot sizes as the project progresses northerly.
• Introducing a gated community concept that will limit public access both within the development
and to a biological preserve area located north of the site.
• Changes to the overall regional circulation, including the potential vacation of Etiwanda Avenue,
north of its intersection with Day Creek Boulevard, further reducing potential trespassing to the
biological preserve located north of the project site.
• Removal of a local proposed park and requiring the project to provide funding for an off-site City
community park, a $4,171,200.00 commitment.
• Requiring the project to provide funding for off-site equestrian facilities, a$632,000.00
commitment.
• Annexation of the project site into the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
• Amendment to the City's General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan,prezoning the project
site.
RACRG132\DEIR\section 3.0 Project Description-new format.doc 3-5
DRAFT SUPPLENEPTA EIR LSA ASSOCUM INC. '
PROJECT OFSCRIMON .NARCII 27.'-001
M CNO ET MDA ESTATES
3.4 CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE WEST VALLEY ,
PLANNING AREA SINCE 1991
• The original University/Crest project has been split into two separate projects,the revised University ,
project and the revised Rancho Etiwanda Estates(Crest)project. The revised University project was
approved in October 1999.
• Construction of SR-30/210, located south of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project, is now in the
construction process. The segment of SR-30/210 located between the Los Angeles County line and
Sierra Avenue in Fontana is scheduled for completion in 2002. ,
• The Oak Summit Project north of the University/Crest project was denied,and the site preserved as
permanent open space. The Oak Summit project was used as background for the analysis of future
traffic impacts in the 1991 Final EIR. Because Oak Summit will not be built,Day Creek Boulevard
was downsized from six lanes to four lanes(divided) from SR-30/210 to Banyan Avenue, four lanes
(undivided) from Banyan Avenue to Wilson Avenue, and two lanes (undivided)north of Wilson ,
Avenue. Therefore, there will be fewer cumulative traffic impacts as a result of this project.
• The long-term preservation of a 675-acre parcel, located northwest of the University/Crest project
site,was offered as the principal mitigation measure for impacts related to biological resources in the
University/Crest PD. Although this acreage is currently preserved in perpetuity as open space, it is no
longer available as mitigation, for this project. The developer of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project
proposes the dedication of a one-half interest of a 172-acre site, to the east,to be preserved as open
space to substitute for a previous open space condition of approval. An additional funding of
$110,000 for the perpetual maintenance of the property will be required for mitigation (see Section
5.2 [Biological Resources] for additional mitigation information). ,
• Other circumstances related to biological resources that have changed since 1991 include the listing
of the coastal California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat(SBKR), respectively, as
threatened and endangered. The loss of 247.8 acres of alluvial fan sage scrub recognized by the
California Department of Fish and Game as a rapidly declining habitat, represents an additional
changed circumstance not recognized in the 1991 University/Crest Final EIR.
• On February 10, 1998 the North Etiwanda Preserve—Cooperative Management Agreement was
adopted, thereby establishing the preserve. The purpose of the habitat preserve is to insure the ,
preservation and protection of approximately 568 acres of Alluvial Fan Scrub Sage and
approximately 194 acres of other habitats within the preserve. The southern boundary of the North
Etiwanda Preserve is about 300 feet north of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project site.
• On April 1, 1992 the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP).
The purpose of the ENSP is to guide land use and community design within the north Etiwanda area.
The project site is currently located within the County area covered by the ENSP. The ENSP is
regulatory in nature. This means that it applies to(or regulates) all property development within the
City limits of Rancho Cucamonga. For the ENSP to apply to or regulate the property outside the
limits of the City, said property must apply for annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
however, under its General Plan,the County us required to consider the compatibility of the proposed
project with the ENSP. Review and approval of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project by the City is
required, as annexation of the project site into the City will require the amending of the ENSP.
3-6 RACRGI320EIR\Section 3.0 Pmject Description-new formffi.doc
ISAASSOCIATFS,INC. DRWr S1IPPLE.MENFN.FIN
M RCn 27,2W PROJECT DESCNIMON
RANCHO EIIR'ANDA ESTATES
• In December 2000,the University project located directly south of this project was annexed to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga. Development of this site commenced in October 2000.
3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
• To redesign the project to facilitate development,employing less density, definable
neighborhoods, a revised land use concept, and development standards reflective of current and
projected market conditions.
I . Create a project design that limits access to the biological preserve area north of the project site
by gating the community and vacating Etiwanda Avenue north of its proposed intersection with
Day Creek Boulevard. Vacation of Etiwanda Avenue north of its intersection of with Day Creek
Boulevard will require a separate action by the City and/or County.
• Assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga in achieving the General Plan goals of meeting the
community's recreation needs through a multi-million dollar funding to expand City park
projects.
• Assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga in attaining their General Plan goals by providing funding
towards the development of off-site community equestrian facilities.
• Complete a vital transportation link consistent with the City's Circulation Element by
constructing Day Creek Boulevard from its northern terminus to its intersection with Etiwanda
Avenue.
• Construct planned and needed water infrastructure to serve the entire North Etiwanda area.
• Offer the prospective homebuyer a range of housing types suited for different ages, family sizes,
and socioeconomic conditions.
• Establish a structure for a specific neighborhood Homeowner's Association responsible for
maintaining landscape,recreation areas,architectural standards and other common facilities.
• Integrate and complement existing and future communities in the northern Rancho Cucamonga
area.
• Further preserve the integrity of the North Etiwanda Preserve by vacating Etiwanda Avenue north
of its intersection with Day Creek Boulevard. The vacation will limit public access to southern
boundary of the preserve.
R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 3.0 Project Description-new format.doc 3-7
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSAA.SS(CIATES.INC. '
PROJECT DFS IUMON MARCII 2],3001
RANCHO EFIWANDA ESTATES
3.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS '
Discretionary Actions Review
In order to facilitate the proposed project,the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be required to take action
on the following discretionary actions.
(1) Certify the Environmental Documentation. The City Council will need to certify the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project.
(2) Annexation. The City Council will need to approve an annexation of the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project site from unincorporated County to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
(3) Development Agreement. The City Council will need to approve a development agreement
specifying rules,responsibilities,and commitments to develop the site.
(4) Approve the General Plan Amendment. The City Council will need to amend the City's General ,
Plan from Very Low Density to Low Density.
(5) Amend the North Etiwanda Specific Plan(ENSP). The project will require amendments to the '
ENSP, including an amendment to the land use designation from Very Low Density to Low
Density and amendments to the development standards, including but not limited to,the grading
standards.
(6) Tract Maps. The City will need to conditionally approve the design of the proposed tract maps. ,
(7) Vacation of a Public Street. A separate action by the City/County to vacate Etiwanda Avenue
north of its intersection of with Day Creek Boulevard.
(8) Construction of a Water Tank and Associated Water Conveyance System. A separate action by
the Cucamonga County Water District for the construction of a 1.2 million gallon water tank.
Rancho Etiwanda Estates Associated Components '
Rancho Etiwanda Estates is proposed to be a gated community(refer to Figure 3-3)that will be
comprehensively developed in a logical order to provide needed infrastructure. In addition to the creation
of lots, the project will require the extension/creation of the following components:
Drainage—Drainage improvements required by the proposed project are illustrated in Figure 34. The
project site currently drains via natural surface flows in a generally southeasterly direction. Natural,
undeveloped land north of the project site drains into the project site. Drainage improvements,which will '
convey storm water from the project site, include: an open channel along the northern property line, a
detention basin located in the southeast comer of the project site, and several underground storm drain
pipes extending in a westerly direction from the western boundary of the project site.
The open channel along the northern boundary of the property will intercept natural drainage from areas
north of the project site. As depicted in Figure 34,these flows will be conveyed in the channel east to
3-8 RACRG132\DE1R\Scction 3.0 Roiect Description-new fo=t.doc
ISAASSOCIAM,INC. DRIFT SUPPLENEN7A EIR
M n27Zppt PROJECT MCRIMON
RANCHO I'flli'A.\DA F TATFS
the project's eastern boundary at which point flows will tum south within the open channel to the
proposed detention basin located in the southeast comer of the project site. Because of irregularities in
existing grades, construction of the channel will require minor grading within the Southern California
Edison right-of-way. Generally,this grading will not extend more than 20 feet into the SCE right-of-way.
In one area, approximately 500 feet west of the northeastern comer of the project site, grading may extend
up to 60 feet north of the northern boundary of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project site.
The proposed detention basin shall be designed to reduce the flood potential to downslope properties
which may occur as a result of project development. The detention basin will be designed and
constructed so that post-development flow rates do not exceed pre-development conditions in accordance
with City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. The proposed detention basin will connect to an existing
earthen channel that is located east of Etiwanda Avenue,near the northeast corner of existing Tract
14139.
Sanitary Sewer—The project will extend and connect to existing Cucamonga County Water District
(CCWD) sewer trunk mains located in both Etiwanda Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard.
Domestic Water—The location of the proposed off-site reservoir that will serve the project site is
depicted in Figure 3-5. The proposed 1.2 million gallon water reservoir will be located approximately
500 feet north of the project site(outside the North Etiwanda Preserve), generally along the alignment of
the 12-inch water main. Additionally, the project will be required to construct,on behalf of CCWD, a
pump station on CCWD property located east of the project and east of the terminus of Etiwanda Avenue.
These facilities substantially conform to the Cucamonga County Water District Water Master Plan and
the EIR prepared for the Water Master Plan.
i
i
i
T
I
1 R\CRG 132\DEIR\Section 3.0 Project Description-new fora ut.doe 3-9
❑- -1-.-'--1 ❑❑ �.\-. '--i— ❑❑❑/ mergen<y Ac SCECORRIDOR
ar p u.dble str«I co.,n«t1o.
C
\ PROPOSED
,/`7�i-1'(`�\��\!/l� \ _ �.. ❑ ) - DETENTION BASIN
CZ SCECORRIDOR z
ared Entry
/moi 300 0 300'
oe
SCALE IS APPROXIMATE
L S A LOTSUMMARY FIGURE 3-3
PLANNING LOTSIZE NUMBER
�II��) AREA (S.F.RANCE) OFLOTS
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 1 9,600-38,000 92 Rancho Etiwanda Estates
❑O
PLAN NINGAREA NUMBER 2 9,600-32,000 112 Supplemental EIR
3 9,400-28,000 118 Conceptual Site Plan
4 7,200-21,000 140
5 7,200-21,000 81
SOURCE:A&1 RESOURCES,INC. 6 7,200-21,000 89
FEBRUARY 19,2001. TOTAL LOTS: 632
R:\CRG 132\Graphics\EIR\sim plan.cdr(3/23/01)
1
SAN BERNARDINO NA770NAL FOREST
t.
PROPOSED CHANNEL
+um■ .. - - mlm■
.;,PROPOSED CHANNEL
\ �\\ .\\\:\\\\�\`�\` \� \\ \\\ � _ _. _plm■� inn■♦
i -
V -Vv
\ ti \
NX
G'
m \\ \\`\ \\\ ���\�\ \\\ \ \ \\ �\ ■
\ Z
lei It-1;FN
}}LL�
( ISI tli j—L5r it11 �
.N'OTTOSG E !
L S A FIGURE 3-4
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
1Supplemental EIR
Proposed Master Storm Drain Plan
SOURCE:ALLARD ENGINEERING.MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG 132 EIR\Graphics\pro master dmiacdr(327/01)
ZONE 5-C
RESERVOIR
0
ZONE 6—C
WATER MAIN
ZONE
X,/ STATION
A
Z/
V,
IN
i `yam
CREEK
Foes
Ll
Y,
...... NJ
::Z�
J l7
120 SSION? 'y,
UNE 7 ,1JEE
UW
NOT TO SCALE
L S A FIGURE 3-5
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
0 PROJECT BOUNDARY Supplemental EIR
Li�11 PRESSURE ZONE K
Proposed Master Water System
0 PRESSUREZONE5C
SOURCE:ALLARD ENGINEERING,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRO132\Graphics\EIR\proroaster water.cdr(3/27/01)
' ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAPE SIIPPEE.NENTA EIR
ALucu 27,2001 CIINIIIAMT..I.NPAM
RANCHO ETIR'A\OA ESTATES
4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS METHODOLOGY
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to Section
15130(b)(1)(A) and(B)of the State CEQA Guidelines,there are two acceptable methods for
evaluating cumulative impacts. The first method for evaluating cumulative impacts is to utilize"a list
of past, present, or probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,including, if
necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency." The second method utilizes"a summary
of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document,or in a prior
` environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional
or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact."
4.2 PROPOSED PROJECT APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts were fully analyzed in the previous environmental documents prepared and
certified by County of San Bernardino for the University/Crest PD between 1989 and 1991. These
previous environmental documents are:
County of San Bernardino, "Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest
Project PD No. W121-49" [State Clearinghouse Number(SCH No.) 88082915],
dated August 1989, (Environmental Perspectives); and
County of San Bernardino, "Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report
University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49" [State Clearinghouse Number(SCH No.)
88082915], dated May 1991, (Environmental Perspectives).
These environmental documents are incorporated by reference in Section 1.2 of this document.' The
Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 utilized a summary of
projections contained in the West Valley Foothills Community Plan to evaluate cumulative impacts.
This is the second method described above in Section 4.1. The Final EIR on the University/Crest
project was approved in August 1989. Since the approval of the Final EIR, the environment within
the West Valley Foothills Planting Area has changed in a number of ways(described in Section 3.4).
Due to these changes in the environment,the cumulative impact analyses provided in the Final EIR is
outdated and requires updating for potential air quality,biological resources, land use and planning,
and traffic and circulation impacts. This Supplemental EIR updates the cumulative impact analyses
for each of these environmental issues.
Pursuant to Section 15163(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines,"The supplement to the EIR need contain only
the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised."
�. \\RIV5\PR01ECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 4.0 CumulativeAm 4-1
DP SUPPLEMENTAL EIR BA SDC1 MS,.M INC. I
CUMUTAT IMPACTS Cl127,2 1
1
Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project
A new list of related projects' was prepared for the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis'
prepared by RKJK in September 2000. This list of related projects corresponds to the timing of the
circulation of the NOP for this Supplemental EIR for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project.
Following, in Table 4-A, is a list of projects that is used to evaluate cumulative impacts in this
Supplemental EIR.
Table 4-A
RELATED PROJECTS LIST AS OF MARCH 2001
MAP# PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION
OUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1 Automobile sales and 14658 Foothill Blvd.North side; Proposed:384 sq. ft. office and an 864
repair 00 ft.west of Redwood Ave. sq.ft.garage for up to 24 vehicles on
0.65 acre.
2 Senior housing complex, outheast comer of FoothillProposed: 68 unit housing complex, '
senior multi-purpose Blvd.and Redwood Ave. 5,000 sq. ft. multi-purpose center,
enter,retail complex; 10,000 sq. ft.office, 11,855 sq.ft.retail
esidential Development complex on 10.2 acres; from
intendment neighborhood commercial to multiple
residential on 5.2 acres and general
commercial on 1.2 acres;create 3 parcel
n 10.2 acres
CITY OF RANCHO CuCAMONGA _
1 Single family homesrast
uth of Base Line Ave.,west of pproved: 147 units of single family
Ave. detached homes on 21.5 acres.
2 Single family homes Southeast comer of East Ave. Submitted: 23 units of single family
and Wilson Avenue. detached homes on 17.2 acres.
3 Single family homes South of Wilson Avenue,east of ubmitted: 21 units of single family
East Ave. etached homes on 15 acres.
4 ingle family homes North of Summit Ave.,west ofSubmitted: 17 units of single family
East Ave. detached homes on 18 acres.
5 ingle family detached Southwest cornet of SummitSubmitted:49 units of single family ,
Ave. and East Ave. detached homes on 34.1 acres.
2 A `related' project is a development project that is located in close proximity to the proposed project, and would create a
cumulative impact when the impact of the proposed project is combined with the impact of the related project. Related
projects can be past projects,current projects,and/or probable future projects.
r The related projects were identified for the Traffic Impact Analysis because it was the first technical study to be prepared
for the revised Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. All other technical studies used the same list.
4-2 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\1)EIR\.Smtion 4.0 Cumulative.doc
ILSA ASSOCIATES,INC, DRAFT SIIPPLE.MENTAL FIR
. A n27,2001 CDMIIUTNE IMPACTS
RANCIIO ET@'.NDA T_STATFS
6 ingle family homes West of Etiwanda Ave.,between IPpproved: 71 units of single family
Highland Ave. and Summit Ave. detached homes on 47 acres.
7 partments East of Etiwanda Ave.,north ofSubmitted: 272 apartment units on 20
Miller Ave. acres.
t 8 rtail shopping center etween Spruce and Elm,south pproved:Retail shopping center
f Foothill Blvd. 116,394 sq. ft.)on 11.75 acres.
9 - mg store Oouthwest comer of Base Line pproved: Rite Aid Drug Store(16,747
d.and Ellena West sq. ft.)on 2.5 acres.
10 Drug store Northwest corner of Haven Ave. pproved: Walgreens Drug Store
and future Alta Loma Drive. 13,800 sq.ft.)on 0.52 acre.
1 I Service station and retail Northeast Comer of Foothill pproved: Service station and retail
Blvd. and Etiwanda Ave. 4,896 sq. ft.)on 2.6 acres.
12 torage Facility �r,7�ortheast comer of Milliken pproved: Storage facility(96,000 sq.
Ave. and Church St. .)on 4.7 acres.
13 [ast food Restaurantrlvd
uthwest corner of Foothill pproved. Fast food restaurant(2,775
. and Mayten Ave. sq. ft.)on 1 acre.
14 cc Skating facility outheast comer of Haven Ave. pproved: Ice skating facility(75,000
nd Town Center Dr. sq. ft.)on 5 acres.
L15 etail building entral Park Plaza,northeast pproved: Retail building(6,500 sq. ft.)
omer of Milliken Ave.and
erra Vista Pkwy.
16 Retail Pad South of Foothill Blvd.,west of pproved: Retail pad(6,800 sq. ft.)
Rochester Ave.
17 Retail buildings West of Aspen Ave.,north side pproved:Two retail buildings(10,000
f Foothill Blvd. sq. ft.)multi-tenant and a restaurant
' (6,525 sq. ft.)on 1.21 acres.
18Deli/Liquor store South of Foothill Blvd., east of pproved:Deli/Liquor store(4,521 sq.
Aspen t.)on 0.68 acre.
19 Restaurants South of Foothill Blvd.,west of ubmitted:Two restaurants(2,508 sq.
' Spruce Ave. t.)sit-down and(3,100sq. ft.)fast food
n 1.3 acres.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG1 32\DEIR\Section 4.0 CumulativeAm 4-3
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISA ASSOCIATES.INC. I
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS M cit 27,M)l
MNCHO ANDA ESTAM
1
20 otel South of Foothill Blvd.,between pproved: 124 room hotel(34,860 sq.
Aspen Ave. and Spruce Ave. t.)on 5 acres.
21 BankSouth-west comer of Foothill pproved:Bank(6,000 sq. ft.)on 1 acre.
Blvd. and Mayten Ave.
22 Industrial Building outh of Foothill Blvd.,east of pproved:Industrial building(34,493 I
hn Ave. sq. ft.)on 1.85 acres. '
23 Industrial Buildings South of Foothill Blvd., west ofpproved:Two industrial building
Milliken Ave. 904,000 sq. ft.)on 40 acres.
24 Auto service building West of N.Rochester Ave.,south pproved: Auto service building(5,400
f Sebastian Way sq. ft.);6 office buildings(37,940 sq.
ft.);daycare building(11,500 sq.ft.).
25 rry�,,•,,��•ixed use office, outhwest comer of Haven Ave. Submitted: Mixed use office,
Mixed
residential and Foothill Blvd. commercial,residential on 34.6 acres. '
26 mgle family homes North of Foothill Blvd.,between pproved:474 units of single family
Etiwanda Ave. and East Ave. detached homes.
27 ingle family homes outhwest corner of RochesterSubmitted: 180 units of single family
ve.and Church St. detached homes on 28 acres.
28 Single family homes Poutheast comer of Milliken pproved: 172 units of single family
ve.and Terra Vista Pkwy. etached homes on 38 acres.
29 Apartments ast of Spruce Ave.,north of pproved:366 apartment units on 23.5
Church St. lacres.
30 Apartments est of Spruce Ave.,north of pproved: 306 apartment units on 19
urch St. acres.
31 Single family homes ortheast comer of East Ave. pproved: 55 units of single family
nd SPRR. detached homes.
32 Single family homes Southwest comer of East Ave. pproved:26 units of single family
nd SPRR. etached homes.
33 Ingle family homes tiwanda;North of SPRR,south pproved: 36 units of single family '
f Victoria St. etached homes.
4-4 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 4.0 Cumulative.dm
IISA ASSOCIATES.INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
M Cn 27,2001 CU.MUTATIVE IMPACTS
IRANCHO EM'ANDA rSTATrS
C
I34 ingle family homes southeast corner of Milliken pproved:24 units of single family
ve. and Vintage Dr. etached homes.
35 Single family homes Fulasthecomer of Wardman (Approved:358 units of single family
llock Rd. and Summit Ave. detached homes on 128 acres.
' 35A Rancho Cucamonga Mall West of I-15,east of future DayProposed: Retail/commercial(2.45
Creek Blvd., south of Church St. million sq. ft.)and 600 residential units.
d north of Foothill Blvd.
36 Single family homes Southwest comer of VictoriaApproved: 101 units of single family
Park Lane and Day Creek Blvd. detached homes on 28 acres.
37 Ingle family homes West of Etiwanda Ave.,betweenSubmitted: 554 units of single family
Foothill Blvd. and Base Line detached homes.
Ave.
38 Single family homes East of Haven Ave.,north ofApproved:40 units of single family
' Ringstem Dr. detached homes.
39 Single family homes Southwest comer of Base LineApproved:250 units of single family
Ave. and Rochester Ave. detached homes;Approx.200 units are
complete.
40 Single family homes Southwest comer of Highland pproved: 191 units of single family
' Ave.and Rochester Ave. detached homes;Approx.90%of units
re complete.
41 Single family homes East of East Ave.,south ofApproved:45 units of single family
' Highland Ave. detached homes;Approx. 60%of units
re complete.
' 42 Single family homes North of Highland Ave.,west ofApproved: 151 units of single family
Etiwanda Ave. detached homes;Approx. 80%of units
re complete.
43 Single family homes North of Highland Ave.,west ofApproved: 116 units of single family
Etiwanda Ave. detached homes;Approx. 60%of units
re complete on 53 acres.
44 Single family homes Pouthwest corner of Highland ppvd: 181 units of single family
ve. and Day Creek Blvd. �etarcohe
ed homes;Approx. 90%of units
r I re complete.
45 Single family homes South of Highland Ave.,east of pproved: 158 units of single family
Day Creek Blvd. detached homes;Approx.90%of units
re complete.
46 Single family homes Northeast comer of Base LineApproved: 77 units of single family
Ave. and Rochester Ave. detached homes on 17 acres.
\\R1V5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 4.0 Cumulative.dm 4-5
DPAET SUPPLEMENTAL Ela L ASSOCIATES,INC. I
CUMUTAT IMPACTS MAacx 37•"1
1
47 [ingle family homes est of Deer Creek Channel, Approved: 61 units of single family I
Orth of Wilson Ave. detached homes;Approx. 90%of units
re complete. I
48 Single family homes North of Wilson,east of DaySubmitted: 30 units of single family
Creek Blvd. detached homes on 11.5 acres. I
49 Single family homes North of Base Line Ave.,west of pproved:97 units of single family
Victoria Park Lane detached homes on 18.3 acres.
50 Single family homes Southwest comer of Base LineApproved:31 units of single family
Rd.and Etiwanda Ave. detached homes.
51 ingle family homes Southwest comer of Base LineApproved:40 units of single family '
Rd.and Etiwanda Ave. detached homes.
52 ingle family homes East of Haven Ave.,north ofApproved: 151 units of single family ,
Deer Canyon Dr.and Almond St.detached custom homes on 101.4 acres.
53 Ingle family homes South side of Wilson Ave.,westApproved: 63 units of single family I
f Cherry Ave. detached homes.
54 Single family condomini ortheast comer of Base Line Approved: 153 units of single family
ve.and Milliken Ave. condominiums on 20.15 acres.
55 Single family homes West of East St.,between BaseIncomplete: 16 units of single family
Line Ave.and Victoria St. detached homes on 7.5 acres.
56 Condominiums Northeast corner of Base LineApproved: 156 units of condominiums
Ave. and Milliken Ave. on 20 acres. '
57 Fire station est side of Day Creek Blvd, Approved: Fire station No.3 (11,787 sq.
800'north of Base Line Rd. t.)on 2.46 acres
58 enior living southeast comer of Haven Ave. Approved: 135 assisted senior living
nd Church St. units on 5.4 acres. '
59 Church and School 12704 Foothill Blvd. Approved:Church and school(31,000 '
q. ft.)on 10 acres.
60Public Library orthwest corner of Milliken pproved: Public library(128,000 sq.
ve. and Base Line Rd. t.)on 9.6 acres.
4-6 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 4.0 CumulativeAm
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
M. .27 3Ual CUMUTATIVE IMPACTS
RAYCIIO ETIWANDA ESTATES
1
' 61 blic Library orthwest comer of Spruce Ave.W pproved:New law library(10,000 sq.
nd Red Oak St. )on 2.25 acres.
tn'of FoNTANA
I estaurant and office Northwest corner of Cherry Ave. Approved:Restaurant(3,024 sq. ft.)and
uilding and Miller Ave. office building(12,840 sq. ft.)
2 Mini storage facility Southeast comer of Hilton Dr. Approved:Mini storage facility(117,225
and Redwood Ave. sq. ft.)
3 Mini storage facility 13475 Base Line Ave. Approved:Mini storage facility(94,987
' q.ft.)with 9,000 sq. ft.of retail
4 Bellgrove II Community 0.5 mile north of Base Line Ave.,Approved:360 dwelling units on 90
Ian between future extension of San acres.
Sevaine Ave. and Hemlock Ave.
5 California Landings South of SR 30/210,east of Approved: 791dwelling units(168.8
Specific Plan emlock Aveacres), school(9.9 acres),park(10.7
acres), commercial(14.6 acres)totaling
23 acres.
6 Centerstone Community 0.25 mile north of Base LineApproved: 75 dwelling units on 20 acres.
Plan Ave.,between future extension
' f San Sevaine Ave. and
Hemlock Ave.
1 7 rontana Grandview Northwest comer of Curtis Ave. Approved: 157 dwelling units on 40
ommunity Plan and Lytle Creek Rd. acres.
' 8 ontana Star Community Southwest comer of Walnut Ave.Approved: 111 dwelling units on 30
Ian nd Beech Ave. acres.
' 9Hunter's Ridge Specific Northwest of Summit Ave/1-15 (Approved: 1,793 dwelling units(344.2
Ian interchange,base of San Gabrielacres),commercial(9 acres),public
Mountains. 29.3 acres),open space(173.9 acres)on
95 acres.
10 omingside Community Bounded by Walnut Ave, futureApproved:423 dwelling units(71.6
Plan extension of San Sevaine Ave, acres),church(5 acres),commercial(9.9
Base Line Ave.,and Cherry Ave. cres)on 120 acres.
' \\RIV5\PR0JECTS\CRG132\DE1R\Section 4.0 Cumulative.dm 4-7
DP SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSAASSOCIATE-S.INC. '
CUMUTA I IMPACTS moot 27.M)l
RANCHO MWANDA ESTATES
11 Rancho Fontana Specific Bounded by BaseLine Ave., Approved: 2,395 dwelling units(455.5 '
Ian Lime Ave.,Miller Ave.,and Liveacres),commercial(20 acres),public
Oak. 29.5 acres),agriculture(10 acres)on
10 acres.
Bounded by Walnut Ave., %:
le west of Citrus Ave.,Base '
Line Ave.,and Beech Ave.
12 Sierra Lakes Specific Plan Bounded by Summit Ave, Sierra Approve&2,100 dwelling units(316 '
Ave.,SR-30/210,Citrus Ave.; acres),business park(3.6 acres),
ounded by Curtis Ave.,Citrus corporate center/restaurant row(22.6
Ave.,SR-30/210,and Catawbaacres),retail commercial(33.5 acres),
Ave. golf course(150.3 acres),parks(42.3 '
acres), schools(10 acres)on 700 acres.
13 Summit Heights Specific ounded by Summit Ave., LytleApproved:903 dwelling units(193.7 '
Plan Creek Rd., SR-30/210,and Sanacres),commercial(27.8 acres),
evaine Ave. parkland(13.6 acres)on 294 acres.
14 Walnut Village Specific ounded by SR-30/210, Approved: 1,644 dwelling units(300.4 '
Plan �almetto Ave.,Base Line Ave., acres),commercial(39 acres)on 342
d Sierra Ave. acres.
15 West End Specific Plan Bounded by old SPRR right-of- pproved:3,752 dwelling units(754.8
ay,Base Line Ave., Live Oakacres),office(14.2 acres),
Ave.,Hemlock Ave.,Foothilloffice/commercial(10 acres),industrial '
Blvd.,and East Ave. 48.4 acres), industrial(418.8acres),
schools(22.1 acres),parks/civic
uses/open space(126.8 acres)on 1,465
acres. '
16 Westgate Specific Plan North of Base Line Ave., Approved:2,505 dwelling units(500.1
paralleling the east side of 1-15acres),retail commercial(9.4 acres), '
wy. business park(117.6 acres),school(10
acres),park(15 acres),open
pace/mixed use/utility corridor(221.1 '
acres)on 954 acres.
The location of each of these related projects is shown in Figure 4-1. The cumulative impacts of the ,
revised Rancho Etiwanda Estates project are addressed in each impact analysis that is provided in
Section 5.0 of this document. '
The State CEQA Guidelines in Section 15130 discusses the methods for addressing cumulative
impacts in an EIR. This section states that one of two methods may be used for cumulative analysis:
1)either a list of past,present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, '
or 2)a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document.
Although the 1991 Final EIR and Addendum used the second method (i.e.,projections contained in
the general plan), it was concluded through discussions with the City,that for the Rancho Etiwanda '
4-8 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG1320EIR\Smtion 4.0 Cumulative.dm
1
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
M cn 27,2001 CUMIIIAT IMPACTS
RANCHO E'DR'A.NDn ESTATES
Estates project,the first method of discussing related projects (i.e., list of past, present and probable
future projects) would be more accurate in terms of analyzing cumulative impacts. Since CEQA
states that either method may be utilized,this does not result in a conflict with the previous
cumulative discussions in the 1991 Final EIR or Addendum.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI 32\DEIR\Smtion 4.0 Cumulative.dm 4-9
ma
9..
ow
4e�or. � R 15 rc`.
p
E o v
WNwn Avanw '-
Wilson Avenue
0
3
snr1
m n ,
i
Avenue �
i m
i
Q
Ararare
_:__ -- HlphlanE Avenue .r � HlgtYrd E O
19th
Y¢ten Park m Lane Ywlorle Sheet 15 B
m n
v
U Base Linn Roatl
Base Line Road 7
• a al t enta r_
8 Drcle 11
p y I
Im
h�
d a Lb2tty n�rF W:1' 'Z ty.
59eet h- _Kt17/T" 1 • FooMil Boulevard ° N
Foothill Boulevard < I <
® 62so o xaso
FEF
w Anva Route
A row Roule
L S A FIGURE 4-1
® PROJECTLOCATION COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
MCOUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ❑ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Cumulative Map
CITYOFRANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF FONTANA
7O CITY OF FONTANA CITY OF RIALTO
R:\CRG132WAVhics\E1R\cumuletive.cdr(3127/01)
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. I)R SUPPLEMENTAL E.IR
AIa QIIALrIY'
Mn t 27,2W1
RWCIIO FOa'dVU EAS
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
5.1 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The project proposes the development of 632 single-family dwelling units on 247.8 acres in an
unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino. The proposed project site is within the South
Coast Air Basin(SCAB) and thus, is subject to a review with respect to the South Coast Air Quality
' Management District's(SCAQMD)Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP). The SCAB comprises
all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino
Counties.
' Climate. The climate in and around the vicinity of project area, as with all of Southem California, is
controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific
Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a
1 few storms during the winter"wet"season. Temperatures are normally mild, except for the summer
months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all portions of the basin,
temperatures well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit(F)have been recorded in recent years. The annual
average temperature in the basin is approximately 62 degrees F.
Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system.
Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally
slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Local canyons alter wind direction, when the
wind tends to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the
other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum
from the south. The frequency of calm winds(less than 2 miles per hour) is less than 10 percent.
Therefore,there is little stagnation in the project vicinity,especially during busy daytime traffic
hours.
Southern California frequently has temperature inversions, which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants.
Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Grounds based inversions, sometimes referred to
' as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter momings. Under conditions
of a ground-based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of
primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a
variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict
vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for
elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a
lid over the SCAB and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in
the air basin.
Monitored Air Quality. Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local
pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air
basin. Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions("1997 Air Quality
Management Plan," October 1996). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of
regional emissions. Motor vehicles(i.e., on-road mobile sources) account for approximately 51
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-1
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISA WC)CIAMS,INC. ,
AIR QUALITY MARCD 27,2W I
RANCHO u
percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide(NOx)emissions, and
approximately 78 percent of carbon monoxide(CO) emissions.
The project site is closest to the SCAQMD's Fontana Air Quality Monitoring Station. The data '
collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity
of the project area. The monitored air quality data at the Fontana station is available for ozone, PMIo, '
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). CO air quality data is available at the San
Bernardino station, which is the next closest air quality monitoring station. The air quality monitored
data from 1997 to 1999 for these pollutants are shown in Table 5.1-A.
According to the monitoring data shown in Table 5.1-A, ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern
in the project area. The state ozone standard was exceeded 26 days in 1999, 60 days in 1998 and 65 '
days in 1997. Ozone levels have consistently exceeded the state standards in the last three years.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions
between other pollutants,most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2,which occur only in the presence
of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce '
the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the
ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station,with the more significant areas being those
directly upwind.
Table 5.1-A
AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT FONTANA/SAN BERNARDINO ,
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATIONS
Days State '
California National Maximum Standard
Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Exceeded
0 1999 0.14 26 ,
Ozone .09 0.12 1998 0.20 60
for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1997 0.17 65
3 a 1999 116 216(59%)
Particulates 50
,Ug/M3 150µg/m 1998 101 168(46%)
PMI'** for 24 his. for 24 his. 1997 122 174(48%) ,
0.25 ppm 0.053 ppm 1999 0.15 0
NO2for 1 hr. AAM 1998 0.15 0 ,
1997 0.15 0
0.05 ppm 0.14 ppm 1999 0.009 0
S02for 24 his. for 24 his. 1998 0.011 0
1997 0.001 0
20 ppm 35 ppm
1999 5.5 0
CO for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1998 7.0 1 0
9.0 ppm9 ppm
1999 4.1 0199 4.7 0
,
CO for 24 his. for 24 his. 1998 6.0 0
** PMI,samples were collected every 6 days. The percentages refer to the percent of samples exceeding ,
the standard and not the number of days per year that the standard was exceeded.
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to the operation of motor vehicles. High levels
of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways. CO levels in the project region currently
5.1-2 \WV5\PR0JECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Smeon5.1 Air Qualiry.dm
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. I) A SUPPIFMEN"rA1 Elk
. . Ii 27,2WIAIR QIJMLL '
lla
RANCIIO E 'A.'DA ESTATES
comply with the State and federal 1-hour and 8-hour standards. CO may potentially be a continual
problem in the future for areas next to freeways and other major roadways.
The state standards for PMID have been exceeded consistently. State standards in the last three years
were exceeded for approximately 59 percent of the days measured in 1999, 46 percent of the days
measured in 1998, and 48 percent of the days measured in 1997. The PMID trend in the last three
years showed that PMID levels and the frequency of exceedances have significantly increased. PMID
levels in the area are due to natural sources,grading operations and motor vehicles.
According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles
(PMID). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may
suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with
bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may
experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PMIo. Other groups considered sensitive are
1 smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also
considered sensitive,because many breathe through their mouths.
According to the monitored data shown in Table 5.1-A other than ozone, and PM10 exceedances as
' mentioned above,no State or federal standards were exceeded for the remaining criteria pollutants.
Local Air Quality
Introduction and Criteria. Local air quality is a major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide
is a primary pollutant. Unlike ozone, carbon monoxide is directly emitted from a variety of sources.
The most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason, carbon monoxide
concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are
used to assess its impacts on the local air quality. Comparisons of levels with State and federal
carbon monoxide standards indicate the severity of the existing concentrations for receptors in the
project area. The Federal and State standards for carbon monoxide are presented in Table 5.1-B.
' Table 5.1-B
FEDERAL AND STATE CARBON MONOXIDE STANDARDS
Agency Standard
Federal 1 hour 35 ppm
8 hours 9 ppm
State 1 hour 20 ppm
i8 hours 9 ppm
Carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity due to nearby roadways were assessed with the
CALINE4 computer model. CALINE4 is a fourth generation line source air quality model developed
by the California Department of Transportation("CALINE4,"Report No. FHWA/CA/fL-84/15, June
1 1989). The precise methodology used in modeling existing air quality with the CALINE4 computer
model is discussed in more detail in the discussion on Long Term Impacts - Local Air Quality. The
' \\RIV5TROJECTWRG 132\DEIR\S"tion 5.1 Air Quality.dm 5.1-3
DRAFT SUPPI MEWM.EIR LSA A.SSCCIATF_S,INC. i
AIR QuM .MARCH 27,2001
remainder of this section discusses the resulting existing carbon monoxide levels in comparison to the
State and federal carbon monoxide standards.
The CALINE4 computer modeling results for the existing conditions are shown below in Table 5.1- ,
C(Existing Modeled Carbon Monoxide Concentrations(ppm)). The CALINE4 CO modeling was
conducted for nine receptor locations in the vicinity of the project. Each receptor location coincides ,
with an intersection that has adjacent sensitive receptors and a future LOS (Level of Service) of D or
worse. The following is a list of areas that were analyzed as sensitive receptor locations.
♦ Northeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue ,
♦ Southeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Summit Avenue
♦ Southeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue '
♦ Northeast comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue
♦ Southeast comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Summit Avenue
♦ Northeast comer of Etiwanda Avenue and SR-30/210 ,
♦ Southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue
♦ Northeast comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street
♦ Northeast comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road ,
Table 5.1-C
EXISTING MODELED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
Carbon Monoxide Concentration
m
Receptor&Location 1 Hour 8 Hour '
1 NE Comer Day Creek&Wilson 3.7 3.0
2 NW Corner Etiwanda&Wilson 3.9 3.2
3 SE Comer Etiwanda& Summit 5.1 4.2
4 SE Comer Day Creek&Summit 3.8 3.1
5 NE Corner Etiwanda&SR-30 5.3 4.3
6 SW Corner Etiwanda&Highland 7.2 5.8
7 ISE Corner Day Creek&Highland 6.7 5.4
8 NW Comer Etiwanda&Victoria 5.1 4.2
9 NW Comer Etiwanda&Base Line 5.2 4.2
Maximum CO Concentration 7.2 5.8
State CO Concentration Standard 20 9 ,
No. of Receptors Greater Than State Standard 0 0
The CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 3.4 ppm for 1-hour levels, and
2.8 ppm for 8-hour levels.
The existing background CO concentrations were taken from the April 1993 CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. (The April 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is the latest available source.) The
existing (2000)background CO concentrations used in the modeling were obtained from the Fontana
station, which is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the project site. The existing background
CO concentrations are projected to be 3.4 ppm for 1 hour, and 2.8 ppm for 8 hour. Therefore, 3.4
5.14 \\IdIV5\PR0JECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.dIx ,
I SA A SOCIAM,INC. DRA£r SDPPLEMENTAL EIR
1 cR27,2o01AIR QDAL11Y
RARCIIO F 'ANDA 6STATFS
ppm is added to the worst-case meteorological 1-hour projections, and 2.8 ppm to the 8-hour
projections, to account for the existing background carbon monoxide levels.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Regional Air Quality Planning Efforts. The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air
Basin(SCAB) and,jurisdictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District(SCAQMD) and to a lesser extent,the California Air Resources Board(CARS). The
SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin and develops and
implements Transportation Control Measures. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle
emissions. CARB establishes legal emission rates for new vehicles and is responsible for the vehicle
inspection program. Other important agencies in the air quality management for the basin include the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and the Southern California Association of
Governments(SCAG). The EPA implements the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act(CAA).
This act establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In areas that are not
achieving the standards the CAA requires that plans be developed and implemented to meet the
standards. The EPA oversees the efforts in this air basin and insures that appropriate plans are being
' developed and implemented. The primary agencies responsible for writing the plan are SCAG and
the SCAQMD, and the plan is called the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP).
SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have developed
the AQMP for the air basin. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the
basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting State and federal ambient air quality standards.
The Governing Board of the SCAQMD adopted the 1997 AQMP locally on November 8, 1996.
CARB has amended the 1997 AQMP and has submitted it to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency(EPA)as part of the California State Implementation Plan(SIP). The document needs to be
reviewed and approved by the EPA. The 1997 revision to the AQMP was adopted in response to the
requirements set forth in the California Clean Air Act(CCAA)and the 1990 amendments to the
CAA.
' In early January of 1999, the U.S. EPA proposed partial approval/disapproval of the 1997 Ozone SIP
revisions citing concerns with the ozone control strategy provided in the 1997 AQMP. To address
these concerns,the "1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revisions for the SCAB" was prepared
and adopted by the SCAQMD in late 1999. The 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revisions
provides additional short-term stationary source control measures and implement portions of the 1997
Ozone SIP's long-term stationary source control measures. In addition,the Amendments revised the
1 adoption and implementation schedule for the remaining 1997 Ozone SIP short-term stationary
source control measures that AQMD is responsible to implement. The amendment is intended to
address U.S. EPA concerns relative to the adoption schedule for short-term control measures and the
' increased reliance on long-term control measure. The U.S. EPA indicated in a letter to the Governing
Board that it believes the 1999 Amendment would be approved and would expedite the review and
approval process.
The SCAB has been designated by the EPA as a non-attainment area for ozone,carbon monoxide,
and PMIo standards. The SCAB has been designated by CARB as a non-attainment area for the state
ozone and PMID standards. The Los Angeles County portion of SCAB has been designated a non-
attainment area for State carbon monoxide standards. Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties
\\RIV5\PR0JECTS\CRG 132\DEIR\Smtion 5.1 Air Qualiry.dm 5.1-5
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSA ASSCCMTTS.INC.
NR QUALM MARCII 27.2001
RANCHO ETWANDA MATES
have been designated by CARB as being in attainment for State carbon monoxide standards.
Nitrogen dioxide in the SCAB has met the Federal standards for the third year in a row, and therefore,
is qualified for redesignation to attainment. In 1998,the EPA approved the NO2 attainment and ,
maintenance portions of the 1997 AQMP and redesignated the SCAB as in attainment for NO,. A
maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is included in the 1997 AQMP. The CCAA mandates the
implementation of the program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards ,
(CAAQS)and the CAA mandates the implementation of new air quality performance standards.
Attainments of all Federal PMIO health standards are to be achieved by December 31, 2006,and
ozone standards are to be achieved by November 15,2010. For CO, the deadline was December 31,
2000.
The overall control strategy for the AQMP is to meet applicable State and federal requirements and to ,
demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP uses two tiers of
emission reduction measures; (1) short-and intermediate-term measures, and(2) long-term measures.
Short- and intermediate-term measures propose the application of available technologies and
management practices between 1994 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies
and proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have statutory authority to '
implement such measures. Short- and intermediate-term measures in the 1997 AQMP include 35
stationary source, 7 on-road, 6 off-road, 1 transportation control and indirect source, 5 advanced
transportation technology, and 1 further study measures. All of these measures are proposed for
implementation between 1995 and 2005. These measures rely on both traditional command and
control and on alternative approaches to implement technological solutions and control measures.
To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be necessary t
beyond the implementation of short- and intermediate-term measures. Long-term measures rely on
the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to occur
between 1997 and 2010. These long-term measures rely on further development and refinement of
known low-and zero-emission control technologies for both mobile and stationary sources, along
with technological breakthroughs.
Thresholds of Significance
A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would ,
violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation,
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted
environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. In addition to the federal and
State AAQS, as listed in Table 5.1-1),the SCAQMD has established daily and quarterly emissions
thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the Basin.
5.1-6 \WV5\PROJECTS\CROI32\DEIR\Secrion5.1 AirQualiry.doc ,
ISA ASSOCIATES.INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
A CR 27,2001 AIR QuM_r
RANCIIO ETWANDA ESTATES
Table 5.1-D
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
STATE
Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Primary Secondary
Ozone(Ot) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Same as
(180µg/m') (235 µg/ru ) Primary Std.
8-Hour 0.08 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide(NO,) Annual Average - 0.053 ppm Same as
(100µg/m') Primary Std.
1-Hour 0.25 ppm -
(470 pg/m')
Carbon Monoxide(CO) 8-Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
(10mg/m') (10mg1nn
1-Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm -
(23 mg/m') (40 mg/m')
Suspended Particulate Annual 30µg/m'
Matter(PMIO) Geometric Mean
24-Hour 50µg/m' 150µg/m' Same as
Primary Std.
Annual 50µg/m'
Arithmetic Mean
1 Suspended Particulate 24-Hour - 15 µg/m'
Matter(PM,,)
Annual - 65 µg/m' -
' Arithmetic Mean
Sulfur Dioxide(SO2) Annual Average 80µg/m'
(0.03 ppm)
24-Hour 0.04 ppm 365 µg/m' -
(105 µg/m') (0.14 ppm)
3-Hour 1,300µg/m'
(0.5 ppm)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm - -
(655 µg/ru)
Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m' - -
Calendar Quarter - 1.5 µg/m' Same as
Primary Std.
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m' - -
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm - -
(42 µg/m')
Vinyl Chloride(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm
(26 µg/m')
Visibility Reducing Particles 8-Hour
(10 am-6 pm PST)
Notes: ppm—parts per million
mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter
µg/m'=micrograms per cubic meter
* In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when
' the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Measurement in accordance with ARB Method V.
Source: California Air Resources Board(ARB), 1992.
' \UUV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Smtion 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-7
DMR SDPPIEMEWM.EIR ISAASSOCIAIFS,INC. ,
NR QUML MARCII 27,2 I
Presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook is both a methodology for the quantification 1
of project-related air quality impacts and recommended thresholds to evaluate the significance of
those emissions. The thresholds are set at levels to protect human health with an adequate margin of
safety. The thresholds have been derived through research conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and are derived through years of research and
study.
In Chapter 6 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAQMD has established two types
of air pollution thresholds(i.e., emission thresholds and additional indicators)to assist local ,
governmental agencies in determining whether the projected emissions from the operational phase of
a project will be significant. As stated in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, "if the lead
agency finds that the operational phase of a project has the potential to exceed either of the air '
pollution thresholds,the project should be considered significant." Both types of threshold factors are
discussed below.
Emission Thresholds. Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as
pollutants of special regional concern. Based on this categorization, Table 5.1-E lists the following
significance thresholds for emissions from these pollutants.
Table 5.1-E
EMISSION SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Criteria Construction Criteria Operational Criteria
(lbs/day) (tons/quarter) (lbs/day) ,
CO 550 24.75 550
NOx 100 2.5 55
ROG 75 2.5 55
SO, 150 6.75 150
PM,0 150 6.75 150
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Chapter 6.
Note: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not list daily construction criteria for SO,. This ,
value is extrapolated from the quarterly criterion.
Projects in the SCAB with daily operation-related emissions that exceed any of the above emission
thresholds may be considered significant. Separate threshold standards have been recommended for
assessing construction impacts that are averaged over a 3-month period and include only actual ,
working days. Additionally,project emissions may be significant if vehicle CO emissions cause an
exceedence of either the State 1- or 8-hour CO standard.
As indicated in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, "the District considers a project to be ,
mitigated to a level of insignificance if its impact is mitigated below the thresholds defined in Chapter
6 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook."
5,1-8 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air QualityAm
L A ASSDCIATFS,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
M 1127,20[)I AIR QUMI
RANCI IO ETITAV UA ESTATES
Additional Indicators (Secondary Effects). The SCAQMD recommends that"additional
indicators"be used as screening criteria with respect to air quality. Relevant additional factors
identified in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook include the following significance criteria:
(1) interference with the attainment of the federal or State ambient air quality standards by either
violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation; (2)generation of vehicle
trips that cause a CO"hot spot"; (3)creation of or subject receptors to an objectionable odor that
requires a 10:1 dilution with fresh air before being no longer detectable; (4)introduction of hazardous
materials onsite that could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous
materials posing a threat to public health and safety; (5)emissions of an air toxic contaminant
regulated by SCAQMD rules or included on a federal or State air toxic list; (6)the burning of
hazardous,medical,or municipal waste as in waste-to-energy facilities; and/or(7) emissions of
carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum
individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million.
1 Impacts and Mitigation
' Air quality impacts are usually divided into short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts are usually
the result of construction or grading operations. Long-term impacts are associated with the build out
condition of the proposed project.
1 Less than Significant Impacts
Long Term Impacts-Local Air Quality. Because the project would introduce changes in traffic
' volumes on the roadways serving the project,a detailed analysis of carbon monoxide concentrations
at sensitive areas in the project vicinity was conducted.
Methodology. Carbon monoxide(CO) is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the
most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason carbon monoxide
concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network, and are
used as an indicator of its impacts on local air quality. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by
comparing future carbon monoxide levels with State and federal carbon monoxide standards
moreover by comparing future CO concentrations with and without the project. The Federal and
State standards for carbon monoxide were presented earlier in Table 5.1-B.
Future carbon monoxide concentrations with the project were forecasted with the CALINE4
computer model. CALINE4 is a fourth generation line source air quality model developed by the
California Department of Transportation("CALINE4,"Report No. FHWA/CAfrL-84/15,June
1989). The purpose of the model is to forecast air quality impacts near transportation facilities in
what is known as the microscale region. The microscale region encompasses the region of a few
thousand feet around the pollutant source. Given source strength,meteorology, site geometry,and
site characteristics, the model can reliably predict pollutant concentrations.
Worst-case meteorology was assessed when estimating potential long-term air quality impacts.
Specifically,a late afternoon winter period with a ground-based inversion was considered. For worst-
case meteorological conditions, a wind speed of 0.5 meter per second(1 mph) and a stability Class G
1 was utilized for a 1 hour averaging time. Stability Class G is the worst-case scenario for the most
turbulent atmospheric conditions. The higher stability class promotes dispersion of pollutants. The
\\RN5\PROJECTS\CRG132WEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.dw 5.1-9
DRAFT SDPPL MWr .EIR LSAA.SSOCIATFS.1\C. !
AIR Qumm .S CII 27.2001
A
CALINE4 Model determined a worst-case wind direction for each site. A sigma theta of 10 degrees
was also used and represents the fluctuation of wind direction. A high sigma theta number would
represent a very changeable wind direction. The temperature used for worst-case was 50 degrees
Fahrenheit. The temperature affects the dispersion pattern and emission rates of the motor vehicles.
The temperature represents the January mean minimum temperature as reported by Caltrans. The
wind speed, stability class, sigma theta, and temperature data used for the modeling are those
recommended in the "Development of Worst Case Meteorology Criteria," (California Department of
Transportation,June 1989). A mixing height of 1,000 meters was used as recommended in the
CALINE4 Manual. A surface roughness of the ground in the area, 100 centimeters, was utilized and ,
is based on the CALINE4 Manual. It should be noted that the results are also dependent on the
speeds of the vehicles utilized in the model.
Emission factors for the arterials used with the CALINE4 computer model were obtained from the
Air Resources Board(ARB). The emission factors of version MVEI7G, which is the latest version,
were used in the CALINE4 computer modeling.
The peak hour volumes and the level-of-service (LOS) data at the critical intersections have been
used in the CALINE4 computer modeling. The LOS data are important in the CALINE4 computer
modeling in that they determine the speeds used, and the speeds determine the emission factors. The ,
lower the speeds, the higher the emission factors, and as a result,the higher the CO results. The
worst-case(a.m. or p.m.)peak hour traffic was utilized for the CALINE4 computer modeling to
ensure a worst-case scenario is modeled. Modeling was performed for receptors at all intersections
with nearby sensitive receptors and LOS D or worse for the future with project conditions. The
traffic data was obtained from the traffic study for the project(The Rancho Etiwanda Estates Traffic
Impact Analysis, San Bernardino County, California Urban Crossroads, dated March 2001 [see ,
Section 5.4 (Traffic and Circulation)and Appendix E]).
Eight-hour carbon monoxide levels were projected using Caltrans methodology described in their
"Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes." The method essentially uses a persistence factor,which is
multiplied times the 1-hour emission projections. The projected 8-hour ambient concentration is then
added to the product. The persistence factor can be estimated using the highest ratio of 8-hour to 1- '
hour second annual maximum carbon monoxide concentrations from the most recent three years that
data is available. For the project, a persistence factor of 0.8 was utilized for the highway,as a worst-
case scenario. The data and results of the CALINE4 modeling are also provided in Appendix C.
(The CALINE4 CO emission results shown in the appendix do not include the ambient background '
CO levels.)
Generally,the 1-hour CO level is considered the peak maximum CO level since it is the highest CO
measured for an hour. According to the Caltrans Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes, changes in
meteorology and traffic over time disperse the CO concentration levels and cause it to be less severe.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the 1-hour CO levels would persist for a full eight hours. As a ,
result,a 1-hour CO level is generally considered to be the peak level and is usually higher than an 8-
hour CO level.
The CALINE4 computer modeling results for the year 2020 are shown in Table 5.1-F and Table 5.1-
G. The CALINE4 modeling was conducted for nine receptors.
5.1-10 \\R1V5\PR0JECTS\CRG 132\DE1R\Seaion 5.1 Air Quality.do
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRArr SUPPLENEN7U EIR
MMCH 2J,ZOnI AIR QUA1.ril'
P NCI1O ETICANDI ESTAIT-S
The future ambient(background) CO concentration levels were obtained from the 1993 CEQA
Handbook. The future projected ambient CO levels are available up to year 2000. For the proposed
project, it is assumed that the background CO levels for year 2000 are the same as year 2020. This
can be considered as the worst-case situation since the background CO levels are projected to
decrease steadily in the future year due to the improvement in emission control equipment installed in
new automobiles. The future background levels utilized are taken from the Fontana station, and they
are 3.4 ppm for CO 1-hour level, and 2.8 ppm for 8-hour CO level.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Modeling Results. The results of the CALINE4 CO modeling are
summarized in Tables 5.1-F and 5.1-G and are for year 2020. Table 5.1-F shows the results of the ]-
hour CO concentration modeling and Table 5.1-G shows the results of the 8-hour CO concentration
modeling. The existing modeled concentrations are shown for reference in the first column of
concentrations in the tables. The second column shows the modeled concentrations for the Future No
Project scenario. That is, the future CO concentrations without the project. The third column shows
the concentrations with the project and no roadway improvements in the vicinity of the project as
t discussed in the traffic study. The fourth column presents the CO concentration with the project and
the roadway improvements discussed in the traffic study. Not all of the improvements are completely
funded and both cases are shown here. The pollutant levels are expressed in parts per million (ppm)
' for each receptor. The carbon monoxide levels reported in Table 5.1-F and Table 5.1-G are
composites of the background levels of carbon monoxide coming into the area plus those generated
by the local roadways.
Table 5.1-F
WORST CASE PROJECTIONS OF 1-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
1 (YEAR 2020)
1 Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentration(ppm)
Future No Future With Future With Project&
Receptor&Location Existing Project Project Roadway Improvements
1 INE Comer Day Creek&Wilson 3.7 5.8 6.2 4.6
2 NW Comer Etiwanda&Wilson 3.9 5.0 5.4 4.3
T SE Corner Etiwanda&Summit 5.1 5.7 6.0 4.6
4 SE Corner Day Creek& Summit 3.8 5.9 6.1 4.6
' 5 NE Comer Etiwanda&SR-30 5.3 1 10.2 10.3 7.6
6 SW Corner Etiwanda&Highland 7.2 7.7 7.8 5.6
7 SE Comer Day Creek&Highland 6.7 8.7 8.8 6.1
8 NW Comer Etiwanda&Victoria 5.1 5.2 5.3 4.3
9 JNW Corner Etiwanda&Baseline 5.2 6.3 6.9 4.9
Maximum Modeled Concentration 7.2 10.2 10.3 7.6
State I-Hour CO Standard 20 20 20 20
Greater Than State Standard? No No No No
The 1-hour CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 3.4 ppm.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-11
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSA ASSOCUTES.INC. ,
AIR QDAIfIY MARCII 2 i.2W 1
Y Y S
Table 5.1-G
WORST CASE PROJECTIONS OF 8-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(PEAR 2020)
8 Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations m
Future With Project ,
Future No Future With & Roadway
Receptor & Location Existing Project Project Improvements
1 NE Comer Day Creek&Wilson 3.0 4.7 5.0 3.8
2 NW Comer Etiwanda&Wilson 3.2 4.1 4.4 3.5
T SE Comer Etiwanda& Summit 4.2 4.6 4.9 3.8
4 SE Comer Day Creek& Summit 3.1 4.8 5.0 1 3.8
5 NE Comer Etiwanda& SR-30 4.3 8.2 8.3 6.2
6 SW Corner Etiwanda&Highland 5.8 6.2 6.3 4.6
7 ISE Corner Day Creek&Highland 5.4 7.0 7.1 5.0
8 JNW Comer Etiwanda& Victoria 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.5
9 JNW Comer Etiwanda&Baseline 4.2 5.1 5.6 4.0
Maximum Modeled Concentration 5.8 8.2 8.3 6.2
State 1-Hour CO Standard 9 9 9 9
Greater Than State Standard? No No I No No
The 8-hour CO concentrations include the ambient concentrations of 2.8 ppm. ,
Table 5.1-F and Table 5.1-G show that none of the receptors modeled are projected to exceed either
the 1-hour or 8-hour State CO concentration standards. The tables show that the future
concentrations(with or without the project)will increase between 0.1 and 5.0 ppm over existing
conditions without roadway improvements. The greatest increase over existing conditions occurs at
Receptor 5 and is caused by the addition of SR-30 to the area. Excluding Receptor 5 the increase in
future concentrations range from 0.1 to 2.5 ppm.
The project, without roadway improvements, is shown to increase future 1-hour CO concentrations '
between 0.1 and 0.6 ppm and 8-hour CO concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5 ppm. The 0.6 ppm 8-
hour CO concentration increase at Receptor 9 is considered significant. However,because the ,
resulting CO concentration (5.6 ppm)does not exceed the State standard this does not represent a
significant impact.
Two conditions are required for a significant local air quality impact to occur. First the CO
concentrations with the project must be shown to be above the 1-hour or 8 hour State standard.
Second the project must significantly increase CO concentrations over future no project conditions.
The SCAQMD criteria considers a 1 ppm increase in the 1-hour concentration or a 0.45 ppm increase ,
in the 8-hour standard to be significant.
The project does not result in any receptors exceeding the State CO concentration standards and ,
therefore the first condition is not met. Therefore,the project does not result in a significant air
quality impact.
5.1-12 \\PdVS\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Smtion5.1 Air Quality.doc '
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPIMMENTAL FIR
MnR0127,2001 AIR QIJMI
RANCHO ETMAND.S EITATUS
Consistency with AQMP. An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project
and applicable general plans and regional plans(State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125). Regional
plans that apply to the proposed project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). In this regard,this section will discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project
and the AQMP.
The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the
assumptions and objectives of the AQMP, and discuss whether the project would interfere with the
region's ability to comply with federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers
determine that the project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or
inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.
The SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that, "New or amended General Plan
Elements(including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans,and significant
projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the
plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if
it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two
key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or seventy
of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations,or
delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission
reductions specified in the AQMP(except as provided for CO in Section
9.4 for relocating CO hot spots).
(2) Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010
or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.
' Criterion 1 -Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations. Based on the air quality
modeling analysis contained in this report, it is expected that there would be short-term construction
impacts for the proposed project. It is unlikely that short-term construction activities would increase
the frequency or seventy of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD
Rules and Regulations, but emissions would be generated in excess of SCAQMD's threshold criteria
(refer to the Short-Term Impacts Section above).
The proposed project would increase regional emissions by an amount greater than the SCAQMD
thresholds for ROG and NOx(see Table 5.1-J). However,as shown in Table 5.14 the project is not
projected to contribute significantly to the local air quality because the CO, PMIo, and SOx emissions
are below thresholds established by the SCAQMD, and all of the pollutants evaluated would
contribute a very small percentage of the total emissions generated in the SCAB on a daily basis. The
1 increase in the project traffic would be minimal and the local CO concentration levels associated with
the project traffic would not be detectable. Because the project is not projected to impact the local air
quality,the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.
' \\M5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.dw 5.1-13
DRArr SDPPL MEN OR ISAA.SSOCRA .INC.
AIR Ql A NARCII?r.3W 1
RM400
Criterion 2 -Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP. Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is
determined by performing an analysis of the project with the assumptions in the AQMP. Thus,the
emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the project are based on the ,
same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCP&G) consists of
three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters,and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management,
Regional Mobility,Air Quality,Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters ,
constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal
and State requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of
their plans for purposes of determining consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. '
Since the SCAG forecasts are not detailed,the test for consistency of this project is not specific. The
traffic modeling upon which much of the air quality assessment is based on is the County of San
Bernardino Congestion Management Program(CMP). Traffic modeling for the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project is in conformance with the CMP and City of Rancho Cucamonga methodologies. The
traffic modeling has growth projections for year 2020. The future traffic growth projections include
approved projects to be constructed in year 2020. It should be noted that San Bernardino County
already approved the development of 660 residential units for the project site in 1991. Therefore,the
development of 632 residential units on the project site is already included in the AQMP. The project
proposes 38 less residential units and is considered to be a minor decrease in AQMP assumptions. It ,
appears that the growth forecasts for the project are consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts. The
forecasts made for the project EIR seem to be based on the same demographics as the AQMP, and
therefore,the second criteria is met for consistency with AQMP.
Inclusion of AQMP Measures. The 1997 AQMP lists strategies designed to improve air quality
throughout the region. These measures examine solutions to regional air quality concerns. A two-
tiered approach is used in the 1997 AQMP. The first is short- and medium-term measures that would
utilize existing technology. The second tier is long-term measures that would rely on new
technology. Each tier then contains several control measures intended to reduce emissions from
specific sources or activities including stationary sources,transportation related and land use related
sources,area sources, mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources.
Regional Air Quality—Long-Term. The most significant reductions in regional and local air
pollutant emissions are attainable through programs, which reduce the vehicular travel associated
with the project. Support and compliance with the AQMP for the SCAB is the most important ,
measure to achieve this goal. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and
implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures
designed to reduce air emissions are included. None of these recommended mitigation measures are
strictly required by SCAQMD. However, SCAQMD recommends the imposition of all relevant
mitigation measures.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 5.1.1 Peak grading and construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District thresholds for criteria pollutant of NOx, which is 2.5 tons per quarter and
PM10, which is 150 pounds per day. Emissions of other criteria pollutants would be below the
standards. '
5,1-I4 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Scction5.1Air Quality.doc ,
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MnRCT127,2001 AIR QUALITY
RANCIIO ETR DA ESTATES
The grading schedule,the length of completion for each phase, and the number of pieces of
construction equipment is not known at this time. As a worst-case scenario, each phase is assumed to
have 6 month grading cycles and construction would be completed in 2 years.
Temporary air quality impacts would result from grading activities for on-site uses and off-site water
facilities and the construction of proposed on-site uses. Air pollutants would be emitted by
construction equipment operating on the site and fugitive dust would be generated during grading and
site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency(according to the 1993 CEQA Handbook, emission factor for
disturbed soil is 0.40 tons of PMIo per month per acre). If water or other soil stabilizers are used to
control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the PMtoemissions can be reduced by 50 percent.
The calculations include a 50%reduction for PMIo emissions due to watering.
Phase 1,applying the above factor to the 96.63 acres of graded area, 6 month grading cycles,and an
estimated 2 year construction period would result in an average estimate of 315 pounds of PMIo per
day. This estimate represents an average annualized daily estimate of the PMIo emissions generated.
However, it should be noted that the emission would not be averaged out over 365 days per year.
Typically, the grading for one or two phases of development would be completed and then no grading
would occur for several months until the next development phase is initiated. When intense grading
(mass grading) and construction activities occur,the daily peak emission is estimated to be
approximately 1,258 pounds of PMIo Heavy-duty construction equipment air emissions are difficult
to quantify because of day-to-day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical
emission rates for construction equipment were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook.
To grade an area of this size, 15 pieces of heavy-duty equipment may be expected to operate at one
time. The number of pieces of equipment assumed included 3 scrapers,2 tractors,2 graders, 3
dozers, 2 water trucks, and 3 pieces of miscellaneous equipment. If all of the equipment operated for
eight hours per day the following emissions would result: approximately 83 pounds per day of carbon
monoxide, 12 pounds per day of ROG, 221 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 28 pounds per day of
PMIo, and 30 pounds per day of sulfur oxides. The data used to calculate the daily construction
emissions are shown in Appendix C.
Phase II, applying the above factor to the 56.15 acres of graded areas, 6 month grading cycles, and an
estimated 2 year construction period would result in an average estimate of 184 pound of PMIo per
day, and a daily peak estimate of 735 pounds of PMIo. To grade an area of this size, 12 pieces of
L heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. The number of pieces of equipment
assumed included 2 scrapers, 2 tractors, 2 graders, 2 dozers,2 water trucks, and 2 pieces of
miscellaneous equipment. If all of the equipment operated for eight hours per day the following
emissions would result: approximately 67 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 10 pounds per day of
ROG, 176 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 22 pounds per day of PMIo, and 22 pounds per day of
sulfur oxides.
Phase III, applying the above factor to the 93.75 acres of graded area, 6 month grading cycles,and an
estimated 2 year construction period would result in an average estimate of 305 pound of PM 10 per
I day, and a daily peak estimate of 1,221 pounds of PMIo. To grade an area of this size, 15 pieces of
heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. The number of pieces of equipment
assumed included 3 scrapers, 2 tractors, 2 graders, 3 dozers, 2 water trucks, and 3 pieces of
miscellaneous equipment. If all of the equipment operated for eight hours per day the following
emissions would result: approximately 83 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 12 pounds per day of
\\RIV5\PR0JECTS\CRG1 32TEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-15
DR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISAASSOCIATES.INC.
AIR QUALITY MARC11 27.2001
A iCHO E ANDA ESTA S
1
ROG, 221 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides,28 pounds per day of PMIo,and 30 pounds per day of
sulfur oxides.
For the proposed project, 1,258 pounds per day of PMIo due to Phase I, 735 pounds per day of PMIo r
associated with grading and construction of Phase II, and 1,221 pounds per day of PMIo due to Phase
III are minor when compared with the total average annual of 416 tons per day of particulate matter ,
currently released in the whole South Coast Air Basin(SCAB). However,according to the
SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook, PMIo emissions greater than 150 pounds per day should be
considered significant. The estimated daily PMIo emissions generated during grading and ,
construction of all three phases of the proposed project are projected to be greater than this threshold,
and therefore, are considered to be significant.
It should be noted that impacts due to grading are very localized. Additionally,this material is inert
silicates rather than the complex organic particulate matter released from combustion sources,which
are more harmful to health. In some cases grading may be near existing development. Care should
be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing dust generation is
watering before and during grading. Without watering,PMIo emission generation would be double
the amount mentioned previously.
There will also be some emissions generated by construction workers traveling to and from the job ,
site. However,information is not available to estimate these emissions, and they are usually small in
comparison to the other construction related air emissions. Assumptions and the data used to
calculate emissions generated by construction workers are shown in Appendix C.
Note that some of the pollutant emissions are greater than the Significance Emission Thresholds
established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and therefore,the project
construction emissions, specifically PMIo and NOx emissions are considered to be significant.
Mitigation measures are recommended for the construction activities of the project to minimize
fugitive dust and NOx emissions. The mitigation measures are provided below. The worst-case peak
construction emissions are summarized in Table 5.1-H. The data used to calculate the construction
emissions are shown in Appendix C.
r
r
r
r
r
r
5.1-16 \\PdV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc
tBAA OCIAM,INC. DKM7 SUPPLEMENTAL Elft
MARCH 27,2001 AIR QIJMI
M9C110 EIIWACDN ESTATES
i
Table 5.1-H
WORST CASE PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Average Emissions Pounds per Da
Grading
Employee Activities Equipment Total SCAQMD
Pollutant Travel PMIo only) Emissions Emissions Thresholds
PHASE I
Carbon
Carbon Monoxide 11.93 82.54 95 550
ROG 1.89 12.42 14 75
Nitrogen Oxides 1.14 - 220.70 222 100
PMIo 0.16 1,258 28.33 1.286 150
Sulfur Oxides 0.08 29.45 30 150
PHASE II
Carbon Monoxide 9.55 _ 67.14 77 550
ROG 1.51 10.14 12 75
Nitrogen Oxides 0.91 - 176.38 177 100
PMIo 0.13 735 22.21 757 150
Sulfur Oxides 0.06 22.22 23 150
PHASE III
Carbon Monoxide 11.93 _ 82.54 95 550
ROG 1.89 12.42 14 75
Nitrogen Oxides 1.14 - 220.70 222 100
PMIo 0.16 1,221 28.33 1,249150
Sulfur Oxides 0.08 29.45 30 150
NOTE: The bold/underlined data indicate exceedances of the significant thresholds.
Mitigation Measures
Construction Impacts - Short Term. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce
pollutant emissions from construction activities.
i 5.1.1A During construction, the contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation
measures listed in Table 5.1.I are implemented. Note that to achieve the particulate control
efficiencies shown, it was assumed that finished surfaces will be stabilized with water and/or
dust palliatives and isolated from traffic flows to prevent emissions of fugitive dust from
these areas. In addition, the following water application rates have been assumed:
• Roads traveled by autos, rock trucks, water trucks, fuel trucks, and maintenance
trucks: up to twice per hour.
• Roads traveled by scrapers and loaders; active excavation area: up to three times per
hour.
' • Finish grading area: up to once every two hours.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-17
DRAFT SUPFI MWAr OR IS SOCIATFS.INC. t
AIR QUMH MARCH 27.2001
RANCHO EmE&NDA MATU
j
5.1.113 All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce
operational emissions. The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained. ,
Table 5.1-I ,
MITIGATION FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EMISSIONS
Construction Vehicle/Equipment Operation ,
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
• Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve
traffic flow(e.g.,flag person).
• Provide on-site food service for construction workers.
• Prohibit truck idling in excess of 10 minutes.
• Apply 4-6 degree injection timing retard to diesel IC engines,whenever feasible.
• Use reformulated low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment,whenever feasible.
• Use catalytic converters on all gasoline-powered equipment.
• Minimize concurrent use of equipment through equipment phasing.
• Use low-NOx engines,alternative fuels and electrification whenever feasible.
• Substitute electric and gasoline-powered equipment for diesel-powered equipment
whenever feasible.
• Tum off engines when not in use. ,
• Wash truck wheels before trucks leave construction site.
• When operating onsite,trucks shall not be left idling for periods in excess of 10 minutes.
• Operate clean fuel van(s),preferably vans that run on compressed natural gas or propane,
to transport construction workers to and from construction site.
• Provide documentation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to beginning
construction demonstrating that the project proponents will comply with all SCAQMD
regulations including 402,403, 1113 and 1403.
• Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts.
For daily forecast,call(800)367-4710
(San Bernardino and Riverside counties).
Grading '
• Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive
construction areas(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders according to manufac-
turers'specifications,to exposed piles(i.e.,gravel,sand, dirt)with 5%or greater silt
content
• Water active sites at least twice daily.
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds(as instantaneous
gusts)exceed 25 mph.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand,soil,or other loose materials on-site are to be covered or
should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard(i.e.,minimum vertical distance between top
of the load and the top of the trailer)in accordance with the requirements of CVC Sec-
tion 23114.
• All trucks hauling these materials off-site shall be covered. ,
Paved Roads
• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
paved road(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). '
• Sweep public streets at the conclusion of construction work.
5.1-18 \\IUV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc
L5A ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
M 1127.MI AIR Ql1ALr1Y
KiNCI10 F 'ANDA ESTATILS
• Install adequate storm water control systems to prevent mud deposition onto paved areas.
Unpaved Roads
• Apply water three times daily,or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers'
specifications,to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
Source: LSA Associates Inc., 1999.
I Level of Significance After Mitigation. The quarterly SCAQMD construction emission thresholds
of significance would be exceeded for NOx and PMID during grading activities.
Although compliance with SCAQMD regulations would reduce air quality impacts due to dust from
construction,compliance would not ensure that NOx emissions from the construction equipment
would be below significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable.
Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts
tImpact 5.1-2. Development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts related to
long-term area source and mobile source airpollutant emissions.
The main source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor
vehicles. Other emissions would be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating
and the generation of electricity. Emissions would also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil
for the generation of electricity off-site.
Total Project Emissions. The total daily emissions were assessed for the proposed project. The
total daily emissions at project build out would be primarily due to vehicular emissions, and
emissions due to on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Also, the
generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions off-
site.
Vehicular emissions would be the main source of the project's daily emissions. Estimates were made
of the vehicular emissions that would be generated by the proposed project. The project trip
generation was taken from the traffic study prepared for the project(The Crest Traffic Impact
Analysis, San Bernardino County, California, RKJK and Associates, dated November 2, 2000). The
project is anticipated to generate 6,412 average daily trips (ADT). The average trip length data for
San Bemardino County were obtained from the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-5-D.
The average trip length for the proposed project is estimated to be 11 miles. The product of the
estimated project daily vehicle trips and an 11-mile average trip length,translate to total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)of 70,532 miles due to the proposed project.
The emission factors from version MVEI7G were used to calculate the estimated vehicular emissions.
1 The MVEI7G emission factors were obtained from the Air Resources Board (ARB). The MVEI7G
emission factors, at an average speed of 25 miles per hour, were used in the estimates. The emissions
were projected for year 2020.
\\RIV5\PR0JECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-19
DRM`FSDPPLE ENTM.EIR LSAA.SSO IATFS,INC t
NR QDALnY M CII 27.2001
MNCTI()
I
Other emission sources that would be generated by the proposed project are onsite combustion of ,
natural gas for space heating and water heating, and off-site electrical generation. The data used to
estimate the on-site combustion of natural gas, and off-site electrical generation are based on the
proposed land uses in terms of dwelling units and emission factors taken from the 1993 CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. These data are also provided as technical data in Appendix C. The total
emissions due to the project are presented in Table 5.1-J. ,
Table 5.14 ,
TOTAL DAILY EMISSIONS—YEAR 2020
D fly Pollutant Emissions lbs/da
Pollutant CO ROG NOx PMID sox
Vehicular Emissions 471.4 63.8 129.8 6.2 11.9
On Site Emissions From Natural Gas 2.9 0.8 11.7 0.0 0.0
Combustion
Off Site Emissions From Electrical 2.2 0.1 12.8 0.4 1.3
Generation
Total Project Emissions 476.6 64.6 1 154.3 1 6.7 13.2
Daily Emissions Threshold Standard 550 55 55 150 150
Exceeds Threshold Standard No Yes Yes No No
Total Regional Emissions. Emissions due to the on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, ,
and water heating and the off site generation of electrical energy are presented in Table 5.1-I.
Emissions for the proposed project were calculated using methodology and emission factors
contained in the SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The SCAB emission data projected for year 2010 are provided in the 1997 AQMP. The total
emissions generated by the project are presented in the first line of Table 5.1-J. ,
By combining the total emissions seen in Table 5.1-K, on a regional basis, the proposed project
would contribute less than 0.008 percent of the total South Coast Air Basin emissions. The primary
source of the proposed project emissions would be from motor vehicles.
Table 5.1-K shows that the project emissions exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for
ROG and NOx. Note also that these thresholds are not necessarily an appropriate reference to
determine the significance of project emissions. These thresholds are taken from the 1993 CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, which states that the criteria"are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act
definition of a significant source in an area classified as extreme for ozone." While it is correct that
the thresholds are consistent as such,the SCAQMD ignores the fact that such criteria were developed
initially by the U.S. EPA to be applied to point source emissions, such as an industrial smokestack.
Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from the proposed
project are clearly inappropriate in this context. Emissions from the proposed project are primarily
from motor vehicles traveling in the area. Emissions from the proposed project bear no resemblance
to emissions from industrial sources.
5.1-20 \\RIV5\PRGIECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Smtion 5.1 Air Qualiry.dm
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPEEMFNTAL EIR
MARCH 27,2001 AIR QUMll
RANCHO ED XNDA FSTATFS
Table 5.1-K
COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions
Emissions CO I ROG NOx PM10 sox
Project Emissions(lbs/day) E3,341
65 154 7 13
SCAQMD Threshold of 55 55 150 150
ISignificance
Project Emissions tons/da 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.01
2010 SCAB Emissions tons/da 769 697 457 70
Project Percentage of SCAB 0.007% 0.004% 0.011% 0.001% 0.009%
Emissions
It is also very important to note that, while the SCAQMD states that all projects with emissions
exceeding the thresholds are to be considered significant,the final decision whether a project is
declared to have significantly adverse environmental impacts lies,by law,with the lead agency. It is
not within the purview of the SCAQMD to declare that projects will have significant impacts or not.
Nevertheless, no other significance standards are available.
The SCAB has been classified as a non-attainment air basin for compliance with the federal Clean Air
Act. The daily emissions for the project would exceed the significant thresholds for ROG and NOx,
and therefore,the project's long-term impacts would be significant, and would contribute
incrementally to a cumulatively significant adverse impact.
jMitigation Measures
5.1.2A The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by
the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. The project applicant shall
incorporate the following in building plans:
Planting trees to provide shade and shadow to building;
Solar or low-emission water heaters shall be used with combined space/water heater unit; and
• Double-pained glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior
windows.
5.1.2B The project proponent shall determine with the City and the electrical purveyor if it is feasible
to pre-wire houses for electrical charges for EV cars and/or optic-fibers for home offices. If feasible,
install EV charges and/or optic-fibers per the electrical purveyor's direction prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
1 Level of Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce
the magnitude of the significance of impacts related to long-term areas source and mobile source
emissions; however,these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The long-term
regional air quality impact due to the proposed project would be significant for NOx and ROG.
\\RIVS\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Sect on 5.1 Air Quality.doc 5.1-21
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISAMSOCRM.INC. t
AIR QUALrrr MARCH 27,2 1
RANCHO E ANDA ESTAW
Cumulative Impacts
As indicated in the environmental setting section above, existing air quality in the SCAB is poor.
Cumulative air pollutant impacts,region-wide, are presented in the future scenario discussed in
SCAQMD's AQMP. Local cumulative impacts are reflected in the traffic volumes for the future base
case. Emissions from site clearing,and architectural coatings are not included therein. Substantial ,
efforts have been made by SCAQMD, SCAG,USEPA,and other agencies to achieve State and
federal air quality standards in the near future. In this context, emissions of CO,ROG,NOx, and
PMIo from project construction would temporarily and incrementally add to air quality impacts from
the development of the four related project developments planned for the project area. Because
emission levels for NOx and PMIo from construction activities would individually exceed
significance thresholds,they are also considered to be cumulatively significant.
Cumulative air quality impacts are also comprised of operational emissions from the project,plus
emissions(principally from automobile travel)resulting from regional growth and the four related
project developments planned for the project area. For this analysis, cumulative traffic projections
were based on SCAG's assumptions and methodologies for 2010 projected to the year 2020,based on
interim growth forecasts for post-2010 conditions. The cumulative operational emissions of criteria
air pollutants will add to the total emissions generated within the SCAB. In accordance with the
SCAQMD methodology,any project that produces a significant air quality impact in an area that is
not in attainment adds to the cumulative air quality impact. Thus,regional cumulative air quality
impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation measures for the project presented in this Section would aid in mitigating these cumulative
impacts to the extent feasible and would be applied to all similar cumulative projects. Mitigation for
projects involving the use of diesel equipment and trucks include restrictions that all vehicles and
equipment being kept in tune and that daily limitations on total daily equipment use be imposed,
catalytic converters be used on all gasoline-powered equipment, low-emission diesel fuel be used,and
diesel engines be substituted by electric or gasoline engines where feasible. Additionally, internal
combustion engines should not be left idling for prolonged periods,and construction should be
curtailed on high smog days. Daily watering of active construction areas and dirt roads shall be ,
required to reduce fugitive dust and daily restrictions on the amount of area grading shall be required.
Operational Mitigation for related residential and commercial developments would primarily come
from traffic congestion management and other regional air quality strategies. While the overall
effectiveness of the mitigation measures discussed above is still likely to be limited,their aggressive
adoption would at least attempt to reduce the overall air quality burden. In accordance with the
SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant air quality impact in an area that is
not in attainment adds to the cumulative air quality impact. Therefore,the proposed project will have
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
5.1-22 \\R1V5\PR0JECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Section 5.1 Air Quality.ilm ,
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SIJPPIEMENTA EIR
.MCH 27,2001 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
RANCHO BT DA ESTATES
5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section assesses the effects of the proposed project on biological resources at the project site.
The assessment is based on a review of literature sources and on general and focused surveys of the
project site for the California gnatcatcher(Polioptila californica californica)and San Bernardino
kangaroo rat(Dipodomys merriami parvus). A detailed biological report is contained in Appendix
D.
Methodology
The study area for the biological resources assessments consists of approximately 480 acres. The
480 acres surveyed included the 247.8 acre project site, Southern California Edison(SCE)and Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP) easements, and the future sites of Cucamonga
County Water District(CCWD) facilities(Figure 5.2-1).
A literature review was conducted to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of
sensitive plant and animal species on the project site or in the vicinity of the site. Database records
for the Cucamonga Peak,Devote, Fontana, and Cajon USGS quadrangles were searched on April 7,
2000,using the California Department of Fish and Game's(CDFG)Rarefind 2(CDFG,NDDB
1999a) and the California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Published soil surveys,the CDFG's
Conservation Plan for the Etiwanda-Day Canyon Drainage System (Safford and Quinn, 1998), and
the San Bernardino County North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program
(NEOSHPP) (San Bernardino County, 1994) were also consulted.
SBKR focused surveys were conducted between June 4 and June 9, 2000,totaling five trap nights
pursuant to currently accepted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)protocol under USFWS
i Permit No.TE-77965. The survey was conducted to update a previous focused survey for the SBKR
(LSA,August 1999)conducted during the Spring of 1999. No SBKRs were found during either the
1999 or 2000 surveys. Focused California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted between April 13 and
June 16, 2000 pursuant to USFWS California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol
(issued July 29, 1997. These surveys were conducted under USFWS Permit No. TE-77965. No
gnatcatchers were found during the 2000 survey. The detailed results of these surveys are provided
in Appendix D.
A general habitat assessment was conducted which also addressed general site conditions,habitat
suitability for special interest species,presence or absence of potential jurisdictional waters, and all
plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected. Aerial photographs were reviewed before
and during the site visit to aid in determining and mapping the locations of potential habitat of
sensitive species.
iEnvironmental Setting
1 Existing Site Conditions. The proposed project site(Figure 3.1)is bordered by the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north, residential development, a water treatment plant, and vacant.
` \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-1
`4
D
ka
7(_
S TU Y
Y
AREA
=c
Pon 'on'
Z=
wio�Winu�ana 4
IF'
ion
�
ve,
Iz
fi
Y
%
LOCATION )3flk
700
----------
�Er
Az
vp
L S A FIGURE 5.2-1
STUDYAREA Rancho Etiwanda Estates
PROJECT LOCATION Supplemental EIR
Study Area/Project Location
SOURCE:USGS 30'X60"QUAD-SAN BERNARDINO,CA.1982.
R:\CRGI 32\GmphiCS\EIR\SWi(3/27/01)
M MWIMMM M MOMMINOMMIM
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
R1ARC1127,2001 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
RANCHO PI &ND.A ESTATES
undeveloped land to the south,Day Creek Channel to the west, and vacant undeveloped land on the
east. East Etiwanda Creek is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site. The North
Etiwanda Preserve is located north of the project site. The.approved University Project site is
located south/southwest of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates site. A Southern California Edison(SCE)
utility corridor is present within and parallel to the northern project boundary and south of and
parallel to the southern project boundary.
Topography and Soils. The site is part of a broad alluvial fan situated at the base of the foothills of
the San Gabriel Mountains,with topography gently sloping to the southeast. All soil on the proposed
project site is mapped as"Soboba stony loamy sand, 2-9% slopes"except for a minimal amount of
Psamments and Fluvents on the eastern edge of the Day Creek Channel (Soil Conservation Service,
1979). The soils on site are rocky to cobbly to gravelly to sandy. The majority of the site is covered
in rock and cobble. The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 1,880 to 2,150 feet above
mean sea level.
Many individual and braided drainage channels exist on site. Only the drainage on the eastern
quarter of the site (identified on the USGS 7.5 Cucamonga Peak quad as a blue line stream)that is
tributary to Etiwanda Creek has been determined by the CDFG to be jurisdictional. No drainages are
1 under the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)jurisdiction(see Appendix F).
Plant Communities. As depicted in Figure 5.2-2 on-site vegetation is best classified as Riversidean
i alluvial fan sage scrub(Holland, 1986). Riversidean alluvial sage scrub may be composed of one or
more vegetative forms depending on the stage of development the plant community is in as a result
of effects from such factors as flooding and fire. The Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub onsite is
composed of two dominant vegetative forms: (1)white sage series, and(2)the chamise series with
birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides var. betuloides)as an important component
(Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). In addition, three small stands of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) are
present on the western portion of the project site.
• White Sage Series. The white sage series occurs over a majority of the site and is dominated by
white sage (Salvia apiana)with yerba santa(Eriodyctyon crassifolium) also predominant. Other
plant species present include California sagebrush(Artemisia californica), California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), and deerweed(Lotus scoparius).
Chamise SeriesBirchleaf Mountain Mahogany. The chamise series is dominated by chamise
(Adenostoma fasciculatum)and birchleaf mountain mahogany. This community is present on
the north central portion of the site.
IA complete list of plant species identified onsite is provided in Appendix D.
i
` \\RW5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-3
' -TWWt� 1�7'
'a, Vol
J,
_4
STUDY
AREA
-Ij
elz, j S /�Y/i 1~/ fit i r
4
;:.,.nc r ., w -x_.. 6 m.: - ..v �✓�x -�/.aM,.,�.flJ(/u�,ll`.';5a uesb�'a:.�v v�*;:s,k+Y+,s.,�*.�� E ::+. ,�^'� e. ��
�T.i'Y � ,rf� ,„. it` ilr /.G///?j" /��/— � 1,/`'���j S / 1 .l' � ff �,�Q
4
A"
J;'I
Jj
2
PROJECT
0 lank"
...
N.,.�
Y goo ........
—700 0 700 S,
Uj
L S A FIGURE 5.2-2
zSTUDYAREA RrVERSIDEAN ALLUVIAL FAN SAGE SCPUB Rancho Etiwanda Estates
zPROJECTLOCATION CHAMISE SERIES/BIRCHLEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY Supplemental EIR
0 EUCALYPTUSTREES WHITE SAGE SERIES Vegetation Map
SOURCE:USGS 30'X60"QUAD-SAN BERNARDINO,CA,1982.
R:\CRG132\Gmphics\E[R\veg.cdr(3/27/01)
so am we M we
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC, DRAFT SUPPLE.NENTAL EIR
. n II 27,2001 BIOLOGICAL RFSOIIRCES
R,NCIIO ETIa'ANDA ESTATES
North Etiwanda Preserve and the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation
Program (NEOSHPP) Area. The North Etiwanda Preserve (Preserve)consists of 762 acres of
Riversidian sage scrub habitat, located north of Rancho Cucamonga and east of Day Creek. This
natural area was purchased by San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)as mitigation
for the SR-30 Project. An endowment from SANBAG provides for the management,protection, and
operation of the Preserve. The County of San Bernardino, County Service Area 70, Improvement
Zone OS-1 (CSA, 70, OS-1) is responsible for the management and operation of the Preserve,
subject to advice and input of a District Commission, which is subordinate to the Board of
Supervisors. A Cooperative Management Agreement with the California Department of Fish and
Game contains the provisions for the management and operation of the Preserve, including funding,
biological monitoring, and related activities.
The purpose of the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program(NEOSHPP)is to
identify existing open lands having special resource value and to design a program that encourages
the preservation of these lands. Resource values include critical habitats, unique communities,
riparian areas, corridor connections, and lands with special scenic, archaeological or historical value.
Lands with special resource value could be added to existing open space areas to provide
connections between open space areas, increasing sizes and reducing fragmentation. This program
accomplishes this augmentation of open space areas by encouraging property owners to use various
mechanisms that promote preservation of key parcels. The program was adopted by the San
Bernardino Board of Supervisors on April 26, 1994. The NEOSHPP area is located northeasterly of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is roughly bounded by Deer Creek on the west, the City of
Fontana on the east, the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the south, and the San Bernardino National
Forest on the north.The majority of the program area is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga
1 sphere-of-influence, with a small portion being within the City of Fontana sphere-of-influence and
the remaining area being within the National Forest boundary. The program area comprises
approximately 7,243 acres.
1 Existing Polices and Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act. The federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)was promulgated to
protect any species of plant or animal, which is endangered or threatened with extinction. "Take"of
endangered species is prohibited under Section 9 of the ESA. Take as defined under the ESA means
to "harass,harm,pursue,hunt,wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct" [16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)].
Section 7 of the Act requires federal agencies to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service(USFWS) on proposed federal actions (actions authorized, funded,or carried out by federal
agencies)which may affect threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Section 7 also requires federal agencies to confer with the USFWS if
the agency determines that its action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Section 10 of the ESA provides the regulatory mechanism which allows the incidental take of a listed
species by private interests and non-federal government agencies during lawful land, water, and
ocean use activities. Under these conditions,habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for the impacted
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-5
13 A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSAASSOCIAT .INC. t
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MARCH 27.2WI
species must be developed, approved by the USFWS, and implemented by the permitted. It is the ,
goal through the HCP to minimize impacts to the species and develop viable mitigation measures to
offset the unavoidable impacts.
California Endangered Species Act. The State of California has promulgated the California
Endangered Species Act. This Act is similar to the federal ESA in that its intent is to protect species
of fish, wildlife, and plants that are in danger of, or threatened with, extinction because their habitats
are threatened with destruction, adverse modification,or severe curtailment, or because of
overexploitation, disease,predation,or other factors.
The threshold for take under the federal ESA is lower than that under the California ESA. "Take" as
defined under the California ESA means hunt,pursue,capture,or kill, or attempt to hunt,pursue,
capture, or kill. Under certain conditions,the California ESA has provisions for take through a 2081
permit or a 2081 Memorandum of Understanding. The impacts of the authorized take must be
minimized and fully mitigated. No permit may be issued if the issuance of the permit would
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Jurisdictional Waters. The U. S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)regulates discharges of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States. These waters include wetlands and non-wetland
bodies of water that meet specific criteria, including a direct or indirect connection to interstate
commerce. The Corps regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act
is founded on a connection, or nexus,between the water body in question and interstate commerce.
This connection may be direct, through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional
navigable waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, or may be indirect,through a nexus
identified in the Corps'regulations. In order to be considered a jurisdictional wetland under Section
404, an area must possess three wetland characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. Each characteristic has a specific set of mandatory wetland criteria that must be
satisfied in order for that particular wetland characteristic to be met.
The California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG), through provisions of the California Fish and
Game Code (Sections 1601-1603), is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river,
stream or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. Streams(and rivers)are
defined by CDFG by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of
water. CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river,
stream, or lake as defined by the CDFG.
Valley-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The County of San Bernardino, the
USFWS,the CDFG, and 14 affected cities are currently involved with the preparation of a regional
"Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan"(MSHCP) for target species and associated habitats.
A "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) was executed between the participating agencies
addressing the parties' responsibilities as to MSHCP. The MOU specifically states that no hindrance
of on-going planning or preemptive reservation of areas will occur during MSHCP preparation. The
MOU states that the "interim land use actions shall be considered on a case by case basis within the
purview of each agencies' individual jurisdiction and in compliance with existing laws and
regulation. The MSHCP planning effort shall not be cause to create a 'de facto' moratorium for on-
going, otherwise legally adequate programs and activities. All permit applications processed during
5.2-6 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.2 Biology.doc
1
I.SA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SDPPL EME.'VTAL EIR
M.SR0127,2001 BIOLOGICAL RLSODRCF+
MNCIIO E MAN'DS F_STATLS
the period of the MSHCP development will be evaluated on their individual merits and in
consideration of cumulative impacts to the species and their habitat." (United States Fish and
Wildlife Service et al.,Memorandum of Understanding, Section 7.2, 12/8/97 as amended 11/2/00).
By prior agreement of the affected parties, neither the MSHCP nor any of its precursor actions
constitute any pre-planning nor constitute a moratorium on the processing of projects. Also, these
MSHCP-related actions have-no basis for determining significance of project-related impacts during
this CEQA review since they are not approved planning documents. The MOU (Attachment F-
Interim Project Review Guidelines) further indicates that review of future projects will be done by
the participating agencies,but that no additional layer of project review will occur and that the
recommendations by other participating agencies are only"advisory." No approval prerogative is
inferred or conveyed to those agencies, other than as may exist under existing laws and authorities.
Thresholds of Significance
The effects of a development project on vegetation and wildlife resources are considered to be
significant if the proposed project will:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat
modification, on any species listed as threatened or endangered under the California or the
federal ESA or on any species that can be shown to meet the criteria for such listing.
" 0 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the CDFG or the
USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native or resident migratory wildlife corridors, or substantially
diminish wildlife habitat.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
1 Impacts and Mitigation
As previously stated, the 480 acres surveyed during the preparation of the biological resource
assessment included the 247.8 acre project site, Southern California Edison (SCE) and Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power(LADWP) easements, the future site of a Cucamonga County Water
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-7
DRAFT'SUPPLEMEW. EIR ISAASSOCIATES.INC. l
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .M C1127,2001
District(CCWD) water storage facility, and the area located between the project site and Day Creek
Channel (Figure 5.2-1). No significant impact will result from the installation of a pump station and
associated pipelines at an existing CCWD water storage tank northeast of the project site as this site
has been previously disturbed.
Less Than Significant Impacts
The following potential impacts were analyzed and found to be less than significant.
Impacts from Modified On-site Drainage `
Development of the project site with urban uses will alter current drainage patterns. As described in
Section 3.6,the proposed project includes drainage features,which will safely convey flows through
the project site. These features will be constructed within areas covered by the biological surveys
conducted for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The proposed retention basin will be designed
and constructed to release water into an existing earthen drainage channel in a measured manner.
The post-development discharge from the retention basin shall not be permitted to exceed pre-
development flows. Impacts associated with alteration of on-site drainage patterns are therefore, less
than significant.
Impacts to Special Interest Species. The results of the literature review indicated the potential
occurrence of 23 special interest plant and animal species in the project vicinity. Of these 23 species,
12 are considered absent based on the lack of suitable habitat. Of the remaining 1 I species
potentially present, 7 are considered to have a moderate to high probability of occurrence, and 4 are
considered to have a low probability of occurrence. The special interest species with potential to
occur on the project site include:
• Plummers mariposa lily(Calochortus plummerae)
• Parry's spineflower(Choriznthe parryi var.parryi)
• Robinson's peppergrass(Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii)
• Pious daisy (Erigeron breweri var. bisanctus)
• Parish's desert thorn(Lycium parishii) ,
• Pringle's monardella (Monardella pringlei)
• California muhly(Muhlenbergia californica)
• San Diego homed lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei)
• California gnatcatcher(Polioptila californica californica)
• California mastif bat(Eumops perotis californicus)
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat(Dipodomys merriami parvus)
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)
listed the SBKR as endangered on September 24, 1998 pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)of 1973, as amended. Focused surveys for the SBKR were conducted in 1999 and 2000
concluded that the SBKR did not occupy the site. Because the SBKR is absent from the 480 acre
survey area, development of the proposed project, including the installation of off-site utility
infrastructure will not result in direct impacts to this species; therefore no significant impact would
occur.
5.2-8 \\RJV5\PROJECTS\CRG I32\DEIR\Section 5.2 Biology.doc
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MARCI13J.3001 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
RANCHO F 'ANDA F_STATES
California gnatcatcher. The California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened by the USFWS on
March 30, 1993. The USFWS maintains that the California gnatcatcher occupies the proposed
project site. The USFWS has stated that California gnatcatchers have been sighted as recently as
June 1999 within the project site,and that gnatcatchers have also been documented on property
directly adjacent to the north, south, and east of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project.
Based on Spring 2000 focused surveys,the California gnatcatcher was determined to be absent from the
study area, which includes the project site and the areas planned for off-site utility features. The
proposed project site is located within the 513,650-acre critical habitat area for the California
gnatcatcher,designated by the USFWS. Of this total,64,380 acres occur in San Bernardino County.The
construction and occupation of the proposed project would directly eliminate 0.05 percent of the total
critical habitat area and 0.4 percent of the critical habitat in San Bernardino County. Given that
California gnatcatcher does not occupy the site and the minimal percentage of the critical habitat that
would be affected,direct impacts to the California gnatcatcher are not significant.
Slender-Horned Spineflower and Santa Ana River woollystar. The slender-horned spineflower
and Santa Ana River woollystar are both listed as endangered by the USFWS and CDFG. Neither of
these species was observed during biological resources assessments of the project site. The gravelly
and cobbly site,with steep drainages and lack of sandy bottoms, provides a low occurrence potential
for these species that require a sandy floodplain habitat. Due to the low probability of occurrence and
lack of suitable habitat, focused surveys are not recommended for these species. Because no impacts
to either of these species are expected to occur, direct impacts to these two species are less than
significant.
Other plant (Parry's spineflower, Robinson's peppergrass, Pious daisy, Parish's desert thorn,
Pringle's monardella, California muhly) and animal species (San Diego homed lizard and California
mastif bat) considered to be "special interest species"were not identified on-site.
Wildlife movement. Wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation are important factors to consider
when assessing impacts to wildlife. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a single,unified habitat area
is divided into two or more areas, such that the division isolates the two areas from each other.
Isolation of habitat limits the free movement of wildlife from one portion of habitat to another, or
from one habitat type to another.
1 Construction of the proposed project would contribute to the incremental loss of alluvial fan sage
scrub along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Development of the project site would also
alter on-site movement patterns of wildlife which currently utilize the site during foraging and other
day-to-day behaviors. Due to development in areas south of the project site, it is likely that regional
wildlife movement in the project vicinity would take place in open space areas north of the site
(including the North Etiwanda and the National Forest). Implementation of the proposed project
would narrow(but would not completely sever)the swath of critical California gnatcatcher habitat(a
corridor of critical habitat the California gnatcatcher may use to move between populations in Los
Angeles and San Bernardino Counties) within the vicinity of the project site from a width of
approximately 1.5 to 1.0 mile. Impacts to regional wildlife movement are therefore,not considered
to be significant
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-9
DRAFT SUPPLENENM Elk BA ASO UM5,INC. `
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S CH 27.2WI
Impacts to Etiwanda and Day Creeks. Etiwanda Creek is located approximately 0.5 mile from the
eastern boundary of the project site. In the vicinity of the project site Etiwanda Creek is undisturbed and
flows within a natural channel. A earthem levee,constructed after the 1969 flood is located east of the
Creek. This levee does not provide protection for the 100-year flood.
Currently the project site drains via natural surface flows in a southeasterly direction. The proposed
project envisions the construction of a 40-foot wide drainage channel along the northern boundary of
the project site. This concrete-lined drainage channel will convey storm water originating from
natural areas upslope of the project site to the on-site detention basin located at the southeast corner
of the project site. At Etiwanda Avenue this drainage channel will turn south,running parallel to the
eastern boundary of the project site, and will ultimately empty into an on-site detention basin located
at the southeast corner of the project site. The basin will drain to an existing earthen channel that is
located east of Etiwanda Avenue near the northeast comer of existing Tract No. 14139. (Figure 34).
The channel and detention basin shall be designed and constructed to prohibit storm flow rates from
exceeding pre-development conditions, the proposed detention basin will reduce flood potential to
downslope properties.No additional discharge into Etiwanda Creek will occur; therefore impacts to
the Etiwanda Creek or associated biological resources will not be significant.
Underground storm drain pipes will be extended from the western boundary of the project site to
convey storm water from the western portions of the project site across the SCE easement to Day
Creek Channel. Biological resource surveys conducted for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project
included the SCE easement located between the western property boundary and Day Creek Channel.
No endangered or threatened species were located within the easement. The installation of storm
drain facilities within this area will not result in significant impacts to biological resources.
Local and Regional Policies/MSHCP. The proposed project would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because no such policies exist for biological
resources.
The NEOSHPP program was adopted by the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors on April 26, 1994.
The NEOSHPP area is located northeasterly of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is roughly
bounded by Deer Creek on the west,the City of Fontana on the east,the City of Rancho Cucamonga
on the south, and the San Bernardino National Forest on the north. The majority of the program area
is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence, with a small portion being within the ,
City of Fontana sphere-of-influence and the remaining area being within the National Forest
boundary. The 7,243 acre program area was established in 1994, three years after approval of the
University/Crest PD; therefore, the urban development (and associated impacts)envisioned by the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates project has been anticipated; therefore no significant impact related to this
issue will occur.
The County of San Bernardino, the USFWS, the CDFG, and 14 affected cities are currently involved
with the preparation of a regional a Valley-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(VMSHCP) for target species and associated habitats. This conservation plan is not yet approved
and, therefore, cannot be reviewed as to its potential relevance to the proposed project. By prior ,
agreement of the affected parties,neither the VMSHCP nor any of its precursor actions, does not
constitute any pre planning nor constitute a moratorium on the processing of projects. Also,these
5.2-10 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Section 5.2 Biology.doc
ISA ASSOCUM,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MMCI12J "1 BIOLOGICAL RLSOURCES
RANCHO E.TIR'ACDS RSTAM
VMSACP-related actions have no basis for determining significance of project-related impacts
during this CEQA review since they are not approved planning documents.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 5.2.1 Development of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would result in the loss
of 251.58 acres (247.8 acres project site in addition to 3.78 acres of off-site utility features) of
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The loss of 251.58 acres of this plant community is a potentially
significant impact.
Construction of the proposed project would directly impact 251.8 acres of Riversidian alluvial fan
sage scrub(RAFSS)habitat is considered sensitive by the CDFG. The CDFG Natural Diversity
Database (NDDB)monitors the status of this plant community. The construction and occupation of
the proposed on-site uses will impact 251.58 acres of Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub habitat
which is potentially suitable for, but not occupied by species listed as threatened or endangered is a
potentially significant impact.
A typical replacement ratio for threatened habitat,which does not harbor endangered or threatened
species is 1:1 (for every one acre disturbed, one acre is preserved or an equivalent offset). To fully
mitigate the impacts associated with the loss of 251.58 acres of RAFSS would require the
preservation of 251.58 acres of similar habitat or, less acreage with the inclusion of a maintenance
endowment.
To partially mitigate for the loss of RAFSS, the project applicant is proposing one-half interest in a
r 172-acre off-site parcel of RAFSS and a cash endowment for long-term maintenance of the property
in the sum of$110,000. The location of this property is depicted in Figure 5.2-3. The half interest
will be transferred in fee to an appropriate entity for conservation purposes.
Mitigation Measures
5.2.1A Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the property the owner shall purchase a minimum of
110 acres, consisting of chapparal and coastal sage scrub plant communities, or its equivalent. Any
off-site property purchased by the applicant as mitigation for project related impacts shall by
approved by the City prior to land disturbance within the project site. Any off-site property
purchased for mitigation shall be transferred in fee to an appropriate entity, for permanent
conservation purposes. An endowment, sufficiently funded to provide for the long-term maintenance
of any off-site mitigation area, shall be established prior to the commencement of on-site grading
activities.
I 5.2.113 The project applicant shall pay an endowment to the appropriate conservation entity required
by the City for the long-term maintenance of any offsite mitigation areas.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-11
DRAFT SUFFLEMENFAL EIR L5A ASSOCUM INC. t
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MARCH 27.2001
D
5.2.1C New focused surveys for the SBKR and the California gnatcatcher shall be conducted if
construction activities have not commenced prior to the expiration of validity of the Spring 2000
SBKR and California gnatcatcher surveys. Appropriate mitigation as determined in consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Section l0A or 7 permitting process shall be required
in the event that new focused surveys identify any endangered or threatened species onsite.
5.2.1D Any off-site areas temporarily disturbed by project related activities shall be reseeded. Plant j
materials shall be those adapted to local conditions. Arrangements shall be made to ensure that plant
materials are located and available for scheduled planting time. Sufficient time shall be allocated for
a professional seed company to visit the project site during the appropriate season and collect the
native plant seed. If locale propagules are not available or cannot be collected in sufficient
quantities,materials collected or grown from other sources within a 5-mile radius of the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project shall be substituted.
Level of Significance after Mitigation. Application of the above stated mitigation measures would
not fully reduce impacts to RAFSS; therefore, impacts to RAFSS would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 5.2.2 Development of the proposed project will result in the elimination of an existing `
blue-line stream, tributary to Etiwanda Creek. The elimination of this water feature is a significant
impact.
While many individual and braided drainage channels exist on site, only the drainage on the eastern
quarter of the site has been identified as a blue line stream. The CDFG has determined that 1.61 acres
of this stream to be jurisdictional waters. No on-site drainages meet the criteria of the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for jurisdictional waters.
The construction of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project will result in the elimination of this
water feature.
Mitigation Measures
5.2.2A The project proponent shall purchase 3.22 acres (2:1 mitigation) within the Team Arundo or
other approved mitigation bank to compensate for the loss of the 1.61 acres of on-site CDFG
jurisdictional waters.
Level of Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation,
impacts associated with the blue-line stream will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact 5.2.3 Biological resources of the preserve within the North Etiwanda Preserve maybe directly
and indirectly impacted by activities associated with the construction and occupation of residential uses.
These impacts are potentially significant.
The North Etiwanda Preserve (Preserve) (Figure 5.3-3) consists of 762 acres of Sage Scrub Habitat, ,
located north of the project site and east of Day Creek. The preserve is located within the 7,243 acre
5.2-12 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG l 320EIR\Section 5.2 Biology.dm
ISA ASSOCIAM.INC. DRAFT'SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MARCH 27/ "1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
RA.NCIIO FI ' NDA ESTATES
NEOSHPP area. This Preserve area was purchased by the San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SANBAG) as mitigation for the SR 30/210 project. On February 10, 1998 the County of San
Bernardino(County)accepted conveyance of the land constituting the Preserve from SANBAG, a grant
_ of conservation easement from SANBAG to the County, and a $700,000 endowment from SANBAG
to provide for the management,protection,and operation of the Preserve. A Cooperative Management
Agreement(Agreement)between the County, SANBAG,the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans); the CDFG, and the USFWS contains provisions for management and operation of the
Preserve, including funding,biological monitoring, and related activities.
The County of San Bernardino is responsible for the posting of signs along the southern boundary of the
Preserve site and at established access points into the Preserve. These signs are required by the
Cooperative Agreement,as a minimum,to identify the limits of the Preserve,Preserve regulations, and
the Preserve trail system. The signs are also to include a telephone number to report dumping,property
damage, and improper trespass to the preserve authority. Signs are to also state that trespass onto the
Preserve could cause severe damage to biological resources within the North Etiwanda Preserve.
Because the proposed project site will be gated and walled, access to the Preserve by residents and
the general public will be limited. As illustrated in Figure 5.2-1, the eastern portion of the project
site is separated from the Preserve by a Southern California Edison utility corridor. This 300-foot
wide corridor will provide a buffer between the proposed residential uses and the North Etiwanda
Preserve. A proposed 40-foot wide flood control diversion channel, located within the limits of the
I project site, is also proposed along the northern project boundary, which will provide an additional
barrier between the proposed project site and the Preserve.
A Los Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP) extends across the southern portion of the
Preserve. Transmission lines and a dirt access road are located within this easement. Access to the
North Etiwanda Preserve from the project site is currently unrestricted. While development of the
proposed gated community will place residential uses in proximity to the Preserve, when compared
to current conditions, it will serve to limit direct access to the Preserve.
The following measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to the North Etiwanda
Preserve.
Mitigation Measures
i5.2.3A No direct pedestrian or vehicular access to the Preserve from the project or individual lots
shall be permitted.
5.2.3B Public lighting within the project site shall be installed and maintained in a manner to reduce
the effect of night lighting on adjacent open spaces. Specific measures to reduce the effect of night
lighting shall include:
I • the use of low intensity street lamps;
• the use of low elevation lighting poles; and/or
• the of shielding of exterior light sources.
i \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-13
DRAFT SDPPLEMEM EIR LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MARCII 27.2W I
R&NCIJ0
5.2.3C Plant materials utilized in project landscaping shall be of a type or variety compatible with ,
adjacent natural areas.
5.2.31) Purchase documents for individual residential units within the project site shall include
information regarding:
• the presence and purpose of the Preserve; j
• access restrictions to the Preserve;
• the prohibition of uses within the Preserve;
• the effect of domestic pets have on native wildlife populations; and
• the effect human activity has on native habitat and wildlife populations.
5.2.3E Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions(CC& R) shall be established which limit the
installation of excessive night lighting and exterior sound amplification/sound reproduction systems
on residential lots located adjacent to the Preserve.
5.2.31F A solid masonry wall,measuring no less than six feet in height shall be constructed at the
property line of any residential lot abutting a natural area. Any such wall shall be constructed without
breaks and shall be constructed and maintained in a manner to prevent the passage of persons and
domestic animals over/under said wall. Other barriers which meet all the requirements of this
measure may be constructed in lieu of the solid masonry wall.
Level of Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of the aforementioned mitigation will ,
reduce impacts to the North Etiwanda Preserve to a less than significant level.
Impact 5.2.4 The Plummer's mariposa lily, a plant species identified by the CDFG as a species of
special concern and the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened or endangered is located
on-site. Development of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project will significantly impact this plant
species.
The results of the literature review indicated the potential occurrence of 23 special interest plant and
animal species in the project vicinity. One of these species, the Plummer's mariposa lily
(Calochortus plummerae) is considered by the CDFG as a species of special concern and by the
California Naive Plant Society(CNPS) as rare,threatened or endangered in California. This plant
species was common throughout the white sage series on site. Because of the abundance of this
species on the proposed project site, impacts to this species are considered significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 5.2.1A-C apply.
Level of Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of the aforementioned mitigation will
reduce impacts to the Plummer's mariposa lily to a less than significant level.
5.2-14 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.2 Biology.doc
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
M m27.2001 BIOLOCICAL RESOURCES
RANCIIO ETMANDA ESTATES
LCumulative Impacts
The conversion of Riversidian alluvial fan scrub community to urban uses would add to the
cumulative loss of this regionally significant resource. The cumulative loss of such habitat is
considered an unavoidable, significant impact. The County established the NEOSHPP area in 1994
to aid in the future preservation of open space and sensitive biological habitat in the foothills of the
San Gabriel Mountains. Human activity in the vicinity of the North Etiwanda Preserve could impact
the Preserve and associated biological resources. Preservation of lands within or in close proximity
to the NEOSHPP would decrease the cumulative impacts on open space and sensitive biological
habitats in this region of the County.
i
l
1
1
1.
f \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\SECTION 5.2 BIOLOGY.DOC 5.2-15
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAEE SUPPUMENPAE EIR
M cn 27,2001 LAND USE
RANCIIO EEMA.NDA L9T M
5.3 LAND USE
The following section analyzes the existing land use conditions on the project site and in the
surrounding area, as well as the potential land use impacts that could result if the proposed project is
implemented. Information in this section is derived in part from selected documents incorporated by
reference in Section 1.2, (Statutory Authority and Relationship to Other Documents).
Environmental Setting
As shown in Figure 3.1, the proposed project is located in the southwest portion of unincorporated
San Bernardino County,north of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at the base of the San Gabriel
Mountains. The site encompasses a total of 247.8 acres. Regionally, the project site is located west
of the Devore Freeway(I-15), and north of the proposed Foothill Freeway(SR-30/210) and the San
Bernardino Freeway(I-10). The project site is located at the northern terminus of Etiwanda Avenue.
Along the northern edge of the property, the project site abuts a Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power(LADWP)utility corridor. Southern California Edison (SCE)utility corridors abut the
western,northern and southern boundaries of the project site. Existing and approved residential
development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga border the project site on the south.
Existing Onsite Land Uses. The majority of the project site consists of vacant undisturbed land
located on a gently sloping(approximately 8% from north to south)alluvial plain. Vegetation
consists mainly of plants associated with alluvial fan sage scrub with some riparian and chaparral
communities. Other uses within the project site include Southern California Edison(SCE)utility
corridors,one which runs diagonally across the site from the southwest to the northeast and another
which crosses a portion of the southeast comer of the site. These utility corridors are not a part of the
project site.
The soils onsite consist mainly of rock and cobble with some sandy and gravelly soils. Other features
include a natural drainage course in the eastern portion of the project site that traverses from north to
south. The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1,880 to 2,150 feet above mean
sea level.
` Surrounding Land Uses. As previously stated,the project site is bounded on the north by LADWP
and SCE utility corridors, on the west by a SCE utility corridor and Day Creek Channel, on the south
by SCE utility corridors, and on the east by unimproved Etiwanda Avenue. Extending outward, the
project site is bordered by the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; residential
development and a sewage treatment plant are located south of the project site. Undisturbed land is
located to the south, west and east. East Etiwanda Creek is located approximately 0.5 mile east of
the project site. The North Etiwanda Preserve and the Angeles National Forest are located to the
north. The North Etiwanda Preserve is mitigation for construction of SR-30/210 and came into being
after the 1991 Addendum to the University/Crest Project FEIR was approved. The recently approved
University Project is located southwest of the project site.
The property west of the southern extension of Hanley Avenue and north of Highland Avenue in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga has a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet(minimum lot average of
10,000 square feet). Lots to the east of this area south of Banyan Avenue and north of Highland
Avenue have a minimum lot size 20,000 square feet(minimum lot average of 25,000 square feet).
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.3 Land Use.doc 5.3-1
DRAFT SUPPIEMENT EIR LRAASSO LkMiS INC
L D USE MARCH 27.2WI
RANCHO EMWANDA ESTATES
Lots north of Banyan Avenue,east of Hanley Avenue and south of Wilson Avenue have a minimum ,
lot size of 20,000 square feet(minimum lot average of 25,000 square feet). Properties to the north of
Wilson Avenue adjacent to the northern SCE utility corridor within the Revised University Project
have a minimum of 7,200-square-foot lots(minimum lot average of 10,000 square feet). Lots to the
south of Highland Avenue, also in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are planned for 3,000-to 7,200-
square-foot sizes, and lots to the west of Day Creek Channel are planned for a minimum of 7,200
square feet. Etiwanda Estates development, south of Banyan and north of Highland Avenue has a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The residential development north of Banyan Avenue, east
of Hanley Avenue and south of Wilson Avenue also has minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet.
The approved Revised University Project is located south of the project site. Minimum lot sizes
within this development is 7,200 square feet.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Approved Crest(Rancho Etiwanda Estates) Project. As detailed in Table 5.3-A, the
University/Crest Project allowed the Rancho Etiwanda Estates portion of the project the following
number of residential units.
Table 5.3-A
APPROVED CREST RESIDENTIAL UNITS— 1991
Planning Area Acres Units/Acre Total Units Allowed
E 96.63 2.86 276
F 39.98 3.08 123
G 16.47 1.21 20
H 93.72 2.57 241
Total 247.80 2.67 660
City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Although the project site is located within an
unincorporated portion of San Bernardino County, it is within the sphere of influence of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. The City's General Plan currently designates the project site as"Very Low
Residential" (RVL), which allows up to a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre. It also designates a ,
requirement that a master plan be prepared for the project site. Because of this requirement,the _
project area was included in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan as discussed below. The City's
General Plan"RVL"designation would only apply if the local plan (Etiwanda North Specific Plan)
did not replace it with another land use designation.
Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Approximately one-year after the University/Crest project was
approved by San Bernardino County,the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on April 1, 1992. As such, the ENSP was not
addressed in the previous environmental documents prepared on the University/Crest project. The
ENSP is intended to be consistent with all elements of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The
1
5.3-2 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Section 5.3 land Use.doc
I AASSOCIAT ,INC. DR SDPPLE.NF..NTAI.FIR
WRCH 27,2001 IAND USE
RANCHO EnNIWNTA ESTAMS
ENSP includes policies,guidelines, standards,regulations and implementing actions. The land use
plan for the ENSP designates the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project site as Very Low Density
Residential (VL). The "VL"designation allows a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per acre with
a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
I North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program. The North Etiwanda Open Space
and Habitat Preservation Program(NEOSHPP) is located northeasterly of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and is roughly bounded by Deer Creek on the west, the City of Fontana on the east,the
City of Rancho Cucamonga on the south, and the Angeles National Forest on the north, as shown on
Figure 5.2-3 in the Biological Resources Section of this document.
The NEOSHPP area comprises 7,243 acres. The NEOSHPP was adopted to identify existing open
lands and to design a program that encourages the preservation of these lands within the program
area. Rugged mountains and gently sloping alluvial fans characterize the program area providing
natural areas for a variety of plant and animal species. The dominant plant species of the northern
portion of the program area is chaparral,and the southern portion consists of a gently sloping alluvial
fan dominated by Riversidian Sage Scrub. Major canyons within the NEOSHPP area include Deer,
Day, East,Etiwanda, Henderson,Morse, and San Sevaine.
The NEOSHPP area is rich in plant life and animal species, and several species of plants and animals
that have been afforded special recognition by federal, State, or local resource conservation agencies
and organizations are present in the program area.
The program area is primarily vacant land. Improvements and structures in the program area include
a water treatment plant, utility towers,eleven single-family residences, and major flood control
projects. Wardman-Bullock Road and Etiwanda Avenue provide access to the NEOSHPP area. All
roads within the program area are unimproved dirt roads.
The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project site is located within the limits of the NEOSHPP area. The
existing General Plan land use designations and the acreage by ownership within the NEOSHPP area
are shown on Table 5.3-B.
'Be NEOSHPP currently identifies the project site as:
• Being under private ownership(see NEOSHPP Map A-3);
• Being conditionally approved for a development project(see NEOSHPP Map A-4);
• Being outside the area designated for actual or possible future open space preservation (see
NEOSHPP Map A-5); and
• Being of moderate biological sensitivity(see NEOSHPP Map A-8).
\\RIV5\PR0IECTS\CRG132\DE1R\Section 5.3 Land Use.doc 5.3-3
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR - VA ASSOCIATES.INC.
I D USE !MARCH 27,2W I
RANCHO ENTIW DA ESTATES
Table 5.3-11
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ACREAGE BY OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE NEOSHPP
Land Use Designation Government Private UtititV Total
PD-1/40 0.00 1192.01 15.03 1207.04
PD-1/10 92.50 1075.86 18.22 1186.58
PD-1/2.5 0.00 228.92 0.00 228.92
PD-1/1 1.51 867.54 4.02 873.07
PD-2/1 20.00 307.16 0.00 327.16
PD-3/1 6.00 461.05 6.17 473.22
PD-4/1 0.00 4.69 0.00 4.69
RS-1 50.00 25.00 21.00 96.00
RS-20m 0.00 107.97 0.00 107.97
RL-10 0.00 99.06 112.47 211.53
IN 1.19 5.66 317.42 324.27
FW 1501.60 547.87 153.41 2202.88
Total 1672.80 4922.79 647.74 1 7243.33
Source:NEOSHPP,Page 7
Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would result in a significant adverse land use impact if it were to:
• Physically divide an established community;
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect; and/or
• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Impacts and Mitigation
Less than Significant Impacts
Consistency with Adopted Land Use Regulations
City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. While the project site is not located within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, it is located within the City's Sphere of Influence and is proposed for annexation
into the City. The City's General Plan designates the site as "Very Low-Residential" which allows a ,
maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would result in an overall residential
density of 2.50 units per acre and is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, since the
proposed project is not within the allowable density, the project is requesting a General Plan
Amendment to "Residential - Low" which would allow 2-4 dwelling units per acre. Because a
5.34 \\RIV5\PR0JECTS\CRG1 32\DEIR\Smdon 5.3 Land Use.doc ,
i. ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DR S UPPI.ENENTAE EIR
,SI, U ZT,"1 I ND USE
IU,NCUO E WAN'DA F_SI'A'il c
discretionary action is being sought for the proposed project to amend the City's General Plan, no
significant impact associated with this issue would occur.
IEtiwanda North Specific Plan. The project site is designated as Very Low Density Residential (VL) in
the land use plan for the ENSP. The VL designation allows a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per
acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The proposed project would be inconsistent with this
density designation with lot sizes at a minimum of 7,200 square feet to a maximum of 38,000 square feet,
and an overall residential density of 2.50 units per acre. Among the discretionary actions being sought for
the proposed project is an amendment to the ENSP. This action will amend the ENSP, changing the on-
site land use designation from Very Low Density to Low Density (24 dwelling units per acre). The
amendment will also incorporate project development standards into the ENSP. Because the ENSP will
be amended to incorporate the design and development standards of the proposed project, no
incompatibility between the ENSP and the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project will occur.
Therefore,no significant impact associated with this issue would occur.
Foster Population Growth. The most current(April 1998) Southern California Associated Governments
(SCAG)Population, Households and Employment forecasts for the San Bernardino Associated
Governments(SANBAG),unincorporated San Bernardino County and the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
are as follows:
SANBAG
Subregional
Forecasts 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Population 1,772,700 2,005,400 2,239,600 2,512,800 2,829,800
Households 565,000 639,200 716,800 805,700 904,900
Employment 617,000 734,800 860,700 893,400 1,103,600
City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Forecasts 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Population 128,317 141,817 155,876 171,040 186,324
Households 40,759 45,142 49,858 54,697 60,264
Employment 52,566 1 63,825 1 76,610 1 88,537 1 102,238
The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project proposes the development of 632 residential units. Based on a
factor of 3.162'persons per unit, implementation of the proposed project would result in a population
increase of 1,998 persons. The forecasted population growth in the SANBAG Subregion between 2000
and 2005 is 232,700. The projected population increase of 1,998 persons equates to less than one-percent
of the five year forecasted growth in the SANBAG Subregion, and 1.4 percent of the five year forecasted
growth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ending in the year 2005. The population increase associated
with the proposed project is well within SCAG's forecasted population growth in the City.
The forecasted increase in households in the SANBAG Subregion between 2000 and 2005 is 74,200. The
632 single-family residential units requested by the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project equates to less than
one-percent of the five year forecasted increase in households in the SANBAG Subregion, and 1.4
percent of the five year forecasted growth in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ending in the year 2005.
' State of California,Department of Finance,January 2000.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.31and Use.doc 5.3-5
DRAFT SUPPL MEM EIN ISA ASSOCIATES.INC.
L D USE MAR0127."1
RANCHO ENrMMDA ESTATU
The increase in households associated with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project is well within SCAG's
forecasted household growth in the City.
Construction of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project will create short-term construction related
employment opportunities. Because it does not include a commercial or industrial component, the
proposed project would not directly foster economic growth. However,the project will be responsible for
fostering indirect economic growth because residents of the proposed development would increase the
patronage of commercial and industrial uses in the surrounding and regional area. Because the proposed
project does not include a commercial or industrial component,no long-term employment opportunities
would be created by the proposed project. Because the proposed project will not result in increases to
local populations,the number of household,or employment beyond that forecast by SCAG,no significant
impact associated with this issue will occur.
Community Disruption. The project site is undeveloped and lies north of established communities
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed project would not physically disrupt or divide an
established community.
Implementation of the proposed project will not preclude access to adjacent properties. The proposed
project envisions the vacation of Etiwanda Avenue north of its intersection with Day Creek Boulevard.
Because the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project is proposed as a gated community,provisions shall be made
to allow the passage of authorized persons to Cucamonga County Water District facilities,the North
Etiwanda Preserve,and other properties north of the project site. Such access will include controlled
entry onto the project's roadway system, across the drainage channel and then through the Southern
California Edison utility corridor. The precise location of access between the project site and properties
north of the project site will be established prior to approval of the proposed project.
Additionally,Etiwanda Avenue is a primary fire access roadway to the wildland areas north of the project
site. To ensure adequate emergency access to/through the gated community site and adjacent wildland
areas, the proposed project must conform to applicable standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District. Gates must automatically open by actuation with an approved traffic pre-emption
device. The gate must remain in the open position until reset by means of a"Knox"key switch,which is
keyed to the Fire District Standards.
Because access to adjacent lands and facilities will be maintained,no significant impacts related to
community disruption would occur as a result of project implementation.
Growth Inducement. Section 15126.2(d)of the State CEQA Guidelines addresses growth-inducing ,
impacts of a proposed project. This section states, "Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could
foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects,which would remove obstacles
to population growth(a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example,allow for
more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service
facilities,requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also
discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that
growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment."
Impacts to the North Etiwanda Preserve. Impacts associated with development of the project site in
close proximity to the North Etiwanda Preserve are addressed in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) of
this document.
5.3-6 \\R1V5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\1)EIR\Section 5.3 Lend Use.doc
�. ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPIESIEN-AL EIR
A C1127,2W1 LAND USE
RA.NCIIO F NDA 6STATFS
Loss of Open Space. Impacts associated with loss of open space caused by development of the proposed
project are addressed in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources)of this document.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project will not result in any significant land
use impacts.
Mitigation Measures
Because no significant land use impacts have been identified,no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
Open Space. Development of the proposed project will cumulatively contribute to the loss of open space
within the North Etiwanda area and more specifically,the loss of approximately 247 acres of habitat
along the Etiwanda alluvial fan. The Etiwanda alluvial fan and adjacent habitat is considered valuable
and unique due to the presence Riversidian Sage Scrub communities. The biological implications of this
loss are presented within Section 5.2 of this document.
rAlthough the project has proposed to off-set the loss of open space through the donation of approximately
197 acres of off-site open space, the quality of this replacement habitat is considered inferior to the
Riversidian Sage Scrub communities that will be lost via implementation of the proposed project. As
such,the project-related loss of open space is considered to be a significant, adverse impact.
North Etiwanda Preserve. The North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preserve Program (NEOSHPP),
establishing the North Etiwanda Preserve(Preserve),was adopted in 1994. The establishment of the
Preserve was based on recognition of the impending urbanization taking place on privately held lands
located within the North Etiwanda/West Valley Foothills area.
The adoption of the NEOSHPP Program followed the original approval of the University/Crest project by
approximately 3 years. Both the University/Crest Planned Development and the NEOSHPP program
were approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the NEOSHPP program
was established with full knowledge that urbanization would extend to the northerly boundaries of the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates(Crest)property.
The anticipation of development was the impetus for the adoption of the NEOSHPP and preservation of
the habitat values found on the Etiwanda alluvial fan. To this end, the County established the
approximately 7,243 acre (11 square miles)Preserve. The Plan acknowledges urban pressures in the area.
The introduction to the NEOSHPP document states:
'Over the past several years, the west valley area of San Bernardino County has continued to
develop at an accelerated rate. This development has caused a reduction of valuable open space
and natural habitat. Pressures exist to expand development into the North Etiwanda area, which
could result in greater loss of natural habitat. This issue is best addressed and mitigated in the
early stages of land use planning'.'
Approval of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would bring more residents in closer proximity to the
I Preserve. Potential trespassing into the Preserve could cause damage to the environmental values within
the area.
\\RrV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.3 Land Use.doc 5.3-7
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. e
❑1ND USE MARCH 27.2001
PANCHO EKTMMVA ESTA
The potential intrusion by urban expansion is tempered by certain aspects of the proposed project design.
The features that were established to limit trespassing include the "gated community" aspect of the L
project. The project site is intended to be gated and walled, thereby limiting resident and the general
public's access to the preserve to the north. A flood control diversion channel is also proposed along the
northern project boundary. The fenced (minimum height of 6 feet) 40- foot flood control right-of-way
will include a maintenance road on the north side of the channel that will further separate the project from
the preserve.
Additionally, the project proposes to vacate Etiwanda Avenue north of the proposed intersection with Day
Creek Boulevard. The right of way will revert back to private ownership both east and west of the
centerline of Etiwanda Avenue. The reverted acreage will then be incorporated into the adjacent
developments. This action will further limit public access to the Preserve area by limiting direct vehicular
access to the southerly boundary of the Preserve.
For the reasons presented above, the project's potential cumulative land use impacts affecting the North
Etiwanda Preserve are considered to be less-than-significant.
5.3-8 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Smhon 5.3 Land Use.doc
�. LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRIFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
M.ucx 27.2001 TRAFFIC AND CIRCOLITION
R4NCil0 EMWNDA LST.ITES
5.4 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section summarizes the traffic impact analysis conducted to assess the impacts of the potential
land uses within the Rancho Etiwanda Estates development on the roadway system in the study area
prepared by Urban Cossroads dated March 2001 and provided in its entirety in Appendix E. The
project is located in an unincorporated area of County of San Bernardino. The general location of the
project site is presented on Figure 3-1.
The traffic issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in the
context of CEQA and the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program(CMP). The
City of Rancho Cucamonga is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the traffic impact
analysis, in accordance with both CEQA and CMP authorizing legislation. Figure 5.4-1 depicts the
CMP roadway network and study area limits. Per the CMP update(Appendix C, 1999), no analysis
further than 5 miles from the project site or 80 two-way peak hour project trips is required. In
accordance with CMP requirements,both an Opening Year analysis(2003) and a CMP Horizon Year
(2020) analysis are included in this analysis.
Subsequent sections of the report will describe the project in detail and provide a complete
description of existing and projected traffic conditions within the study area.
' Methodology
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized
in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with the San Bernardino County CMP.
The following analysis years are considered in this report:
• Existing Conditions: 2000
• Project Opening Year: 2003
• CMP Horizon Year: 2020
The identification of a CMP deficiency requires further analysis in satisfaction of CMP requirements,
including:
• Evaluation of the mitigation measures required to restore traffic operations to an acceptable
level with respect to CMP LOS standards.
• Calculation of the project share of new traffic on the impacted CMP facility during peak
hours of traffic.
• Estimation of the cost required to implement the improvements required to restore traffic
operations to an acceptable level of service as described above.
This study incorporates each of these aspects for all locations where a CMP deficiency is identified.
A detailed description of specific methodologies uses to develop forecast conditions for this analysis
is included in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix E)prepared for this document.
RACRGI32\DE1R\Smtion 5.4 Tref icAm 5.4-1
DRAFT SUPPL MWTA EIR ISA ASSOCIATES.INC. ,
TRAFFICANDCIRCUTA ON .MAACII 2].2 1
NDA ESTATO
Overall Analysis Methodology
Traffic conditions are evaluated for both existing conditions and Years 2003 and 2020. Actual traffic
count data were obtained from Southland Car Counters, Inc.,Counts Unlimited, and RKJK to
quantify existing traffic conditions. This traffic data was supplemented by information obtained from
the 1999 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways by Caltrans and counts made for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga in 1998.
The CMP Horizon Year(2020)traffic volumes with the project have been derived from the
subregional travel demand model currently being used for long range planning in San Bernardino
County. This model is commonly referred to as the Comprehensive Transportation Plan(CTP)
model.
Average daily traffic(ADT)volume forecasts have been determined using the growth increment
approach on the CTP Model Year 1994 and Year 2020 ADT volume forecasts(see Appendix E).
This difference defines the growth in traffic over the 26-year period. The incremental growth in ADT
volume has been factored to reflect the forecast growth between Year 2000 and Year 2020. For this
purpose, linear growth between the Year 1994 base condition and the forecast Year 2020 condition
was assumed. Since the increment between Year 2000 and Year 2020 is 20 years of the 26-year time
frame, a factor of 0.77 (i.e., 20/26)was used.
The peak hour directional roadway segment volume forecasts have been determined using the growth
increment approach on the CIP Model Year 1990 and Year 2020 peak hour volumes. This data
serves as both the starting point for the refinement process, and also provides important insight into
current travel patterns and the relationship between peak hour and daily traffic conditions
The Opening Year(2003)traffic volumes have assumed the opening of the SR-30/210 Freeway and
have been interpolated from the Year 2020 traffic volumes based upon a portion of the future growth
increment.
Project traffic volumes for all future conditions projections were estimated using the manual approach
described in the CMP guidelines. Trip generation has been estimated based Trip Generation, 6"
Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). The project trip distributions were developed
based on a review of existing traffic volumes and projected future traffic patterns as predicted by the
CTP model.
Project traffic volumes were then subtracted from the future year background volumes. The result of
this traffic forecasting procedure is a series of traffic volumes suitable for traffic operations analysis. ,
Traffic Operations Analysis
The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 1997 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). The HCM defines level of ,
service (LOS)as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream,
generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS conditions vary based on the
type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. LOS
5.4-2 RACRGI32\DEIRSe tion 5.4 Tmffic.doc
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAI,EIR
MARCH 27 2 I TR MC AND CIRCULATION
KkNc110 EIIC'A\U1 ESTATES
conditions range from"A", which represents a condition where individual users are virtually
unaffected by others in the traffic stream. LOS "F" is used to define a condition where a forced or
breakdown of traffic flow occurs. This occurs wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point
exceeds the amount which that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations.
The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a
roadway. The HCM methodology used for this project expresses the level of service at an
intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different
procedures depending on the type of intersection control (e.g., signalized intersections, stop-sign
controlled intersections,and all-way stop controlled intersections.).
Per CMP, signalized intersections are considered deficient(LOS "F")if the overall intersection
critical volume to capacity (V/C)ratio equals or exceeds 1.0, even if the level of service defined by
the delay value is below the defined LOS standard. The V/C ratio is defined as the critical volumes
divided by the intersection capacity. A V/C ratio, greater than 1.0,implies an infinite queue.
A level of service analysis must be conducted on all existing segments and intersections on the CMP
network potentially impacted by the project or plan (as defined by the thresholds in Section IB of the
1999 San Bernardino CMP). Urban segments (i.e., segments on roadways that are generally
signalized)do not require segment analysis. Segment requirements can normally be determined by
the analysis of lane requirements at intersections. Freeway mainline segments must be analyzed, and
ramp-weaving analysis may be required at local discretion, if a ramp or weaving problem is
j, anticipated.
Environmental Setting
I Study Area. The overall study area evaluated in this study is presented in Figure 5.4-1, which also
identifies all CMP roadways within the study area. The roadway elements, which must be analyzed
in accordance with CMP requirements, are dependent on both the analysis year(project Opening Year
�. or CMP Horizon Year) and project generated traffic volumes.
State Route 30/210 (SR-30/210) and the Interstate 15 (1-15)provide regional access to the site
Various arterial roadways in the vicinity of the site provide local access. The east-west arterials
which will be most affected by the project include Wilson, Summit, and Highland Avenues,Base
Lline Road, Victoria Street, and SR-30/210. North-south arterials expected to provide local access
include Day Creek Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue.
A series of scoping discussions were conducted on September 12 and October 3, 2000 with the
following agencies to define the desired analysis locations for each future analysis year:
• County of San Bernardino
• San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
RACM32TEIMSection 5.4 Tmffic.doc 5.4-3
LYRE
CREEK RD.
BRIDAIPATH DUNCAN /
DR CYN.RD.
/
/
WARDMAN —T -----'--
BULLOCK RD.
HILLSIDE RD. I
I
1WILSON AVE.. SUMMR
�( r-
7 9 I — — -- AVE.
�u a
W < BANYAN Sr. —— I — < SUMMIT
u I 1 v
-30
/ HIGHLAND AVE.I (SRJW) — — —_ T
TORIA SAN SEVAJNE 1
RD.
> 1
�1 U BASELINE RD.
I
gVICTORIA
PARK LN. < I
1
1
FOOTHILL BLw. (SR66) )
ARROW BLVD.
MERRILL
AVE.
NOT TO SCALE
8TH ST. w
L S A FIGURE 5.4-1
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Location Map
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH,2001.
R:\CRG132\Gvphics\EIR\Imatian.cdr(3127/01)
no r M M M M M M rr r cr a�
LSAASSOCIAM'INC. OP. SUPPLEMENTAL FIR.n H3J MI T0. FIC AND CIRCULATION
RANCHO EnWANOA F_MM
Existing Conditions. The existing conditions intersection analysis locations are presented on Figure
5.4-2. The traffic analysis included all roadways identified as CMP arterials(those roadways
requiring congestion management). The number of through travel lanes for existing roadways and
intersection controls is presented, along with existing traffic count data collected for this study. This
data was used to analyze existing traffic operations in the study area. Existing plans for roadway
improvements are also described in this section.
Existing Roadway System and Daily Traffic Volumes. The number of through travel lanes for
existing roadways and intersection controls within the study area are presented on Figure 5.4-3,while
Figure 5.4-4 depicts the current ADT volumes in the study area. Existing ADT volumes are based
upon the latest traffic data collected from the City of Rancho Cucamonga(see Appendix E) and the
1999 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways by Caltrans.
The remaining ADT volumes have been estimated using the following formula for each intersection
leg:
PM Peak Hour(Approach+Exit Volume) ' 12 =Daily Leg Volume.
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Existing intersection level of service calculations are based
upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts or provided by the various local
agencies. This data is depicted in Figures 5.4-5 and Figure 5.4-6. Peak hour traffic count worksheets
are included in Appendix E. Explicit peak hour factors have been calculated using the data collected
for this effort as well. The AM peak hour traffic volumes were determined by counting the two-hour
period from 7 - 9 AM in the morning. Similarly, counting the two-hour period from 4-6 PM in the
evening identified the PM peak hour traffic volumes.7
Existing Traffic Operations. Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for both the
AM and PM peak hours of traffic throughout the study area. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 5.4-A
Table 5.4-A
EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
DELAY LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE
INTERSECTION AM I PM AM PM
Etiwanda Ave.(NS)at:
-Summit Ave. (EW) 8.4 9.2 A A
-Highland Ave. (EW) 37.7 — D F
-Victoria St.(EW) 26.6 10.7 D B
-Baseline Rd. (EW) 29.3 30.8 C C
R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.4 Tnffic.doc 5.4-5
�I
I
I
I
I
LWILSON AVE. ----_—_
1
1
I
I
1 SUMMIT AVE.
1
I '
I
I
1 _ SR-30 FWY. _
-- 1 HIGHLAND AVE. y�l —_—_---
I <
�I z
Co
YI 3
UJ
t1j, w VICTORIA ST.
C
�I
QI
DI
I
BASELINE RD.
NOT TO SCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-2
F INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Existing Analysis Locations
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH,2001.
R:\CRG132\Graphics\EIR\ex imauoim.cdr(327/0p
C\� J L 1
I
1
t +
+ +
L WILSON AVE.
4D s 3D
I
I N
I
SUMMIT 1 L r
1 2U 2U
I �
I �
1 t"
_SR-30
2U I HIGH UAND AVE. , 2U_== i L +
>� a + � �
ml 3 N
wl ~ ORIAST.
a: 2U s 2U
QI
of �
I N
4D BASELIN D.
qp 4D
N 11L �
JllIr
N T ac
YOT TO SCALE
LL S A FIGURE 5.4-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 4 NUMBER OF LANES R7 RIGHT TURN OVERLAP Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
O ALL WAY STOP ❑p DIVIDED
� Existing Number of Through Lanes
STOP SIGN UNDIVIDED
and Intersection Controls
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG 132\Gmphics\EIRkxist nd iacdr(3/27/01)
I
I
I
I
I
I s
LWILSON AVE. ------_
l 3.4
I
e
1 �
I
SUMMIT AVE.
l 0.1 3.5
I
1 �
1 m
SR-30 FWY.
22.9 I HIGHLAND AVE. 24.8
I a
of O
�I Z r
col 3 m
WI W
VICTORIA ST.
UI 0.1 2.3
<I
of
I � 'I
322 BASELINE RD.
32.2 30.0
CR
:LOTTO SCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-4
8,8 VEHICLESPERDAY(1000'S) Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Existing Average Daily Traffic
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG 132\Gmphics\EIR4aist adtcdr(3/27/01)
I
I' _qoq++rr "6s I SIL
x 139
1JlrWILSON AVE.
;278
57
SUMMIT AVE. 9
9135l 1 f
I
'
SR 30 FWY. _
HIGHLAND AVE. ul r-181
>`a J 11f
YI 3
w' w ORIA ST.
CI
' UI
QI
of
I
BASELINE RD.
rna x-44
�IL ;7z
28—'
�2_ 1 f
N
s, W IXV
' VOT TO SCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-5
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
ISOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG132\EIR\Gmphics\cxist am phiv.cdr(327/01)
C� I
7qI
I
J YT
J ,L WILSON AVE. 11 r
I t�
I
I
I
1 "_245
� ' � x'
_SUMMIT AVE. 18
31
1 _ 11r
J
I
I SR
1--48
HIGHLAND AVE. �sl L
�I Zof 1 I f
JI 13 N0
Ye 3
U4 W ORIA ST.
vl
Q 'of
1
I
BASELINERD.
or 1-74
L �g93
N
NOT TO SCALE '
L S A FIGURE 5.4-6
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRGI32\EIR\Gmphicskzist pm phivxdr(3/15/01)
' MAASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MuCu
27,2M I TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
RANCHO ETIM'A.N'DA F AMC
' The study area intersections analyzed currently operate at Level of Service "C" or better during the
peak hours, except for the following intersections which operate at Level of Service "D" to "F"
during the peak hours:
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at:
' • Highland Avenue (EW)
• Victoria Street(EW)
' The above listed intersections currently operate below an acceptable level of service without the
addition of traffic from the project. With the addition of project traffic,these intersections would
need to be mitigated to LOS C or better.
' The operations analysis worksheets for existing conditions are included in Appendix E.
' Planned Transportation Improvements. The transportation system within the study area is
expected to undergo significant improvement as a result of the construction by Caltrans of SR-30/210.
' Many of the roadways in the study area have not been fully constructed to their Master Plan
Classification. A brief discussion of the various facilities providing direct access to the project and
their ultimate configurations is, therefore, provided.
I- 15 is expected to undergo two significant changes. Two high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes(one
in each direction)are included in the long-term plans for this facility. In addition, a new interchange
' with the SR-30/210 is currently under construction. An interchange is also planned at Duncan
Canyon Road.
State Route 30/210 is currently under construction in the vicinity of the project site. Opening of this
transportation facility is anticipated in Year 2002. Three general use lanes and one HOV lane(in
each direction) are planned. Construction consists of a limited access freeway facility extending from
the State Route 30 in the City of San Bernardino to I-210 in Los Angeles County. Within the study
area, interchanges are planned at I-15 and 6h Street and SR-30/210 and Day Creek Boulevard.
' Funded Roadway Improvements. The most significant improvement project in the study area
involves the construction of the SR-30/210 Freeway between Los Angeles County and the City of
San Bernardino. The Summit Avenue interchange with the I-15 Freeway is currently operating. Day
' Creek Boulevard is being constructed by the University Property from Wilson Avenue to the SR-
30/210 Freeway. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has constructed Day Creek Boulevard between
Baseline Road and Highland Avenue, traffic signals on Day Creek Boulevard at Highland Avenue.
' There is an interchange proposed at Day Creek Boulevard and SR-30/210. No other committed
sources of funding for additional improvements necessary to serve the increase in traffic are in place.
The analyses contained in this report, therefore, assumed minimal additional improvements beyond
those anticipated in the SR-30/210 corridor, Summit Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard.
' RACRG132\DEMSection 5.4 Tamc.doc 5.4-11
DRAFT SIIPPLE.NF.Nt EIR LSA MSOCVT ,INC. 1
T ]C AND CIRCUUMN M CD1 .2WI
1
Existing Policies and Regulations ,
General Plan Policies. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan contains policies regarding '
access to proposed development. Applicable portions of these polices, in effect under the provisions
of Planning Commission Resolution No., 78-29,include:
• Where access must be granted to an arterial, said access shall be limited to one point for 300 feet ,
of frontage or one point per parcel with less than 300 feet of frontage. It is the intent of the policy
to establish a minimum 300-foot spacing between driveways '
• Combined access to arterials between adjacent properties shall be encouraged wherever possible
to reduce the number of encroachments. '
• Access points shall wherever possible be located a minimum of 300 feet from the back of curb
returns at intersections on 4 lane or wider highways. ,
• Where otherwise compatible with this policy, access shall be located opposite existing or planned
points on the opposite side of the street. ,
• In addition to the controls outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 78-29, restriction to
median island breaks and left tum access shall be limited to approximately quarter mile spacings
on the following major divided arterials: Haven Avenue,Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, '
Fourth Street, Day Creek Boulevard, and portions of Sixth Street.
San Bernardino County CMP Policies. The San Bernardino County CMP contains the following
policies and applicable action items regarding assessment of project-specific traffic impacts:
Policy 4.1.1 - Identify and quantify the direct and cumulative impacts of proposed land use decisions '
on the regional transportation system.
Action - implement the Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program through preparation '
of TIA Reports on projects which exceed the applicable thresholds, and certify that the
analysis is consistent with the CMP guidelines. ,
Policy 4.1.3-Develop and implement a program which apportions fairly the responsibility for
mitigation of deficiencies on the CMP system among local jurisdictions and State agencies. ,
Action -Prepare areawide deficiency plans in accordance with the CTP, and use the TIA
Report process as the phasing mechanism for it.
Action - Include interjurisdictional notification and opportunities for potentially impacted
jurisdictions to provide responses to TIA Reports into the local land use decision and
impact mitigation process.
Action - In association with the CTP, develop a program to provide fair, consistent,
areawide mitigation of impacts and funding of improvements on the regional ,
$.4-12 RACRG I 32WEMSection 5.4 Tmffic.doc '
' LSA ASSOCNTES,INC DRAFT SIIPPLE.MENTAL EIR
swim 27.M1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
RARCIIO FITCANILA ESTATES
transportation system needed to support economic development and local land use
decisions.
Policy 4.2.1 -Forecast the regional transportation impacts of land use plans and projects,and identify
needed improvements or mitigation strategies and their costs through the CTP process.
Action -Implement and maintain a countywide database of existing and future land use or
socioeconomic data on which to base CTP and deficiency plan updates, as well as land
use consistency determinations for the Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program.
Policy 4.2.2 -Implement the program locally, using consistent analytical procedures and
methodologies, and consider interjurisdictional as well as local impacts and solutions based on
strategies developed through the CTP.
Action -Implement the CTP through areawide deficiency plans and the TIA Report
process.
Action -Require traffic monitoring programs for certain development projects to confirm
' follow-through of commitments made to the agencies impacted by that development,and
establish guidelines for such monitoring programs as needed.
Action -Identify mitigation programs which can be implemented locally through the
CTP,to address cumulative development impacts which may cause deficiencies on the
CMP system. Such programs should reflect the resources and administrative mechanisms
currently and potentially available to local jurisdictions.
Policy 4.3.1 - Identify the effect of specific land use changes on the transportation system, regardless
' of jurisdictional boundaries, and communicate the information to all affected jurisdictions.
Action -Implement the Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program through preparation
' of CMP TIA Reports when a project or group of projects meet the threshold criteria
specified in this chapter.
Action - Participate as needed in discussions on the potential intedurisdictional impacts of
' land use decisions, mitigation of potential deficiencies, and fair apportionment of
responsibility for mitigation. The CMA and Caltrans may participate at the request of a
lead agency or potentially impacted jurisdiction.
' Policy 4.3.2 -Provide a process to monitor and forecast the cumulative, incremental impacts of all
projects, and identify measures and costs to mitigate the incremental impacts.
' Action -Identify the cumulative transportation impacts of projects through the CTP
planning process, and use the Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program as a
1 mechanism to monitor growth and its impacts on the transportation system.
Policy 4.3.4- Provide credit to local jurisdictions and project applicants within the jurisdiction who
provide improvements to the regional transportation system which exceed the level of improvements
required to mitigate deficiencies caused by the jurisdiction's land use decisions.
' R:\CRG132\DE1R\Sec6on 5.4 Tmf ic.doc 5.4-13
DRAFT SUPPI fiNTA EIR LG A.SSO IAM.INC ,
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUTAMN S CII 27.2WI
MNCIIO E 'ANDA ESTATES
Action -Through the CMPTAC, develop a process to define conditions under which
credit shall be provided,the form the credit shall take, and the amount of credit to be '
provided for provision of improvements to the regional transportation system which
exceed those required to mitigate deficiencies caused by a jurisdiction's land use
decisions. '
Policy 4.4.1 -Identify the transportation impacts of significant land use changes,regardless of
jurisdictional location or political boundaries. ,
Action -Prepare CMP TIA Reports when a project or group of projects meets the
threshold criteria specified within this chapter. '
Policy 4.4.2 -Provide a mechanism for consistent communication of impact analysis results, possible
mitigations, and mitigation costs to potentially impacted jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the CMA. ,
Action -As indicated in Policy 4.4.1, CMP TIA Reports shall be provided to the CMA
and adjacent jurisdictions so that information exchange and communication can occur in
concert with the permitting jurisdiction's project review schedule and prior to any ,
approval or permit activity. Local jurisdictions which receive TIA Reports shall provide
any comments within 3 weeks of the date the TIA Report is mailed by the permitting
jurisdiction. Should the comments received from adjacent jurisdictions,the CMA,
Caltrans, or transit agencies recommend changes to the TIA Report, the permitting
jurisdiction shall consider comments received and make changes deemed necessary bu
the permitting jurisdiction. Should the changes be such that the permitting jurisdictions ,
chooses to recirculate the document, the commenting agencies will complete the review
of the revised document within two weeks of receipt. This process is intended to be
consistent with any actions required under the local Land Use/Transportation Analysis '
Program.
Action -Participate as needed in discussions on the potential inteijurisdictional impacts of '
land sue decisions,mitigation of potential deficiencies, and fair apportionment of
responsibility for mitigation. The CMP and Caltrans may participate at the request of a
lead agency or a potentially impacted jurisdiction.
Policy 4.5.1 -Require consistent application of the specified methodology for analyzing the impacts 1
of land use decisions, evaluating mitigation measures, and estimating mitigation costs by all
jurisdictions. '
Action -Implement the Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program and certify that
analyses are consistent with the CMP guidelines. '
Policy 4.6.1 -Develop and implement a notification process for identifying right-of-way acquisition,
lane addition, and access control opportunities on the CMP roadway system, concurrent with '
development.
Action -In federally designated urbanized areas, notify Caltrans and the CMP of any '
proposed traffic generating projects(other than a single family residence) where any
5.4-14 RACRG132\DE1R\Section5.4Tm ic.doc '
' LSA ASSOCLAM,INC. DRAFT SLIPPLF.NENTAL EIR
M Cn 272WI TRAFFIC AND CIRCIIIATION
RA.NCDO F ANDA FSTAMS
' portion shares a property line in common with a State highway,or is on a roadway which
intersects a State highway, and is within 500 feet of that intersection, including
interchange ramps.
' Thresholds of Significance
Based on the following thresholds of significance,the proposed project would result in a significant
adverse impact to traffic and circulation if it were to:
• The CMP standard level of service (LOS)is LOS E. However, the CMP also allows local
' discretion and requirements to be used to determine project impacts and appropriate mitigation.
In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, LOS D is the standard level of service. Therefore, any level
of service condition in excess of LOS D is considered an impact requiring mitigation. Since this
' analysis is also being used for CEQA clearance in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, local
discretion and requirements are used to determine project impacts on local roadways and,hence,
appropriate mitigation.
• Cause a freeway segment to operate or project it to operate at LOS "F,"unless the segment is
identified explicitly in the CMP document, then the proposed project would result in a significant
adverse impact to traffic and circulation.
Impacts and Mitigation
Project Traffic. The traffic related to the project has been calculated in accordance with the
following accepted procedural steps:
1 • Trip Generation
• Trip Distribution
• Traffic Assignment
The Trip Generation Manual(e Edition) has been used to calculate the overall quantity of traffic
which the project site is estimated to generate.
Although the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project consists of 632 residential units, the traffic analysis
' summarized in this document evaluated conditions, which may occur through the development of 670
residential units as the worst case scenario. Table 5.4-B summarizes the projected trip generation for
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The proposed development is projected to generate
' approximately 6,412 new trip-ends per day with 502 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and
677 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
RACRG132\DEIR\Section 5.4 Tmffic.doc 5.4-15
DRAFT SUPPMMENT LEIR LSAASO MN S.INC. ,
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUUMN MARCD 2].20[11
1
Table 5.4-B '
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION'
PEAK HOUR '
AM PM '
LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS IN OUT IN OUT DAILY
Single-Family Detached Residential 670 DU 127 375 436 241 6,412 '
1. Land Use Category: 210 AM: In 0.19/Out 0.56 PM: In 0.65/Out 0.36 Daily:9.57
DU=Dwelling Units
The CTP model has been used to evaluate the regional distribution of project traffic. A select zone '
(trip distribution)analysis was performed using the CTP model with the assistance of SCAG staff.
The detailed trip distribution/traffic assignment process has been accomplished manually. The '
project traffic distribution is shown on Figure 5.4-7
Project Only Traffic Volume Forecasts. The project-only traffic forecasts have been developed by
applying the trip generation, distribution, and traffic assignment calculations. The ADT volumes
attributable to the project only are presented on Figure 5.4-8. AM and PM peak hour project traffic
forecasts are depicted in Figures 5.4-9 and 5.4-10,respectively.
The project traffic volumes presented in this section are the criteria used in determining the limits of
the required CMP Horizon Year(2020)analysis. The CMP states that any CMP roadway link
carrying 80 or more two-way project trips or any CMP freeway link carrying 100 or more two-way
project trips during the AM and/or PM peak hour must be analyzed to ensure that no CMP
deficiencies are anticipated within the study area.
Only freeway segments with 100 or more two-way (total)trips need to be analyzed in accordance ,
with CMP requirements. Overall, 11 intersection locations and 3 freeway segments have been
analyzed per CMP requirements.
The project contributes traffic greater than the CMP freeway threshold volume of 100 two-way trips ,
to SR-30/210, and the project contribution test has indicated that the project will contribute more than
80 trips(CMP roadway threshold volume)along roadway segments serving CMP intersections within '
the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This means that the City of Rancho Cucamonga must notify the
Congestion Management Agency(SANBAG) and the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) in accordance with CMP requirements. Each of these agencies must also be provided with ,
a copy of the CMP traffic impact analysis, once the City of Rancho Cucamonga accepts the
document.
5.4-16 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.4 Tmffic.doc '
LYRE
CREEA aD.
aRmUYATI dMGN \ ��-
pa.� ewr.�
i
wARuuws r --------
euuaa
11uLsmE rm. � 1
I ------
2
AVE, steps
r_ __ __ ___ AVE.
< 1 2 7
< 6 _3 0 �swm—C ..A�—
1
pg I 3 1 `
14 18 .s==== ---- --- -- __ ___ ------
------- lsrssol =__ — — ---'--
1
sEVAbiEI
no.
1
QY4 < 1
F 6ENO. (SRd6
a�
AAROW Blw,
AVE,
NOT TO SCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-7
�Q PERCENT TOiFROM PROJECT Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Project Trip Distribution
SOURCE:URB AN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
RACRG132\Gnphics\EIR\pld.cdr(3/27/01)
1
I
�,
�v I
I
lel
I�
I_ WILSON AVE.
I 3.0 OA
Im m
Im
N ,
I
17 ?
I e' N
J__ SUMMITAVE. '
0.4 I 0.2
I1A N
1N N ,
I 0.7
1.9 __SR-30FWY__ _------
0.4 0.2I HIGH0L8 DAVE. 0.3
I a
of o
�Im z N
YIo 3
KiVICTORIA ST. ,
UI 0.1 0.1
QI
OI
I �
I
BASELINE RD.
0.3 ,
m
0
NOT TO SCALE '
L S A FIGURE 5.4-8 ,
Q,B VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) Rancho Etiwanda Estates ,
Supplemental EIR
Project Average Daily Traffic
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
RACRG 132\Gmphics\EIR\padt.c&(327/01)
I m
TIS
I
I
o-
7-1T ri�
I
WILSON AVE.
I
I
I
_---- I — SUMMIT AVE. ITT L ��;—Q
r04 I t0—
I 0-1 r
a I
SR-30 FWY. _
HIGHLAND AVE. LA-0
gi o bJ !17)f
I tot o,
a7
37— I
us, w ORIA ST.
DI
al
of
a1pO� I
TTY 1I BASELINE RD.
i r
"e
YY L 40
' QO_ 1 r
N V'�
' NOTTOSr• r
L S A FIGURE 5.4-9
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R3CRG 132\G.phics\EIR\pam phiv.cdr(327/01)
�i� I Jr0
QJ lir
gJ �_ i r
3a N
1
1 J L
I
JIT
WILSON AVE. ——_ 5J low
1 r - , -- ---- o-,
I
I
1 �moj X17
I SUMMITAVE. T ' L A '
o ----- ,--
51f I i r
71
r'-0 , 0 o^o
11
oe ,
SR-30 FWY. _
m r
HIGHLAND AVE.
J
L o f 0 0-� l r
�I
no w W ORIA ST.
U1
QI ,of
�0 I
�'+'('Q —12 I
j ' L r19 BASELINE RD.
4�I
zap
gqa�lo; "—p117 ,
JILr-0
0-
N
MOTTOSCe F '
L S A FIGURE 5.4-10
Rancho Etiwanda Estates ,
Supplemental EIR
Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R.1CRG132\Graphics\EIRlppm phiv.cdr(3/27/01)
1 ISAASSOCIAl ,INC. DRArr SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
. u it 27.2001 T RC Mo CIRCUTATION
RANCHO FITa'A.NnA FSTATF-S
Potentially Significant Impact
Impact 5.4.1 Three intersections are forecast to fall below the minimum LOS D under the 2003
plus project condition in the AM or PM peak hour. These intersections are:
1 • Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue/Highland Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street
1 The project creates or contributes to these unsatisfactory conditions, which is considered a
significant impact.
1 The intersection operations analysis for Opening Year(2003)with project traffic conditions with
existing geometries, construction of Day Creek Boulevard,and SR-30/210 Freeway improvements
1 are summarized in Table 5.4-C. Figure 5.4-11 details Opening Year average daily traffic (with
project). Opening Year with project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes
are illustrated in Figures 5.4-12 and 5.4-13,respectively. The operations analysis worksheets for
1 Opening Year(2003)with project conditions are included in Appendix E. As shown in Table 5.4-C,
the following intersections are projected to experience LOS "D"to"F" operations and are, therefore,
deficient per the City of Rancho Cucamonga criteria.
Table 5.4-C
OPENING YEAR(2003) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
1 DELAY LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE
INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM
Day Creek BI.(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 11.7 11.7 B B
1 -Summit Ave.(EW) 11.6 11.5 B B
-SR-210 WB Ramps(EW) 11.9 9.7 B A
-SR-210 EB Ramps(EW) 10.5 9.6 B A
-Highland Ave.(EW) — -- F F
1 Etiwanda Ave.West(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 9.5 9.1 A A
1 Etiwanda Ave.East(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 10.7 11.6 B B
-Summit Ave.(EW) 9.3 11.1 A B
-Highland Ave.(EW) 32.6 -- C F
1 -Victoria St.(EW) -- 10.2 F B
-Baseline Rd.(EW) 29.7 32.9 C C
i
i
1 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.4 Taffic.doc 5.4-21
I
I
L
1
I�
I
1 I -- ---
L WILSON AVE.
0.8 4.5 1.0
1
Im �
I
SLIMMIT AVE.
0.7 I 1.7 1.0 4.0
I
I� n
I
SR-30 FVYY. _
' 23.31 HIGHLANDAVE. 25.0
.5 23.2
3 a
1
�I o
�1 m
I YI 3
wle
wIN w VICTORIA ST.
UI
02 3.1
QI
I �
I
' BASELINE RD.
34.3 32.4
0
1
INOT To SCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-11
0®, VEHICLES PERDAY(1000'S) Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Opening Year with Project
Average Daily Traffic
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRGI32\Graphics\EIMoyy w padccdr(3/27/01)
N_ 1 I 7 L �1io
IL �r,5o
r
1
mI;m L-4
JIL2 ' 4E
' WILSON AVE. r
4J r ------_
— I N�
7�
I
I
I nar- ��-2787p
SUMMIT AVE. I L r72B
w - - iIr
I 218 I 34-
ll I
NO I
—SR-30 FM. _ ____ _
---- --------- ----- N x—,40
HIGHLAND AVE. �] I L x223
�I O 2�
IT
JI Q
m
4;-Ji r Id 3
w ORIAST.
C
UI
QI ,
pq OI
J L 33 5 I BASELINE RD.
77
84544 IavNa
198
T-I L ,
7 1 r
11 l
N
NOT TO SCALE ,
L S A FIGURE 5.4-12 ,
Rancho Etiwanda Estates '
Supplemental EIR
Opening Year with Project
AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ,
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG132\EIR\GmphicsNoy w pam phmcdr(3/15/01)
I T
1TT
11— 3gs- 1 f
130—
� I
I
I �NoILA"15
"31 I D
JIL9s 1
_ 1 WILSON AVE.42f _—_ l r
48� ,r
Na 1
1
1
L-273M
1 SUMMIT AVE. J I L �3
11r
M1 1
SR 30 FW' , _
HIGHLAND AVE. > 7 IT
No
`P`L gl z
co a
1f wl P
w w ORIA ST.
wI
�I
al
of
j� x-98
1 L ;8 1 BASELINE RD.
788:f 11 r
o� L-85
T-1
R �1139
12g9gg1gJL 51 1 f
N 130--1 N�
NOTTOSCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-13
1 Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Opening Year with Project
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG132\EIR\Gmphics\uy w ppm phiv.cdr(3/15/01)
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SIIFFLE.MENTAL EAR
M C1127,MI TRAFFIC AND CIRCIIAATION
RANCIIO ET ANDA FSTATALS
' Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures included in the 1991 Final EIR are identified and
incorporated where appropriate, and modified as necessary to mitigate the potentially significant
impacts of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. New mitigation measures have been included as
necessary to reduce significant adverse impact of the proposed project.
Mitigation from the 1991 Final EIR That is Still Applicable to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project
TC-1 Maintain LOS C along secondary arterials and collector streets in the area by restricting
parking and controlling access.
TC-2 Landscape plantings and signs shall be limited in height in the vicinity of project roadways to
assure good visibility.
TC-3 Local streets should have a minimum radius of 300 feet(25 mph design speed).
TC-4 Cul-de-sacs should not exceed 600 feet in length to facilitate emergency access.
TC-5 Streets should intersect at as near to a right angle as possible, and at not more than 10 degree
skew.
TC-6 Streets should intersect others on the outside curve rather than the inside of a horizontal
curve.
TC-7 Streets should intersect on a crest vertical curve,unless adequate site distance is provided.
TC-8 Design local and collector streets in accordance with applicable standards established by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
TC-9 At least two different ingress/egress routes should be included except as noted under the cul-
de-sac discussion in the 1991 Final EIR.
TC-10 No street, or turnaround road should have a center line radius or curvature or less than 50
feet.
I TC-11 Vertical curves and dips in the roadway shall be determined based on design speeds
established for them.
Additional mitigation required for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project includes.
5.4.1A Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall pay its fair share
contribution to the following improvements.
• Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue
' Construct southbound left tum lane
Construct southbound free right tum lane
Construct eastbound left tum lane
Construct eastbound through lane
IRACRG132\DEIRISection 5.4 Trafc.doc 5.4-25
DRAFT SUPPIENFXr LEIR INC. f
TWHC AND CIRCUTAMN .MARCH 27.2W1
f
Construct westbound through lane ,
Construct westbound right tum lane with overlap
Install traffic signal f
• Etiwanda Aveue/Highland Avenue
Construct northbound right tum lane f
Construct southbound right turn lane with overlap
Construct westbound through lane f
• Etiwanda AvenuelPictorfa Street
Install Traffic Signal f
Level of Significance after Mitigation. The intersection operations analysis for Opening Year with ,
project traffic conditions with improvements is summarized in Table 5.4-D. Improvements presented
in Table 5.4-D include both funded improvements and any additional improvements needed to
achieve LOS "C"or better during the peak hours. The operations analysis worksheets for Opening f
Year with project conditions(with improvements)are included in Appendix E. As shown in Table
5.4-D, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service"C"or better during the
peak hours, with improvements. Therefore,Year 2003 impacts associated with development of the ,
proposed project have reduced to a less than significant level.
Table 5.4-D ,
OPENING YEAR(2003)WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
DELAY LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE
INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM ,
Day Creek BI.(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 11.7 11.7 B B f
-Summit Ave.(EW) 11.6 11.5 B B
-SR-210 WB Ramps(EW) 11.9 9.7 B A
-SR-210 EB Ramps(EW) 10.5 9.6 B A
-Highland Ave.(EW) 16.1 12.4 B B ,
Etiwanda Ave.West(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 9.5 1 9.1 A A
Etiwanda Ave. East(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 10.7 11.6 B B
-Summit Ave.(EW) 9.8 7.5 A A
-Highland Ave.(EW) 28.4 19.7 C B ,
-Victoria St.(EW) 13.9 6.8 B A
-Baseline Rd.(EW) 29.7 32.9 C C
f
5.4-26 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.4 Tratrc.doc f
' ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
MARLH 27 MI TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
RANCHO F ' NDA FSTATFS
Impact 5.4.2. Ten intersections are forecast to fall below the minimum LOS D under the 1020 plus
project condition in the AM or PM peak hour. These intersections are:
• Day Creek Boulevard/Wilson Avenue
• Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/210 westbound ramp
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/210 eastbound ramp
• Day Creek Boulevard/Highland Avenue
I • Etiwanda Avenue/lVilson Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue/Summit Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue/Highland Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street
• Etiwanda Avenue/Base Line Road
The project creates or contributes to these unsatisfactory conditions, which is considered a
significant impact.
1 The intersection operations analysis for Year 2020 with project traffic conditions with existing
geometries, construction of Day Creek Boulevard,and SR-30/210 improvements are summarized in
Table 5.4-E. Figure 5.4-14 details Opening Year average daily traffic(with project). Year 2020 with
project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 5.4-15
and 5.4-16,respectively. The operations analysis worksheets for Year 2020 with project conditions
are included in Appendix E. As shown in Table 5.4-E, the following intersections are projected to
experience LOS "D"to"F"operations and are,therefore, deficient per the City of Rancho
Cucamonga criteria.
Table 5.4-E
YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
DELAY LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE
INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM
Day Creek BI.(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 23.5 F C
-Summit Ave.(EW) -- -- F F
-SR-210 WB Ramps(EW) -- -- F F
-SR-210 EB Ramps(EW) F F
-Highland Ave.(EW) F F
Etiwanda Ave.West(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 24.9 19.0 C C
Etiwanda Ave.East(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 10.7 11.6 E F
1 -Summit Ave.(EW) 9.3 11.1 C F
-Highland Ave.(EW) 32.6 F F
-Victoria St.(EW) -- 10.2 F F
-Baseline Rd.(EW) 29.7 32.9 D F
R:\CRG132\DEIR\.Section 5.4 TraOic.doc 5.4-27
DR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ISA ASSO BM.INC. t
T FCANDCIRCUUTION MARCn 27,2001
S
Mitigation Measures '
5.4.2A While the above stated impacts will not occur until 2020,the project proponent will shall
be required to pay the fair share contribution for the following improvements prior to the issuance
of building permits.
• Day Creek BoulevardlWilson Avenue ,
Install traffic signal
• Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue t
Construct southbound right turn lane
Construct westbound left tum lane ,
Install traffic signal
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/110 westbound ramps
Install traffic signal
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/110 eastbound ramps
Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda AvenuclWilson Street
Install traffic signal
• EdwandaAvenue/SummitAvenue
Install traffic signal
• Etiwanda AvenuelBase Line Road
Construct northbound through lane
Construct southbound left tum lane
Construct eastbound through lane
Construct eastbound right tum lane ,
Construct westbound through lane
• Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road to Highland Avenue ,
Construct four lanes
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-30/110 to Summit Avenue
Construct 4 lanes
• Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue to 0.3 miles north of Wilson Avenue
Construct 2 lanes
• Day Creek Boulevard/0.3 miles north of Wilson Avenue to project boundary
Construct 2 lanes
• Etiwanda Avenuelterminus to project boundary
Construct 2 lanes t
5.4-28 R:\CRG132\DEIR\Section 5.4 Tmflic.doe
ISAASSOCIATER.INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Huai 27,2001 TRAFFIC AND CIRCDIATION
RANCHO ET ANDA FSTATFS
• Wilson Avenue10.3 miles east and west of Day Creek Boulevard
Construct 2 lanes
• SummitAve✓0.3 miles east of Day Creek Boulevard
Construct 2 lanes
Level of Significance after Mitigation. The intersection operations analysis for Year 2020 with
project traffic conditions with improvements is summarized in Table 5.4-F. The operations analysis
worksheets for Year 2020 with project conditions(with improvements) are included in Appendix E.
As shown in Table 5.4-F, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service"C"
or better during the peak hours, with improvements. Therefore,Year 2020 impacts associated with
development of the proposed project have reduced to a less than significant level.
Table 5.4-F
YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WITH
IMPROVEMENTS
DELAY. _ _ LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE
INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM
Day Creek BI.(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 16.6 21.4 B C
-Summit Ave.(EW) 34.8 34.4 C C
-SR-210 WB Ramps(EW) 34.6 12.4 C B
-SR-210 EB Ramps(EW) 19.4 24.3 B C
-Highland Ave.(EW) 27.5 31.6 C C
Etiwanda Ave.West(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 6.9 5.0 A A
Etiwanda Ave.East(NS)at:
-Wilson Ave.(EW) 7.2 13.2 A B
-Summit Ave.(EW) 9.8 14.1 A B
-Highland Ave.(EW) 29.4 32.5 C C
-Victoria St.(EW) 15.5 9.5 B A
-Baseline Rd.(EW) 33.1 33.6 C C
1 Impact 5.4.3 Under Year 1010(plus project) conditions, three freeway segments of the westbound
and/or eastbound SR-30/110 between Day Creek Boulevard and Archibald Avenue are forecast to fall
below the minimum LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hour. These freeway segments are:
AM
• Westbound SR-301210 between Day Creek Boulevard and Milliken Avenue
• Westbound SR-101210 between Milliken Avenue and Haven Avenue
' Westbound SR-301210 between Haven Avenue and Archibald Avenue.
RXRG1321DEIR\Section 5.4 Ttaflic.doc 5.4-29
i
f
I
I
Im
1 m
I h'
LWILSON AVE. -- --_
5.4 10.4 6.5
I
'0 1
1� m
I
SUMMIT AVE.
4.9 I 11.4 6.3 6.9
I
Im °'
110 N
SR-30 FWY.
25.8 I HIGHLAND AVE. ui 26.3
23.0 24.8
I
�I p e
an a
16 3
CWIN
W VICTORIA ST.
OI 0.5 7.8
Ql
of �
I
I .-
BASELINE RD.
46.3 46.3 ,
0
N
NOTTO SCALE
L S A FIGURE 5.4-14 ,
20.3 VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Year 2020 with Project
Average Daily Traffic f
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG 132\Omphics\EIR\2020 w padccdr(327/01)
la mo fi
5 I i
i i `rt un 1009 02
0
1J170r 11 r'
� � 32—
I �Nm —19
urila x--26g 1 x247
J L ra59 _ I WILSON AVE. _______ 213-7 ,N
1 gg— 1 I r I
26- m I
I
I
SUMMIT AVE.
6g' x193
1. I 86—
1 x1453 I 21� NNN
tll I
SR-30 FWY. _
1 _ — mN-n_ X162
HIGHLAND AVE. IT x742
L �I O 8� �1�
N�
m
X83; W; W
r" C I ORIA ST.
01
al
of
0'0� X325
T 1 T5
j� I BASELINE RD.
44
35�f l f
N_ �_a6
x3112
12ppT 39r
N NON
NOTTOSC E
L S A FIGURE 5.4-15
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
1 Supplemental EIR
Year 2020 with Project
AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG132\Gmphics\EIR\2020 w pm phi,. dr(3/27/01)
;:13 3q
L `y �\CC \C\C" I X240 ��0 '
I r75 y
l r
1
I q+gN�cn "�23,,
g'ro'g "21554 J I ���
I L x2232pp�—
302J _ I WILSON AVE. ------_ 19� 1 r
I
I
�d1Q '
SUMMIT AVE. �"'
I x203 i 125
NCO
SR-30 FVYY. _
"'30
HIGHLAND AVE. > I L x143
T L
ml
C266 I f Y-
wl w ORIA ST.
UI
QI
of
`Q�'j —4660 I
' L r190 BASELINE RD.
4$4g r
227--r �v m
o m 1-143
J I L x1425
g-
N '3JX1US4� r
NOTTOSC E
L S A FIGURE 5.4-16 '
Rancho Etiwanda Estates
Supplemental EIR
Year 2020 with Project
PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
SOURCE:URBAN CROSSROADS,MARCH 2001.
R:\CRG 132\Gmphics\EIR\2020 w ppm phiecdr(3/27/01)
1
ISAASSOCIATFS.INC. DR SIIPPUMENTA EIR
.. A 112],2 I TRAFFIC AND CIRCIIIATION
RANCHO E &NDA ESTATES
PM
1 • Eastbound SR-30/210 between Archibald Avenue and Haven Avenue
• Eastbound SR-20/210 between Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue
• Eastbound SR-30/210 between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard
The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project contributes to this unsatisfactory condition which is considered
a significant impact.
As required by the CMP, an analysis of Year 2020 freeway level of service is required for all freeway
segments that carry 100 or more project trips in the peak hour. The freeway peak hour volume
forecasts have been developed using the peak period CTP model data directly,as discussed with
SANBAG. The project contributes traffic greater than the CMP freeway threshold of 100 two-way
trips to a State Highway(SR-30/210).
Table 5.4-G presents the analysis for Year 2020 AM peak traffic conditions. As shown in Table 5.4-
G, a total of 3 freeway segments will operate at an unacceptable level of service for Year 2020 with
project traffic conditions during the AM peak hour. These westbound freeway segments operate at an
acceptable LOS for Year 2020 during the PM peak hour.
The PM peak hour freeway mainline segment operations have also been evaluated. Table 5.4-H
summarizes the results of this analysis. A total of 3 eastbound freeway mainline segments are
deficient for Year 2020 PM peak hour with project traffic.
Mitigation Measures
1 5.4.3A The addition of the following freeway lanes would improve freeway operations with year
2020 plus project traffic volumes to LOS E or better
• SR-30/210 westbound between Milliken Avenue and Archibald Avenue—addition of one
eastbound and westbound lane.
Level of Significance after Mitigation. The freeway mainline segment volume to capacity ratios has
been recalculated, along with the resulting levels of service. Tables 5.44 and 5.44 summarize the
resulting levels of service for the AM peak hours. Improvements to SR-30/210 will be under the
authority of Caltrans. However,there is no mechanism for the project proponent to pay fees or make
fair share contributions towards improving mainline freeway lanes, and even if there were such a
mechanism, there is no way to ensure that such payments would be directed to a specific freeway
improvement project. Consequently,there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts. The
impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
i
y
RACRG132\DE1R\Smtion 5.4 Tmffic.doc 5.4-33
LSA ASSOCIA'1'EY, INC. DRAFT' SUPPLEMENTAL FIX
MARC11 27. 3001 TRAFFIC AND CIRCIII.ATION
RANCHO F.TIWANDA ESTATES
Table 5.4-G
CMP FREEWAY MAINLINE AM PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS ANALYSIS (YEAR 2020)
PROJECTI
FRE'LWAY SEGMENT LIMITS USE, im CAPACITY TRIPS VOLUIN1111, CAP LOS TRIPS CAI' LOS
SR-30/210 Day Creek Blvd. to Milliken Ave. 3 1 8.200 109 10,518 1.28 F 10,627 1.30 F
Westbound Milliken Ave. to Haven Ave. 3 1 8.200 83 9,751 1.19 F 9,834 1.20 F
Haven Ave. to Archibald Ave. 3 1 8.200 68 9,796 1.19 F 9,864 1.20 F
SR-30/210 Archibald Ave. to Haven Ave. 3 1 8.200 23 2,380 0.29 A 2,403 0.29 A
Eastbound Haven Ave. to Milliken Ave. 3 1 8.200 28 2,223 0.27 A 2,251 0.27 A
Milliken Ave. to Day Creek Blvd. 3 1 1 8.200 37 2,313 0.28 1 A 2,350 0.29 A
Table 5.4-H
CMP FREEWAY MAINLINE PM PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS ANALYSIS (YEAR 2020)
LANE'S BASEAANI' TOTAL
GEN. PROJECT BASELINI'l VOL/ VOL/
1-10A."WAY Sl'.GiNIENT LINUTS USE HOV CAPACITY TRIPS VOLUME, CAI) LOS TWITS CAP LOS
SR-30/210 Day Creek Blvd. to Milliken Ave. 3 1 8.200 70 5,024 0.61 C 5,094 0.62 C
Westbound Milliken Ave. to Haven Ave. 3 1 8.200 53 4,543 0.55 C 4,596 0.56 C
Haven Ave. to Archibald Ave. 3 1 8.200 43 4,931 0.60 C 4,974 0.61 C
SR-30/210 Archibald Ave. to Haven Ave. 3 1 8.200 78 11,254 1.37 F 11,332 1.38 A
Eastbound Haven Ave. to Milliken Ave. 3 1 8.200 96 11,182 1.36 F 11,278 1.38 A
Milliken Ave. to Day Creek Blvd. 3 1 8.200 126 12,232 1.49 F 12,358 1.51 A
RACRG1320EIR\Tables 5.4-G and H-new.dm(326/01) 5,4-34
I.SA A5SOCIATL'R, INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMEN"1'AL EIR
MARCH 27, 2001 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
RANCHO E'1'IWANDA ESTATES
Table 5.4-I
CMP FREEWAY MAINLINE AM OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WITH IMPROVEMENTS (YEAR 2020)
IMPROVEMENT (LANES ADDED) IMPROVEID
FIZEEWAY SI GMENT LIMITS GENERAL •
SR-30/210 Day Creek Blvd. to Milliken Ave. 2 12,600 10,627 0.84 D
Westbound Milliken Ave. to Haven Ave. 1 10,400 9,834 0.95 E
Haven Ave. to Archibald Ave. 1 10,400 9,864 0.95 E
SR-30/210 Archibald Ave. to Haven Ave. 8,200 2,403 0.29 A
Eastbound Haven Ave. to Milliken Ave. 8,200 2,251 0.27 A
Milliken Ave. to Day Creek Blvd. 8,200 2,350 0.29 A
Table 5.4-J
CMP FREEWAY MAINLINE PM PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WITH IMPROVEMENTS (YEAR 2020)
ADDED)
FREEWAY SEGMENT LIMITS GENEIZAL • •
SR-30/210 Day Creek Blvd. to Milliken Ave. 8,200 5,094 0.62 C
Westbound Milliken Ave. to Haven Ave. 8,200 4,596 0.56 C
Haven Ave. to Archibald Ave. 8,200 4,974 0.61 C
SR-30/210 Archibald Ave. to Haven Ave. 2 12,600 11,332 0.90 D
Eastbound Haven Ave. to Milliken Ave. 2 12,600 11,278 0.90 D
Milliken Ave. to Day Creek Blvd. 2 12,600 12,358 0.98 E
RACRG132\DEIR\Tab1es 5A-G and H-new.dm(3/26/01) 5.4-35
DRAFT SDPPLENEWi EIR I-SAA5SOCIATES.INC. ,
TRAFFIC AND CIRCDIATION M CII 2],-'001
RANCHO ENIT NDA ESTATES
Cumulative Impacts
Table 5.4-K presents the results of the intersection analysis performed at the study intersections with
the forecast 2020 plus project traffic volumes. As shown, all study intersections are forecast to
operate at acceptable levels of service. Consequently,there are no cumulative intersection impacts.
Table 5.4-K
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AT IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS AFTER MITIGATION
Year 2003 Year 2003 Year 2020 Year 2020
M/Pro'eet Traffic W/Improvements w/Project Trak w/Im rovements
Intersection AM PM AM I PM AM PM AM PM
Day Creek Boulevard @
-Wilson Avenue(EW) B B B B F C B C
-Summit Avenue(EW) B B B B F F C C
-SR-210 Freeway WB Ramps(EW) B A B A F F C B
-SR-210 Freeway EB Ramps(EW) B A B A F F B C
-Highland Avenue E F F B B F F C C
Etiwanda Ave.@
-Wilson Avenue(EW) B B B B E F A B
-Summit Avenue(EW) A B A A C F A B
-Highland Avenue(EW) C F C B F F C C
-Victoria Street(EW) F B B A F F B A
-Baseline Road E C C C C D F C L C
Tables 5.4-I and J present the level of service with the recommended freeway lane additions. With ,
implementation of the recommended lane additions,the CMP LOS E standards is maintained for the
impact freeway sections. However, there is no mechanism for individual projects to contribute
financially to freeway mainline improvements. These impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
5.4-36 R:\CRG132\DE1R\Section 5.4 TraRc.doc
ISAASSOCIATFS.INC [)RAFT SUPPLEMENI'.1L FIR
1 11 272WI LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJFCT
RANC110 FTR'AND.1 FST.1TFS
1
6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT
6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE
IMPLEMENTED
Development of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would entail the commitment of
natural,energy, and human resources. This commitment of resources into the construction and
maintenance of the proposed project would be commensurate with that addressed in the original 1991
Final EIR for the University/Crest PD, and would be similar to that of other development projects in
the area. Existing on-site resources would be lost within the 247.8 acres committed to development,
including mature and intermediate stage alluvial fan scrub, chaparral,and riparian wash,as well as
the wildlife that these habitat areas support. The most significant of these losses is the alluvial fan
scrub, which is a recognized sensitive habitat area that is being lost throughout the region. By
bringing residential populations into closer proximity with the Day Canyon Wash, it is also possible
that the canyon's biological resources value could be diminished, and wildlife movement through the
flood plain area could be reduced.
In summary, implementation of the proposed Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would involve the
following irreversible environmental changes:
• The commitment of 247.8 acres of undeveloped open space to urban development.
• The loss of sensitive habitat and wildlife resources occupying the properties.
• The commitment of energy resources necessary to construct and maintain the project.
• The alteration of the existing character of the project site.
6.2 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE
1 AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
The following significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed
Rancho Etiwanda Estates project:
Air Quality: The short-term construction emissions due to the proposed project with
' mitigation measures would be reduced to an extent, however, the PMIo and
NOx emissions would still be significant.
The long term regional air quality impact due to the proposed project with
mitigation measures would be reduced to an extent, however, the emissions
would still be significant specifically for NOx and ROG.
In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a
RACRG132\DEIR\Section 6.0 tong-Tenn Implications.doc 6-1
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR LSA A.SSOCIAM,INC. ,
LONG-TERM I.MPUCATIONS OF 111E PROJECT M CII 27,2WI
RAN A
I
significant air quality impact in an area that is out of attainment adds to the
cumulative impact, and this cumulative impact is considered significant.
Biological Biological impacts would be lessened by the mitigation, although not fully t
Resources: mitigated. Thus, impacts to biological resources would remain significant.
Land Use: The loss of 247.8 acres of open space. A significant adverse cumulative impact r
due to the infringement of development on the North Etiwanda Preserve.
Traffic: The addition of one eastbound and westbound lane between Milliken and '
Archibald Avenues would improve Year 2020 freeway operations, however there
is no mechanism for the project proponent to pay fees or make fair share
contributions towards improving mainline freeway improvements. Thus impacts
to Year 2020 freeway operations remain significant and unavoidable.
i
1
I
I
1
1
6-2 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 6.0 Long-Tenn Implications.doc ,
BAA SC,CIAM,INC. DRAFT SUPPLENF.NTAI.EIR
NMCI,27,2001 A nRNAIIT
RANCHO F. D DA EMTFS
7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
As indicated in Section IV of the 1991 Addendum,the 1989 University/Crest FEIR analyzed three
alternatives including:
1 • No Project/No Development
• Reduced Residential Density
• City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
The 1991 Addendum also included a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative. The
1991 Addendum concluded that although the Reduced Residential Density would generally result in
fewer quantitative impacts,the proposed project(meaning the University/Crest project)was
considered to be the environmentally superior alternative based on a more through examination of the
issues. As analyzed in the 1991 Addendum, although the Reduced Residential Density alternative
would result in fewer units being developed, all of the infrastructure improvements would still be
required at essentially the same level as for the proposed project, including circulation improvements,
and water and sewer improvements. The site-specific grading impacts required for the Reduced
,. Residential Density alternative would impact the same amount of land as the proposed project would.
Therefore, the 1991 Addendum concluded that the proposed University/Crest project was the
environmentally superior alternative.
Section IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project of the 1991 Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR updated the alternatives analysis of
the 1989 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR. The
alternatives discussed in the Addendum were as follows:
• Alternative Site Location.
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines that were in effect at the time,the 1989 Final Environmental
Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR, and the 1991 Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PD No. W121-49 FEIR fully addressed a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly
I attain most of the basic objectives of the project,but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. According
to the 1991 Addendum to the FEIR, the potentially significant adverse impacts (after mitigation)
which would be expected with the development of the University/Crest project were close to or the
same as those described in the 1989 FEIR. The environmental review documents prepared for the
University/Crest project concluded the project would result in significant adverse impacts to traffic
and circulation, air quality, and biological resources.
This Supplemental EIR has reevaluated each of these three significant adverse impacts identified
under the University/Crest project. In addition, this Supplemental EIR addresses the issue of land use
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 7.0 Altemanves.doe 7-1
DR SUPPMMENTA EIR ISAASSOCWA .INC. ,
ALl'ERNATNFS ! CH 27,2W I
RANCHO E ANDA ESTATES
I
and planning due to the numerous changes that have occurred in the environment within the West
Valley Planning Area since the approval of the University/Crest project Addendum in 1991. These
changes in the environment are fully described in Section 4.0 (Cumulative Impacts).
Upon completion of the Initial Study(see Appendix A)by the County of San Bernardino for the
proposed Crest project(now referred to as Rancho Etiwanda Estates),the County determined the four
project alternatives presented in the certified environmental documents for the University/Crest
project remain legally valid under CEQA for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga agrees with the findings of the County's Initial Study. As a result,the three
project alternatives do not have to be updated in this Supplemental EIR for the proposed Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project.
The environmental evaluations that are provided in Section 5.0 (Environmental Evaluations) of this
Supplemental EIR reached the following conclusions:
1. The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would result in significant adverse impacts in the areas
of air quality,biological resources, and land use; and
2. The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would not result in a significant adverse impact on
traffic and circulation. This is a change from the conclusion reached in the University/Crest
project Final EIR and Addendum. The reason the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project as
currently proposed would result in less impacts to traffic and circulation than the
University/Crest project would have ten years ago is that the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project ,
mitigates all of its identified project traffic impacts and its fair share of the cumulative traffic
impacts,whereas the University/Crest project did not.
One of the general concepts contained in the State CEQA Guidelines is the prevention of significant,
avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of mitigation
measures or alternatives when the lead agency finds the changes to be feasible. As described above,
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project is expected to result in significant adverse impacts to air quality,
biological resources,and land use. The mitigation measures presented in Section 5.1 (Air Quality)
would reduce both the short-term and long-term air quality impacts attributable to the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project to the extent feasible,but they would not reduce them to a level less than
significant. The mitigation measures presented in Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) would also
reduce potential biological resource impacts attributable to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project,but
again they would not reduce them to a level less than significant. The mitigation measures presented
in Section 5.3 (Land Use)would reduce the project impacts, however,the Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project would still result in significant adverse cumulative impacts due to the loss of open space and
to the impacts of development on the North Etiwanda Preserve. Since the proposed mitigation
measures would not reduce the significant adverse air quality,biological resources, and land use
impacts to below a level of significance, and to meet the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines
for the lead agency to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes
in projects through the use of mitigation measures or alternatives when the lead agency finds the
changes to be feasible, the following new alternative is being evaluated for the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project.
r
7-2 \VUV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Sccdon 7.0 Altematives.doc
ISA ASSOCIATES,INC. DRATE SUPPLEMENTEIR
M I,3],3001 ALTERNArnES
0.A.NC110 FIWACUA EST.AMS
7.2 REDUCED DENSITY-DEVELOPING THE PROJECT SITE PER THE
VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION AS PROVIDED
IN THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
The Etiwanda North Specific Plan(ENSP)was adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga on April 1, 1992,approximately one-year after the University/Crest project was approved
by the County. As such, the ENSP was not addressed in the previous environmental documents
prepared on the University/Crest project. The land use plan for the ENSP designates the Crest project
site as Very Low Density Residential (VL). The"VL" designation allows a maximum density of 2
dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
I The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project site totals 247.8 acres. Therefore,pursuant to the ENSP a total
of 495 single-family residential units could be built on the 247.8-acre project site. The 247.8-acre
project site has a total of 10,794,168 square feet. Assuming 25,000 linear feet of roadways would be
necessary for internal circulation with a roadway width of 88 feet,then a total of 2,200,000 square
feet of the site area would be required for roads. As such, approximately 8,594,168 square feet would
be available for residential lots. With the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, approximately 429
single-family residential units would be possible on the project site. This equates to 1.73 units per
acre, which is within the ENSP allowable density for the project site.
I Following is a comparison evaluation of the environment effects between the Rancho Etiwanda
Estates project as proposed and this reduced density alternative.
Air Quality
Construction Emissions after Mitigation Measures. The short-term construction emissions due to
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project after mitigation measures have been implemented would be
reduced to an extent; however,the PMIo and NOx emissions would still be significant. The worst-
case peak construction emissions are summarized in Table 7.AI. The construction emissions in
Table 7.A were based on developing the entire 247.8-acre site in three phases. The reduced density
alternative would also require developing the entire 247.8-acre site, and it would also likely occur in
three phases. Therefore,the air emissions during construction would be the same under the reduced
density alternative as under the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project.
i
I Table 7.A is the same as Table 5.1_
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Sation 7.0 Altematives.,im 7-3
I
DR.Srr SnPPLENFJ AL FIR LAA.SSO IATES.ING t
ALTERNATIVES .S ii 27.2Wl
S
Table 7.A 1
WORST CASE PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES PROJECT AND REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Average Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Grading
Employee Activities Equipment Total SCAQMD
Pollutant Travel (PM10 only) Emissions Emissions Thresholds
PHASEI
Carbon Monoxide 11.93 82.54 95 550
ROG 1.89 12.42 14 75
Nitrogen Oxides 1.14 - 220.70 222 100 '
PMIp 0.16 1,258 28.33 1,286150
Sulfur Oxides 0.08 - 29.45 30 150
PHASE II
Carbon Monoxide 9.55 - 67.14 77 550
ROG 1.51 - 10.14 12 75
Nitrogen Oxides 0.91 - 176.38 177 100
PMID 0.13 735 22.21 757 150
Sulfur Oxides 0.06 - 22.22 23 150
PHASE III
Carbon Monoxide 11.93 - 82.54 95 550 ,
ROG 1.89 - 12.42 14 75
Nitrogen Oxides 1.14 - 220.70 222 100
PMID 0.16 1,221 28.33 1,249150
Sulfur Oxides 0.08 - 29.45 30 150
NOTE: The bold/underlined data indicate exceedances of the significant thresholds.
Regional Impacts After Mitigation Measures. The long term regional air quality impacts resulting r
from the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project after mitigation measures have been implemented would
be reduced to the extent feasible; however, the air emissions would still be significant specifically for
NOx and ROG. Table 7.11 shows the long-term air emissions associated with the operational phase
of the project. The air emissions in this table were based on the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project
developing 632 single-family residential units. The reduced density alternative would develop 429
single-family residential units. The air emissions expected from the reduced density alternative are
shown in Table 7.C. The air emissions for the reduced density alternative are based on a factor of
67.8%(429/632=67.8%).
Table 7.13
LONGTERM AIR EMISSIONS
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES PROJECT
Pollutant Emissions
Emissions CO ROG NOx PMIa sox
Project Emissions(lbs/day) 477 65 154 7 13 l
SCAQMD Threshold of 550 55 55 150 150
Significance '
7-4 \\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 7.0 Allematives.dm
' LAA CS CIATFS.INC. DRAFT SIIPPI.EMENTA F.IR
!�MVLx 27,2001 AL RNAMn
MNCIIO FMACDA FSTATF_S
Table 7.0
LONG-TERM AIR EMISSIONS
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Pollutant Emissions
Emissions CO ROG NOx PMI0 Sox
Project Emissions(lbs/day) 323 44 105 5 9
SCAQMD Threshold of 550 55 55 150 150
Significance
As shown in Table 7.0 the significant adverse air quality impact associated with ROG would be
reduced to a level less than significant under the reduced density alternative. The reduced density
i alternative would reduce ROG from 65 pounds per day, which exceeds the 55 pounds per day
■ threshold,to 44 pounds per day,which is less than the SCAQMD threshold. Table 7.0 also shows
that NOx would be reduced from 154 pounds per day to 105 pounds per day,however the effect
1 would remain above the threshold of significance. Therefore, the reduced density alternative would
produce fewer long-term air quality impacts because it would reduce the levels of ROG to an amount
under the threshold.
Biological Resources
The impacts to biological resources would be lessened by the recommended mitigation for the
Rancho Etiwanda Estates project, although not fully mitigated. Thus, impacts to biological resources
would remain significant under the development of the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The reason
for the significant adverse impact is that during site preparation (grubbing) would remove all on-site
vegetation on the 247.8-acre site. This impact would be the same for the reduced density alternative.
1 Since the reduced density alternative would require grading the entire 247.8-acre site, all of the
existing vegetation would have to be removed as with the proposed project. Assuming the level of
mitigation would be the same under either development scenario, the effect on biological resources
would be exactly the same.
Land Use and Planning
The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would result in a significant adverse cumulative impact due to
the loss of open space after the mitigation measures have been implemented. The reduced density
alternative would also reduce the amount of open space by the same amount of acreage. Therefore,
the significant adverse impact would be the same under either development scenario.
I The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project would result in a significant adverse cumulative impact due to
the potential impacts of development on the North Etiwanda Preserve. The reduced density
alternative would also result in a significant adverse cumulative impact due to the potential impacts of
development on the North Etiwanda Preserve. Therefore,the significant adverse impact would be the
isame under either development scenario.
Grubbing is the activity/process that removes all vegetation and other materials(such as trash)from a site
prior to grading. This allows the grading to occur on a"clean"site.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 7.0 Altemadves.doc 7-5
DR SIR MMENTA OR I AASSOCR S.INC.
ALTFRNATNES MnxCn 27.2 I
RANCHO
I
Traffic and Circulation '
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce all traffic impacts associated with
the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project to a level less than significant. Table 7.1) summarizes the
projected trip generation for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project is projected to generate approximately 6,412 trip-ends per day with 502 vehicles per hour
during the AM peak hour and 677 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Table 7.2-5 (Reduced
Density Alternative Trip Generation)shows the approximate number of trips that would be generated
by the reduced density alternative. The reduced density alternative is projected to generate
approximately 4,106 trip-ends per day with 322 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 433
vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The trips generated for the reduced density alternative
are based on the trip generation rates shown in Table 5.4-B. This reduction in the number of trips
generated from the project site would cause a reduction in the amount of traffic within the immediate
area of the project site,thereby improving the traffic conditions. However,based on the population
forecasts by SCAG that show substantial population increases in this region,a significant reduced
effect on regional traffic will not be realized.
Table 7.1)
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
PEAK HOUR
AM PM ,
LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY
Single-Family Detached Residential 632 DU 127 375 436 241 6,412
1 DU=Dwelling Units
Table 7.E
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATION
PEAK HOUR '
AM PM
LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY
Single Family Residential 429 DU 82 240 279 154 4,106
1 DU=Dwelling Units
Assuming the same area-wide roadway improvements(proposed mitigation measures) would be
required under the reduced density alternative, the percentage of the impact attributable to the traffic
generated from the project site would be reduced.
7-6 \\R1V5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 7.0 Altematives.doc
' I ARSOCRA ,INC. _ DB SUPPLEMENTAL F.Ia
MNCII ZI,2001 F-AlT'FS
gA,NC110 FIIR&Nok'A.\DA F[TATF_S
' 7.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table 7.F(Comparison of Impacts by Alternative) compares the potential impacts of the Rancho
Etiwanda Estates project with each of the alternatives evaluated in all three of the CEQA
environmental documents prepared for the University/Crest project and the Rancho Etiwanda Estates
project. This table provides a side-by-side comparison of the air quality,biological resources,land
use, and traffic and circulation impacts as evaluated for each of the following project alternatives.
1. No Project/No Development
2. Reduced Residential Density
3. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
4. Alternative Site Location
I' 5. Reduced Density - Developing the Project Site Per the Very Low Density Residential
Designation as Provided in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
Table 7.F
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE
RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES PROJECT VS. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Air Biological Land Traffic and
Alternative Quality Resources Use Circulation
No Project/No Develo meat Avoid Avoid I Avoid I Avoid
Reduced Residential Densi Less I Same Same Less
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Less i Same Same Less
Alternative Site Location Similar Greater Greater Similar
Reduced Density—ENSP Less ! Same Same Less
Of the five project alternatives evaluated,one would result in no physical changes to the environment
on the project site(No Project/No Development [100%reduction in density]); three would reduce the
density allowed on the project site (Reduced Residential Density [50%reduction in density],City of
1 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan [22%reduction], and Reduced Density—ENSP [40%reduction in
density]); and one would maintain the same density,but relocate the proposed project to another site
in the local vicinity(Alternative Site Location [0%reduction in density]). As shown in Table 7.F,
four of the five alternatives (those alternatives that would reduce the density)would avoid, lessen, or
result in similar environmental impacts as compared to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project.
Relocating the proposed project to an alternative site would result in environmental impacts that are
similar to or greater than those associated with the proposed project. The Alternative Site Location
alternative is being eliminated from further discussion because it fails to lessen potential impacts, is
infeasible due to lack of availability of similar properties acquirable by the applicant and fails to meet
Iproject objectives.
The environmental evaluation comparison between the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project and the three
reduced density alternatives show that the reduced density alternatives would reduce the number of
traffic trips generated from the project site because they are calculated by multiplying the number of
units expected to be constructed on a project site (density) by a constant factor. That is, as the density
decreases the number of traffic trips reduces by a corresponding percentage. As evaluated in this
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRG132\DEIR\Section 7.0 Altematives.doc 7-7
DRAFT SDPPIEMEN OR ISAASSIXUMS.INC. 1
AF RNATVF_S Nu C"27.2WI
D
Supplemental EIR,the Reduced Density—ENSP alternative would reduce the long-term significant 1
adverse air quality impact associated with the production of ROG within the SCAB because it would
reduce the number of traffic trips per day generated from the project site. The Reduced Density— 1
ENSP alternative would also reduce the traffic congestion within the immediate area of the project
site. The impacts to biological resources and land use for each of the three reduced density
alternatives are exactly the same, and each of them would remain significant after mitigation.
The environmental evaluation comparison between the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project and the
reduced density alternatives show that each of the reduced density alternatives is environmentally
superior to the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project.
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7-8 \\RI V5\PROJECTS\CRG I MI)EIR\Section 7.0 Altematives.doc
1
LSA ASSOCLSTES,INC. DRAFT SDPPUMENi EIR
M 1127."1 ORGANRATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
NCIIO EMANDA E-STICU—S
8.0 LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Supplemental EIR Preparers
LSA Associates,Inc.
3403 Tenth Street, Suite 501
Riverside, CA 92501
(909) 781-9310
• Lloyd Zola, Principal In-Charge
• Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP,Associate/Project Manager
• Carl Winter,Assistant Project Manager
• Jack Easton Principal,Biological Resources
' • Lance Gannon,Assistant Planner
Ultrasystems Environmental Incorporated
6 Jenner, Suite 210
Irvine, CA 92618
a (949) 788-4900
• Gene Anderson, Senior Project Manager
• Dave Merriman, Senior Planner
• Ole Barre, Assistant Planner
• Sandi Honer, Word Processor/Graphics
Hernandez,Kroone&Associates
234 E. Drake Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(909) 884-3222
• Anne Hernandez, Principal
Pacific Southwest Biological Consultants,Inc.
41 E. 12th Street, Suite A
National City,CA 91951
(619)477-5333
• Mitch Beauchamp,Principal
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Section 8.0.List of Prepamn.doc 8-1
DRAFT SDPPI MENTAL EIR LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.
ORGANIZATIONS AND PEMONS CONSULTED 27.2001
CI O
8.2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
Department of Planning
• Sal Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner
• Brent A. Le Count, AICP,Associates Planner
• Kirt Coury, Associate Planner ,
Denartment of Engineering—Traffic Division
• Jon Gillespie
8.3 OTHER AGENCIES ,
San Bernardino Association of Governments
• Bob Wirts
• Mike Ainsworth
City of Fontana
• Paul Balbach ,
• DiTanyon Johnson
County of San Bernardino
• Connie Mensen, Clerk 3
• Bill Collins, Chief Etiwanda/San Sevine Project, Flood Control District
8-2 \\R1V5\PR0JECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Section 8.0.List of Prepamm.doc
LSAASSOCIATES,INC. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Mnacx
27,2W1 REFERNECES
RANCIIO=&NDA FiTAM
9.0 REFERENCES
' 9.1 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR REFERENCES
County of San Bernardino,Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W111-
49, [State Clearinghouse Number 88082915] dated August 1989, (Environmental Perspectives).
County of San Bernardino, Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project
PUD No. W111-49, [State Clearinghouse Number 88082915], dated May 1991, (Environmental
Perspectives).
I County of San Bernardino, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University
Project [State Clearinghouse Number 98121091], dated July 9, 1999, (LSA Associates, Inc.)
Harmsworth Associates, Biological Survey and Open Space Quality Evaluation for the University/Crest
Planned Development Amenity Site, August 1998.
Urban Crossroads, Rancho Etiwanda Estates Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised), San Bernardino County,
' California, March 8, 2001.
Ultrasystems Environmental Incorporated,A &JResources,Inc. Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report SCH#88081915, December 15, 2000.
\\RIV5\PROJECTS\CRGI32\DEIR\Section 9.0 Refermces.dm 9-1