HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-60 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR HENDERSON
CREEK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT16324, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.5 ACRES INTO
123 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT,WITHIN THE VERY LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE
ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY
END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND
0226-082-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC.filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16324, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of May 2004, 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.
3. 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.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 12, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to 65.3 acres of property, located at the northerly end of
Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road, and is presently unimproved
property; and
b. The property along the north boundary of the site includes overhead power
transmission lines (belonging to the LA Department of Water and Power [LADWP] and Southern
California Edison [SCE]), associated easements, vacant land, and a few scattered single-family
residences near the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and is within the Flood Control/Utility
Corridor and Hillside Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The property to the
south of the site is presently vacant and is primarily within San Bernardino County Flood Control
District(SBCFCD) and SCE ownership, and is within the Flood Control/Utility Corridor,Conservation,
Very Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The property to the east contains
existing single-family residential development within the Very Low Residential District of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan. The property to the west is unimproved property primarily within SBCFCD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 2
ownership and is designated Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor within the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan; and
C. The tentative tract map includes the subdivision of 65.3 acres into 125 lots,
including 123 single-family lots and two open space lots. The remaining 25.1 acres are as follows:
Flood Control (9.9 acres), Utility Corridor(10 acres), and Open Space (5.2 acres). The 19.9 acres
are currently designated as Flood Control and Utility Corridor; no changes are proposed as part of
the project. The 5.2 acre area located between Henderson Creek and the Utility Corridor is currently
designated as Very Low Residential and would carry an Open Space designation upon approval of
the proposed project. The project would be developed at a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed 123 residential lots would range in size from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet,
with two lettered lots totaling 28,103 square feet for landscaped open space; and
d. The project is consistent with the density provisions of the General Plan Land Use
Designations of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)as averaged across the project site(as
described in subsection c. above); and
e. The project includes the development of 15-foot wide equestrian trails to be
constructed along the north property boundary and south side of Henderson Creek Channel; and
f. Development of the project site will result in the loss of 53.5 acres of Upland sage
scrub. The project proponent is required through the certification of the EIR and the adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program to acquire 58 acres of land within or near the North Etiwanda Open
Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area for habitat preservation and provide an
endowment for long-term maintenance; and
g. The project proponent shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Plan that
demonstrates compliance with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan; and
h. The project proponent will pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an
equestrian center as specified in the development agreement; and
i. The project will generate approximately 1,200 daily trips that can be accommodated
through street improvement upgrades as conditioned herein, and as required through certification of
the EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
j. The proposed project, together with all conditions of approval and the provisions of
the Development Agreement, will not be detrimental to the public health and safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and
2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,and
any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 3
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project,the Planning
Commission makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions,pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.):
a. The Project that has been evaluated under CEQA involves a series of actions
related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment,
Development Agreement and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development
Agreement. The proposed project includes 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3
acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres
of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation as part of this project and is currently
used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed by this
project is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the project is approximately 1.9 dwelling units
per gross acre. The portion of the project that requires approval by the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission is Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324.
b. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Project(State Clearinghouse No.2003111057). The Draft
EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004,through
April 5, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and
sent to all commentors. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final
EIR, as have the appendices to the Draft EIR. Those documents together comprise the Final EIR.
C. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to the
CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations,
Section 15000, et. seq. (the Guidelines). The Planning Commission also finds that the Final EIR
represents the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
and adequately addresses the impacts of the project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures
for the project. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the contents of the
Final EIR, and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the project and as to whether and
how to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324.
d. The Planning Commission hereby certifies the Final EIR as being the environmental
document for the project and for the Planning Commission action in approving Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16324. The Planning Commission finds that the additional information provided in the staff
report, in attachments to the staff report, in the comments to the EIR, and presented at the public
hearing, does not represent significant new information so as to require re-circulation of the EIR
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 4
e. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings
which include, but are not limited to, the staff report for the project, as well as all of the materials that
comprise and support the Final EIR and support the staff reports concerning the project, are located
in the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The custodian of these documents is the City Planner of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
f. The Planning Commission finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public
comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the project may create
significant impacts in the areas of Air Quality; Land Use Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise,
Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, and Biological
Resources. With respect to the impacts to all of these resources and services, the EIR identifies
mitigation measures for each of those impacts that will substantially lessen the impacts.
g. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR, and listed in paragraph f
of this section of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into
the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the impacts identified. The specific changes and
alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each
impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" (Exhibit"A" of this Resolution) and are incorporated
herein by reference.
h. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and imposed as a
condition of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 will substantially mitigate many of the
environmental impacts described in paragraph f of this section, to the extent feasible, as described in
the attached Exhibit "A." The Final EIR also identifies significant adverse impacts that cannot be
fully mitigated or avoided, including impacts from short-term impacts on air quality from construction-
related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from project emissions, cumulative
short and long-term noise impacts, and cumulative impacts to schools.
i. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic
objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development"
alternative, and the "No Project- Build-out under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative."
Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and
the alternative land use alternative. Asset forth below,the alternatives identified in the EIR are not
feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the project or would do so only to a
much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure,and
General Plan goals that the project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social
and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is
infeasible. In making this finding, the Planning Commission determines as follows:
i) The objectives of the Project are to:
a) Be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development
Code, and all other City development guidelines;
b) Annex the 90.4 acre project site and adjacent 10 acre utility easement
into the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324 — HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 5
c) Integrate the projectwith the characterof the surrounding neighborhoods
and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth;
d) Establish a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local
transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians;
e) Provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open
space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an
efficient and timely manner;
f) Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve
project residents and the surrounding community;
g) Minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for
various public service agencies, and
h) Provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and
planned development that responds to market demands.
ii) The"No Project-No Development"Alternative assumes that no new land uses
would be constructed on the project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped.
Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, it would not meet the
project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the project's objective to provide quality housing
that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a
system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide
landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents. Furthermore, as the subject
property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within an area previously
approved for residential development would not be legally or financially feasible. Therefore this
alternative is rejected.
iii) The "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative"
assumes that the project site would be developed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan designations. Under this designation and assuming the same area disturbed by
grading, the minimum lot sizes would be 20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be
developed would be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This reduction in
development by approximately 33 dwelling units would reduce traffic, noise, light and glare, but
would not reduce to less than significance the short-term impacts on air quality from construction-
related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from project emissions, cumulative
short and long-term noise impacts, and cumulative impacts to schools.
j. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the project. Further, the
environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this
section and in Exhibit"A,"which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable,
significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the project, including short-term impacts on
air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from
project emissions, cumulative short and long-term noise impacts, and cumulative impacts to schools.
Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the EIR
are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph i above, the Planning Commission hereby finds that any
unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from short-term
impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324 — HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 6
quality from project emissions, cumulative short and long-term noise impacts, and cumulative
impacts to schools, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in Exhibit "A,"which
is incorporated herein by this reference. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding
considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental
and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the Planning
Commission's proceedings:
i) Providing for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development
Code, and all other City Development guidelines;
ii) Annexing the 90.4-acre project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement
into the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
iii) Integrating the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods
and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth;
iv) Establishing a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local
transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians;
v) Providing a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space
areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an efficient
and timely manner;
vi) Providing backbone public infrastructure(i.e., roads, utilities)to serve project
residents and the surrounding community;
vii) Minimizing impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for, various
public service agencies, and
viii) Providing quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned
development that responds to market demands.
k. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental
impacts,which may result from the project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of,
or incorporated into, the project. The Planning Commission also hereby adopts the "Mitigation
Monitoring Plan" attached hereto as Exhibit "B." The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to
monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a
condition of project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and Exhibit "B."
I. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b),
this application shall not be operative, vested or final until the Notice of Determination(NOD) is filed
and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino and all
required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together
with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. In
the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the
California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, condition shall be
deemed null and void.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 7
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1) All future applications for development review shall be reviewed for
consistency with the approved tentative tract map and provisions of the
associated development agreement, along with the design guidelines of
the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, including standards for parkways and
streetscape design, slope planting, and neighborhood monumentation
and wall designs.
2) The construction of the community trail through the project shall
incorporate all standard trail improvements in accordance with City
Standard Drawings, including gates, access, signage, and fencing as
applicable.
3) Construction of the community trail shall include drive approaches at
the entry from the local streets, along with gates and step-through
posts in accordance with City standards.
4) All comer turns shall receive a comer-cutoff as necessary to allow
through traffic.
5) Grading along the trail easement shall be modified to allow construction
of a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 48-foot corral at the same elevation
as the trail.
6) Coordinate with San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(SBCFCD) to allow the slopes on the south project boundary to occur
on flood control property. If SBCFCD allows permission to grade, the
slopes shall be vegetated with native species to be compatible with the
native vegetation.
7) Since the actions between Centex Homes and SBCFCD are not
finalized, provide an alternative Master Plan exhibit that depicts access
to the south along with a Master Plan of the adjacent property.
8) Indicate location, purpose and rights for all easements that traverse the
site. In addition, show the location of existing utility lines, if any, that
cross the property and indicate who they are serving, and if relocation
is proposed. Provide a copy of the Title Report that identifies the
disposition of all easements across the property.
9) The effective date of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324
shall be the last to occur of all of the following events: (i)the date that
the General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 takes effect, (ii) the
date that Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750
takes effect, (iii) the date that Development Agreement
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 8
DRC2003-00751 takes effect, and (iv) the date that the annexation of
the property into the City has occurred.
Engineering Division
1) Wardman Bullock Road improvements shall be in accordance with City
"Collector Street" standards, including curbs and gutters, a.c.
pavement, 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights, sidewalk, street trees,
traffic signs, and striping.
2) Colonbero Road improvements shall be in accordance with City"Local
Street" standards, including curbs and gutters, a.c. pavement,
5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights, sidewalk, access ramps, street trees,
traffic signs, and striping.
3) Internal street improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local
Street" standards, including curbs and gutters, a.c. pavement,
5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights, sidewalk, drive approaches, access
ramps, street trees, traffic signs, and striping.
a) All cul-de-sacs shall conform to City standards.
b) Street"D"shall be extended to the southerly boundary and will be
a stub street. In the event San Bernardino County Flood District
(SBCFCD) obtains the parcel south of this development, the
proposed knuckle at Streets "D" and "A"will be acceptable.
4) Complete the westerly portion of Wardman Bullock Road using
"Collector Street" standards from Wilson Avenue to the south project
boundary. Improvements shall include curb and gutter, AC pavement,
and 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent offsite
improvements from future development of the adjacent property. If the
developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six
months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
a) Obtain the ultimate right-of-way dedication from adjacent property
owners west of Wardman Bullock Road from the south property
boundary to Wilson Avenue.
5) The site is located within Area 13 of the attached Etiwanda/San
Sevaine Area Drainage Policy. The applicable fees and construction
requirements are contained therein.
6) Lots"A"and"B" shall be dedicated to the City for landscape purposes.
A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans per Engineering
Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 9
7) Provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, and identify applicable Best Management
Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan.
8) The drainage facilities along the north tract boundary shall be designed
to Q100-year storm frequency with 100 percent bulking. The drainage
facilities shall be hard lined channels to City standards. Provide 15-foot
wide access road, 3-inch AC/4-inch AB, along the southerly side of the
drainage facilities with a tum around area at the end. The offsite
discharge of all drainage facilities is subject to approval of underlying
fee owner and/or San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
9) The trail shown on the tentative tract map shall be a private local feeder
trail.
Environmental Mitigation
LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the project proponent shall
submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Plan that demonstrates
compliance with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained
in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
LU-2: The project proponent must pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga for the development of an equestrian center as
specified in the development agreement.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
TC-1: The developer shall participate in the phased construction of off-site
traffic signals through payment of established fees.
TC-2: On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction
with detailed construction plans for the project.
TC-3: The developer shall construct Wardman Bullock Road along the
project frontage at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector
roadway (66-foot fright-of-way) in conjunction with development;
and complete the westerly portion of Wardman Bullock Road from
the south project boundary to Wilson Avenue. Improvements shall
include curb/gutter, traffic signs, striping, etc.
TC-4: Modify stop sign placement to control east/westbound traffic at the
intersection of Wardman Bullock Road (NS) and Wilson Avenue
(EW).
TCS: Install a Traffic Signal at the Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan
Street intersection. The project should contribute towards the cost
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324— HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 10
of necessary study are improvements on a fair share or"pro-rate"
basis.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1:
Dust Control
• Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as
practical.
• Terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control procedures
when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is
delayed.
Emissions
• Require 90-day low-No,tune-ups for off-road equipment
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
Off-Site Impacts
• Encourage car-pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic
hours.
NOISE
N-1: Construction contractors shall adhere to the City Development
Code for hours of construction activity — 6:30 am to 8:00 pm,
Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall take place
on Sundays or holidays.
N-2: The developer shall install air conditioning units as a standard to
allow for window closure for future residences in the development
that front on Wardman Bullock Road.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Prior to recording of the first final map of the project, the property
owner shall transfer to the County of San Bemardino Special
Districts OS-1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the
City, in fee, a minimum of 54-acres of off-site land for permanent
open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an
amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the
conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said
land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the
environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the City
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324 — HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 11
Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the
review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and
concurrence of the City Planner.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GS-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit
grading plans that incorporate the general earthwork and grading
specifications for rough grading as set forth in the geotechnical
report for the project (Appendix E). These include such measures
as clearing and grubbing to remove all vegetation and any
preexisting above ground and underground structures; over
excavating and recompacting soil; placement or disposal of
oversized material; construction of cut or fill slopes; preliminary
foundation recommendation; and grading requirements for seismic
considerations. Final recommendations shall be noted on all
grading plans to be carried out by grading contractors, and
monitored by Building and Safety staff.
GS-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, including permits for utilities,
the developer shall submit development plans that incorporate the
recommendations of the geotechnical report (Appendix E) for
preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs.
These include specifications for concrete slabs,footings temporary
excavation for utilities preliminary pavement design, and protection
of foundations from surface drainage.
GS-3: All structures shall be built to Uniform Building Code and/or
Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic
safety. Building officials shall review all plans at the time of
submittal.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
HS-1: The developer/builder shall utilize the optimum building materials
and construction techniques to minimize wind damage to property
as set forth in Division III, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code.
HS-2: The home builder/sales agent shall disclose to potential buyers,
that the project is in a High Wind Area. This disclosure shall also
be included in escrow papers or other documentation for future
buyers.
HS-3: See Mitigation Measure Aq-1 a for control of PM10 emissions during
grading and construction.
HS-4: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
landscape plan/fuel modification plan that shall contain the following
details:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324 — HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 12
Zone 1 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment. Zone 1 areas may be
irrigated and/or temporarily irrigated ornamental fire-wise
landscaping. Single well-spaced trees and shrubs are allowed.
These trees and shrubs will be planted and maintained so that at
maturity,their branches are at least 10 feet from any structure. The
purpose of Zone 1 landscaping is to increase a non-combustible
plant zone for a minimum of thirty feet around each structure.
Zone 2 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment Areas. Zone 2 areas may
be irrigated or non-irrigated firewise ornamental landscaping and/or
native vegetation treated and maintained to Zone 2 Criteria. The
purpose of Zone 2 Fuel Treatment is to reduce the amount of
combustible fuels to a level where wildland fire intensity is
substantially reduced and to provide a safe zone for firefighters
(defensible space) during their wildland fire protection efforts.
Common Areas: These areas shall be maintained as directed by
the Landscaping Plan, and will be irrigated. The grass, ground
cover, and ornamental trees will add to the decor of this project and
will decrease the fire hazard for property owners.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HWQ-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to
the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining
coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from
the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has
been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification
Number)shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under
the NPDES General Construction Permit.
HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to
the City Engineer for approval, a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) including a project description and identifying Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce
pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum
extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-
structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New
Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, June 2000.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 2004.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-60
SUBTT16324 — HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
May 12, 2004
Page 13
ABY: 41 F
Larry T, cNiel, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
dB ecreta
I, 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 12th day of May 2004, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS
CEQA FINDINGS
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Findings Related to the Henderson Creek Residential Development
General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment/
Development Agreement/Tentative Tract Map/Annexation
Final Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Prepared By:
LILBURN CORPORATION
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
April 27, 2004
EXHIBIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
B. PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................1
B.1 Project Objectives..........................................................................................................2
B.2 Project Description.........................................................................................................2
B.3 Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................3
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.....................................4
C.1 Custodian and Location of the Record...........................................................................5
C.2 Independent Judgment...................................................................................................5
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.........................................................................................5
D.1 Findings Regarding Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Mitigated
toLess Than Significant ................................................................................................6
1. Land Use and Aesthetics..........................................................................................7
2. Traffic and Circulation.............................................................................................8
3. Noise......................................................................................................................10
4. Geology and Soils..................................................................................................12
5. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................13
6. Public Health and Safety........................................................................................16
7. Biological Resources .............................................................................................20
D.2 Impacts Analyzed in the Draft EIR and Determined to be Significant and
Unavoidable.................................................................................................................22
1. Air Quality.............................................................................................................22
D.3 Cumulative Impacts Analyzed in the Draft EIR..........................................................24
E. PROJECT BENEFITS.......................................................................................................26
F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT...........................................................................27
F.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected As Infeasible...................................................28
F.2 Selection of Alternatives to be Considered in Detail in the EIR.................................29
F.2 Findings Regarding Alternatives Considered in Detail in the EIR..............................29
1. No Project Alternative—No Development............................................................29
2. Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative...................30
G. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS..............................................32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings i 4/29/2004
H. DEFINITION OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...........................................34
LIST OF TABLES
Table B-1 Existing Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Designations.....................................4
Table D.2-1 Site Grading Emissions and Significance..............................................................23
Table D.2-2 Construction Air Pollution Emissions and Significance........................................23
Table D.3-1 Cumulative Projects...............................................................................................25
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings ii 4/29/2004
FACTS, FINDINGS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF THE
HENDERSON CREEK DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/
ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/
ANNEXATION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(SCH # 2003111057
A. INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (this "Council') in certifying the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to authorize the Henderson Creek Development project,
makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations
presented at the end of the findings. These findings are based on the entire record before this
Council, including the EIR. The EIR was prepared by the City acting under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Hereafter, the following documents (Notice of Preparation,
Draft EIR, Technical Appendices, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Final EIR containing
the Responses to Comments) constitute the EIR for this project. These documents will be
referred to collectively as the EIR.
B. PROJECT SUMMARY
Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres of a 90.4-acre site into
125 lots including 123 single-family lots and two open space lots. The remaining 25.1 acres are
broken down as follows: Flood Control (9.9 acres); Utility Corridor (10 acres); Open Space (5.2
acres). 19.9 acres are currently designated as Flood Control and Utility Corridor; the project
proponent has not proposed any change to these existing designations. The 5.2-acre area located
between Henderson Creek and the Utility Corridor is currently designated as Very Low
Residential and would carry an Open Space designation upon approval of the proposed project.
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan
(ENSP) Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map for a
single-family residential subdivision. The project is located at the northerly end of Wardman-
Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San
Bernardino County within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
project also includes annexation of the 90.4-acre site and an adjacent 10.0-acre site for a total
100.4 acres to be annexed into the City.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 1 4/29/2004
B.1 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(b) requires that the project description include a statement of
objectives in proposing the project. The intent is to aid the lead agency and decision makers in
evaluating the project alternatives and in making findings or statements of overriding
consideration, if necessary. Project objectives are:
• Be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development
Code, and all other City development guidelines;
• Annex the 90.4-acre project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of
Rancho Cucamonga;
• Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a
development that results in logical, coordinated growth;
• Establish a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation
needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians;
• Provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and
landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an efficient
and timely manner;
• Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve project residents and
the surrounding community;
• Minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service
agencies, and
• Provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development
that responds to market demands.
B.2 Project Description
Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre site into
125 lots to include 123 residential lots and two open space lots (the remaining 25.1 acres of the
90.4-acre site will be used for flood control improvements along Henderson Creek and will have
a General Plan designation of Flood Control, Utility Corridor, and Open Space). The proposed
project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Annexation,
Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map for a 125-lot residential subdivision (123
residential lots and two open space lots) located at the northerly end of Wardman-Bullock Road
at the intersection with Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County in
the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 2 4/29/2004
The proposed annexation would include the 90.4-acre site and an adjacent 10.0-acre site for a
total 100.4 acres to be annexed from San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The 10.0-acre site is located north of the project site and is currently used for utility
easement and flood control purposes and is not part of the tentative tract map, and no
development is proposed.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the current designation of Very Low
Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for
65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre parcel; the remaining 25.1 acres of the site is reserved for a
combination of"Flood Control" improvements for Henderson Creek, and "Utility Corridor" for
an SCE power line. The gross project density of approximately 1.3 dwelling units per acre is
within the parameters of the current land use designation of Very Low Residential; however, due
to the flood control and utility corridor easements, the 65.3-acre developable area has been
designed to provide residential lots that will range from 14,025 square feet to 45,755, with an
average lot area of over 18,000 square feet, or 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lot sizes
therefore necessitate the proposed land use designation amendments.
The proposed amendment to the ENSP includes a Zone change from Very Low Residential
(0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3
acres, and a modification to the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood to
eliminate the proposed street connection between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. The
Development Agreement between the Henderson Creek Properties and the City would address
specific conditions of development and/or conservation of the 90.4 acres of land.
B.3 Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses
The City's corporate boundary and Sheridan Estates (Tract 13564) are located east of the site.
Overhead power transmission lines owned by LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
and Southern California Edison (SCE), associated easements, scattered single-family residences
and vacant land are located north of the site. The land area south and west of the site is presently
vacant, and is primarily within SCE and San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(SBCFCD) easements or ownership. Surrounding land uses, General Plan Land Use
Designations and Zoning Districts are shown in Table B-1.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 3 4/29/2004
Table B-1
Existing Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Desi nations
Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation
Project Vacant land, flood control and Very Low Residential (0.1-2 Very Low Residential
Site utility corridor easements dwelling units per acre),Flood (0.1-2 DU/AC), Flood
Control and Utility Corridor Control and Utility
Corridor
North Vacant land, utility corridors Flood Control/Utility Corridor Utility Corridor and
and scattered single-family and Hillside Residential Hillside Residential
residences Estate (<1 DU per net
buildable acre)
South Vacant land, utility corridors Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Utility Corridor and
and one single-family dwelling Conservation and Very Low Very Low Residential
Residential (0.1-2 DU/AC)
(0.1 to 2 dwelling units per
acre)
East Henderson Creek, Wardman- Very Low Residential 0.1-2 Very Low Residential
Bullock Road, and Single- dwelling units per acre) (0.1-2 DU/AC)
Family Residential (Sheridan
Estates -Tract 13564)
West Etiwanda Creek Flood Control Conservation and Flood Flood Control
basins and conservation area Control/Utility Corridor
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive environmental review for this project that included a Draft EIR,
Final EIR, appendices and attachments, along with public review and comment periods.
The implementation of the EIR scoping and review process is described in Chapter 1.0, Page 1-6
of the Draft EIR. The following is a summary of the District's environmental review for this
project.
• A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to state agencies, local organizations,
and individuals on November 10, 2003 for a 30-day comment period, it is included in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Seven (7) letters of comment were received.
• A public scoping meeting was held on December 10, 2003 in order to obtain input from
local residents on the proposed Henderson Creek Properties residential development.
Attendees did not raise any issues not previously identified in the Initial Study.
• The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review and comment period on
February 20, 2004.
• The Final EIR was distributed for a 10-day notification period for the City beginning
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 4 4/29/2004
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project on May 12, 2004.
At that hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the project be approved.
• This Council held one public hearing to consider the project on .. Following
public testimony, this Council certified the Final EIR and adopted these findings.
C.1 Custodian and Location of the Record
Findings:
The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings for the
City's approval of this project, are located at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729.
C.2 Independent Judgment
The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the EIR for the Henderson
Creek Properties residential development project. A decision was made to retain Lilbum
Corporation of San Bernardino, California to prepare the documents. The EIR was prepared
under the supervision and direction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff
and reflects the independent judgment of the City staff and accordingly, the City Council.
Findings:
The EIR reflects the City's independent judgment exercised in accordance with CEQA
Section 21082.1(a)(c) by reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the
consultant; circulating the Draft EIR as a City document and certifying that the EIR
reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City's staff report, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public hearings, and these facts,
findings and statement of overriding considerations and other information in the administrative
record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The Final EIR includes
revisions to the Draft EIR, public comments and the City's responses, and the Notice of
Determination. The detailed analyses of potential environmental impacts and proposed
mitigation measures for the Henderson Creek Properties residential development are presented in
Chapter 4.0 of the EIR. Written comments and the District's responses are provided in
Chapter 10.0 of the Final EIR.
Presented below are the environmental findings made by this Council after its review of the
documents referenced above, as well as the written and oral comments on the Henderson Creek
Properties residential development project presented at the Planning Commission and City
Council public hearings. Factual discussion in this document summarizes the information
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 5 4/29/2004
contained in the EIR and the administrative record upon which this Council bases its decision to
certify the EIR and approve the project.
The EIR prepared for the Henderson Creek Properties residential development evaluated eleven
major environmental categories for potential significant adverse impacts. Both project specific
and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these eleven major environmental categories, the
Council concurs with the conclusions in the EIR that the issues and sub-issues discussed below
can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold. For those issues that cannot be mitigated
below a level that is less than significant, overriding considerations exist which make impacts
acceptable.
The following are the remaining sections of this document:
Section E: Project Benefits
Section F: Alternatives to the Project
Section G: Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section H: Abbreviations and Acronyms
D.1 FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND DETERMINED
TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
This section includes findings for project impacts which are potentially significant, but can be
mitigated to a less than significant level with the imposition of mitigation measures. This
Council finds that all potentially significant impacts of this project listed below can and will be
mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of mitigation measures. Specific findings of this
Council for each category of such impacts are set forth below in this section.
CEQA Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or cavy out a project for which
an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant
effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the
completed environmental impact report.
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
c. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
This Council hereby finds, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, that the following potential
environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 6 4/29/2004
Each proposed mitigation measure discussed in this section of the findings is assigned a code
letter correlating it with the environmental category used in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in Chapter 9.0 of the EIR.
1. Land Use and Planning
Ia. Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Facts:
The proposed project is a single-family community developed at a density of 1.9 dwelling units
per acre. The proposed 123 lots range in size from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet with
an average size of over 18,000 square feet, with two lettered lots for landscaped open space on
65.3 acres of a 90.4-acre site.
Under the ENSP, a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet is required in the Very Low
Residential zone. The project as proposed is inconsistent with the Very Low designation because
proposed site plans include a minimum lot size of 14,025 square feet and an average lot size of
over 18,000 square feet. However, the overall density of 1.9 units per acre is within the range of
the Very Low designation. A proposed amendment to the ENSP would include a land use
district change from Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-
4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acres to allow the project to be developed with residential
lots of less than 20,000 square feet.
As required in the ENSP, development of lots less than 20,000 square feet are required to
provide an in-lieu fee of $1,000 per lot for development of an off-site Equestrian Center. The
proposed project would be subject to this requirement for each lot that is not designed for
equestrian use.
The proposed project generally meets the ENSP goal and objectives with regards to creating a
community design image that represents Old Etiwanda by providing large lots, including
equestrian lots, access to trails, provision of views of the mountains, and complying with ENSP
standards for landscape treatments and walls, fencing, lighting and community entry.
Mitigation Measure L U-1
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit and obtain
approval of a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's neighborhood
Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measure LU-2
The project proponent must pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the
development of an equestrian center as specified in the development agreement.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 7 4/29/2004
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that payment of in-lieu fees for contribution
to an Equestrian Center will ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the ENSP,
making this impact less than significant.
2. Traffic and Circulation
2a. Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project would increase vehicle trips, and impact the level of service along
arterial streets and intersections.
Facts:
The project trip distribution patterns were developed based on a review of existing traffic
volumes, freeway ramp locations, land uses proposed, and the circulation system projected to be
in place by 2004.
Opening Year (2004) Without Project Conditions
The intersection operations analysis for 2004 without project traffic conditions showed the
following intersections are projected to experience LOS E to F operations and are, therefore,
deficient:
• Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at:
Wilson Avenue (EW)
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at:
Banyan Street (EW)
Opening Year With Project Conditions
The intersection operations analyses for 2004 with project traffic conditions indicated that the
following intersections are projected to experience LOS "E" to "F" operations and are, therefore,
deficient:
• Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at:
Wilson Avenue (EW)
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at:
Banyan Street (EW)
Proposed improvements include both funded improvements and any additional improvements
needed to achieve LOS D or better during the peak hours. The study area intersections are
projected to operate at LOS D or better during peak hours, with improvements.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 8 4/29/2004
The project's fair share contribution has been calculated based on the project's traffic volumes at
the impacted intersections. The project contribution percentage ranges from 11.5 percent to
73.9 percent. The associated cost of the improvements has been multiplied by these percentages
to determine the project's contribution. The total fair share cost is estimated to be $25,676.
On-Site
Mitigation Measure TC-1
The developer shall participate in the phased construction of off-site traffic signals through
payment of established fees.
Mitigation Measure TC-2
On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the project.
Off-Site
Mitigation Measure TC-3
The developer shall construct Wardman-Bullock Road along the project frontage at its
ultimate half-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) in conjunction
with development; and complete the westerly portion of Wardman-Bullock Road from the
south project boundary to Wilson Avenue. Improvements shall include curb/gutter, traffic
signs, striping, etc.
Mitigation Measure TC-4
Modify stop sign placement to control east/westbound traffic at the intersection of
Wardman-Bullock(NS) and Wilson Avenue (EW).
Mitigation Measure TC-5
Install a Trak Signal at the Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection.
The project should contribute towards the cost of necessary study area improvements on a
fair share or `pro-rata"basis.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with implementation of proposed
improvements, the study area intersections would operate at a level of service of D or
better which is considered less than significant.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 9 4/29/2004
3. Noise
3a. Potential Significant Impact:
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. The primary
source of construction noise is heavy equipment. Noise generated by construction
equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable
generators can reach high levels. Grading will generate the highest levels of noise during
construction.
Facts:
Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of
construction equipment ranges widely as a function of equipment used and its activity level.
Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by
large earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and finally for finish construction.
The earthmoving sources are the noisiest with equipment noise typically ranging from 75 to
90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Point sources of noise emissions are attenuated by a factor
of 6 dB per doubling of distance through geometrical (spherical) spreading of sound waves. The
quieter noise sources will thus drop to a 65 dB exterior/45 dB interior noise level by about
200 feet from the source while the loudest may require over 1,000 feet from the source to reduce
the 90 dB(A) or greater source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dB(A) exterior exposure
level.
Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a community noise standard because they
occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty
associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such
disturbance usually leads to time limits on construction activities imposed as a condition on
construction and use permits. The City's Development Code limits construction activity to the
hours of 6:30 am and 8 pm, Monday through Saturday.
Mitigation Measure N-1
Construction contractors shall adhere to the City Development Code for hours of
construction activity — 6:30 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No construction
activity shall take place on Sundays or holidays.
Findings:
Based upon the whole record, this Council finds that with implementation of the above
mitigation measure, short-term impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 10 4/29/2004
3b. Potential Significant Impact:
Noise levels at the building facades of homes nearest to the project exit (Wardman-Bullock
frontage) would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic.
Facts:
At buildout, the proposed project would include 123 single-family residences and two open
space lots. Based on the tract map, the Noise Engineer has calculated that homes nearest the
project's entry could experience noise levels of 60 dB CNEL.
The Noise Analysis used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model to
evaluate future noise associated with traffic on the proposed project. The model calculates the
LEQ noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, then makes a series of
adjustments for site specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds or noise barriers. Because the
proposed project will create traffic volume changes on a number of roadways, generic runs for
one arterial roadway source were made and noise levels on all other roadways were calculated
based on a logarithmic volume ratio adjustment to the reference volume noise level. A 65 dB
exterior noise exposure is considered acceptable for residential and other noise-sensitive land
uses.
Relative to the 3 dB noise level increase as a potentially significant impact, there is only one
roadway segment where future buildout with the project noise levels would increase by 3 dB or
more above existing levels. The potential noise impact location is Wardman-Bullock Road
between Wilson Avenue and the project site entrance. The noise increase on this segment is as
follows:
• Future without the project+0.4 dB
• Future with the project+3.2 dB
The future with project condition exceeds the 3 dB potential significance criterion. The 65 dB(A)
CNEL contour along Wardman-Bullock Road is currently less than 50 feet from the centerline at
buildout. The proposed project would thus cause a perceptible increase in noise along this
roadway, but not at levels that would cause usable exterior space residential standards of 65
dB(A) CNEL to be exceeded.
The distance from the centerline of Wardman-Bullock Road to the 65 and 60 dB (A) CNEL
contour is as follows:
• 65 dB CNEL=28 feet
• 60 dB CNEL=62 feet
The first two residences of the project may have rear yard exposure slightly exceeding 60 dB(A)
CNEL, but well below the 65 dB. Away from Wardman-Bullock Road, the higher baseline levels
and the progressive dilution of project traffic would create maximum project related increases of
less than 1 dB. Differences of less than 1 dB are imperceptible to humans even under laboratory
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings ]] 4/2912004
conditions, much less over an extended period of time in the ambient environment. The off-site
project traffic noise impact is less than significant.
The building fagade noise level of homes closest to the project entry would be near 60 dB CNEL.
Structural noise reduction with closed single paned windows is 20 dB (10 dB) with windows
partially open). Achieving a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior would require the ability to close windows
facing Wardman-Bullock Road.
Mitigation Measure N-2
The developer shall install air conditioning units as a standard to allow for window closure
for future residences in the development that front on Wardman-Bullock Road.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that the installation of air conditioning units
to homes that front Wardman-Bullock Road would decrease impacts to interior noise levels
to less than significant levels.
4. Geology and Soils
4a. Potential Significant Impact:
Development of the proposed Henderson Creek housing tract would expose people and
structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults
located in the area.
Facts:
Ground shaking is the most significant seismic hazard. It is the result of waves emanating from
the focus of an earthquake being transmitted through the surrounding area bedrock and soils
strata. The primary geologic hazard that exists at the site is that of ground shaking. The strength
of earthquake-induced ground shaking is commonly measured as maximum or peak ground
acceleration. Acceleration is defined as the time rate of change of velocity of a referenced point
during an earthquake, commonly expressed in percentage of gravity (g). Its value at a particular
site is a function of many factors, including, but not limited to, earthquake magnitude, distance
of causative earthquake, various seismic-source parameters, site location relative to direction of
energy propagation, and geologic conditions at the site. The duration of the movement is also
significant, but is not easily expressed or predictable. Shaking is the most serious threat posed by
earthquakes to the area. When the San Andreas Fault ruptures, with an expected magnitude of
7.8 to 8.2, initial acceleration of up to .8g is a reasonable expectation. Duration of the shaking
varies with distance from the fault and the length of the fault that ruptures in a given event.
Mitigation Measure GS-1
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit grading plans that
incorporate the general earthwork and grading specifications for rough grading as set
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 12 4/29/2004
forth in the geotechnical report for the project (Appendix E). These include such measures
as clearing and grubbing to remove all vegetation and any preexisting above ground and
underground structures; over excavating and recompacting soil;placement or disposal of
oversized material; construction of cut or fill slopes; preliminary foundation
recommendation; and grading requirements for seismic considerations. Final
recommendations shall be noted on all grading plans to be carried out by grading
contractors, and monitored by Building and Safety staff.
Mitigation Measure GS-2
Prior to issuance of building permits, including permits for utilities, the developer shall
submit development plans that incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report
(Appendix E)for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs. These
include specifications for concrete slabs and footings, temporary excavation for utilities,
preliminary pavement design, and protection of foundations from surface drainage.
Mitigation Measure GS-3
All structures shall be built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers
Association of California standards for seismic safely. Building officials shall review all
plans at the time of submittal.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that conducting earthwork and grading in
accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical report and design of on-site
structures to meet current building standards presented in the Uniform Building Code
and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety would
result in the effects from seismic shaking being less than significant.
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
5a. Potential Significant Impact:
During storm events, construction activities, particularly vegetation removal, grading and
excavation, could affect the amounts ofsediments and suspended solids leaving the site that
could affect water quality downstream.
Facts:
The grading and excavation that would be performed would result in the disturbance of
approximately 65.3 acres for residential building pads, streets and utility infrastructure. The
amount of sediment in storm runoff is determined by the amount of time since the last rainfall,
the intensity and duration of the storm, the existing land uses in the drainage area and the amount
of area disturbed by earthwork (excavation and grading).
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 13 4/29/2004
The proposed project would require vegetation removal and grading that will expose the soil to
erosion by wind and rain. Rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas of the site,
and this increased sedimentation may adversely affect water quality downstream from the project
site. Pollutants likely to be present in stormwater discharges in small quantities during earthwork
and construction include the following:
• Vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants.
• Asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving operations.
• Paints and solvents.
• Wood products.
• Metal and plated products
The proposed project is subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements. The State of California is authorized to administer various
aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction
permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity that causes the
disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce
or eliminate non-storm water discharges into storm water systems, and to develop and implement
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of a SWPPP is to: 1) identify
pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water associated with
construction activities; and 2) identify, construct and implement storm water pollution control
measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site during and
after construction.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region has issued an area-
wide NPDES Storm Water Permit for the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga then requires implementation of measures for a project to comply with the
area-wide permit requirements. A SWPPP is based on the principles of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control and abate pollutants. The SWPPP must include (BMPs) to prevent
construction of the project from polluting surface waters. These would include, but are not
limited to street sweeping of paved roads around the site during construction, and the use of hay
bales or sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season. BMPs may also include:
• The contractor will attempt to use enclosed storage sheds where possible. Any hazardous
materials stored in the open will be placed on pallets to prevent contact with the ground.
Materials will be kept in their original containers and adequate supply of clean-up
material will be kept on hand at all times in case of a spill.
• The contractor will avoid applying materials during periods of rainfall and protect freshly
applied materials from runoff until dry.
• Any washing of equipment or vehicles will be done in a designated place where a sump
can be located so wash water can be collected for disposal.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 14 4/29/2004
• All waste will be disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. The
contractor will contract with a local waste hauler or ensure that waste containers are
emptied weekly. Waste containers cannot be washed out on-site.
• All equipment and vehicles will be serviced off-site.
Erosion and Sediment Control
During construction, areas previously undisturbed will be excavated and graded to prepare the
site for development. Contractors will employ BMPs to control erosion and minimize sediment
transport off-site. In addition to the BMPs identified for control of pollutants related to
equipment, vehicles and construction materials, other control measures for sediment tracking,
wind erosion, non-storm water management, and waste management and disposal will be
required. Soil stabilization practices and sediment control measures to protect the disturbed area
of the project site before the onset of precipitation will be required. Caltrans has identified a
number of BMPs to stabilize soils during construction. Samples of these BMPs are presented
below. BMPs specific to the Henderson Creek development project will be identified in the
S WPPP prepared for the project.
• Where possible, limit clearing and grubbing area to the limits of active construction. To
limit the time of exposure to erosion, preserve existing vegetation as long as practicable
to take advantage of its ability to control erosion and filter sediment. Existing vegetation
in the work areas will not be removed until immediately prior to beginning any work in
those areas.
• To prevent any increase in sediment load in storm water that leaves the project site, the
contractor will place sandbag barriers to intercept runoff and force it to pond behind the
sandbags. The contractor will remove the sediment from the site in accordance with
specifications of local, state and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from
the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a
copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that after implementation of BMPs set forth
in the SWPPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity
will be reduced to a level of less than significant.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 15 4/29/2004
6. Public Health and Safety
6a. Potential Significant Impact:
The frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from
extreme wind conditions.
Facts:
The Santa Ana winds along the front of the mountains can reach hurricane force and are capable
of damaging or destroying structures, or causing damage by windblown debris. The proposed
project would result in the development of 123 single-family lots and would expose people and
structures to high winds particularly during Santa Ana conditions. Winds at speeds reaching 80
to 100 miles per hour have been recorded in the area. Development would subject structures to
wind-related damage to roofs, fences, windows, and landscaping.
There are a number of health and safety issues related to wind hazards. First, during grading and
site preparation vegetation would be removed and earth would be moved, exposing soils to wind
erosion. This creates the potential for wind blown dust and soil to migrate off-site, adversely
affecting adjacent properties particularly during Santa Ana conditions. Minimum performance
standards such as requiring an interim erosion control plan, certified by the project engineer and
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and grading the site to accommodate
the percent of natural slope would help in controlling wind erosion. When applied in conjunction
with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements for controlling
fugitive dust, wind erosion can be minimized.
The City has identified issues relative to hazards due to high winds, particularly Santa Ana winds
including: 1) damage to structures and trees; and 2) public safety issues related to traffic
conditions, school operations, and increased demand on fire and police services and the City's
Operations Center.
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan policies for wind hazards by
adhering to the City's standard conditions of approval for notifying potential homebuyers of the
risks associated with high wind Santa Ana conditions in the area. In addition, during site grading
and construction, the contractors would be required to comply with City provisions for
preventing soil erosion and excessive generation of dust where the property is vulnerable to these
conditions.
The remaining policy related to wind hazards is a policy for the City to adhere to which is to
keep the development community apprised of any changes in the City's development standards
for new construction resulting from the introduction of new building materials that could
withstand impacts of high winds. This is an ongoing effort for all cities along the front of the San
Bernardino and San Gabriel mountain ranges and the development community that is ongoing.
As new building techniques or materials come available they will be introduced into new
development projects.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 16 4/29/2004
Mitigation Measure HS-1
The developer/builder shall utilize the optimum building materials and construction
techniques to minimize wind damage to property as set forth in Division III, Chapter 16 of
the Uniform Building Code.
Mitigation Measure HS-2
The home builder/sales agent shall disclose to potential buyers, that the project is in a
High Wind Area. This disclosure shall also be included in escrow papers or other
documentation for future buyers.
Mitigation Measure HS-3
See Mitigation Measure AQ-1 for control of PM/a emissions during grading and
construction.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that proper construction methods will reduce
the risk from wind hazard to a less than significant level.
6b. Potential Significant Impact:
Wildfires on adjacent lands including National Forest land and undeveloped properties
could threaten residential development on the project site.
Facts:
According to General Plan Exhibit V-7, the project site and surrounding area are located within a
"High Probability, High Consequence" fire hazard area. When occasional high winds occur there
is a risk of fire spreading out of control and burning the project residences. The site was burned
during the Grand Prix fire that occurred in October 2003.
In order to minimize risk to public health and safety, the project applicant has prepared a fuel
modification plan, which is summarized here.
Off-Site Fire Hazard and Risk
With the exception of the residential area to the east, lands surrounding the project site were all
burned during the Grand Prix fire in October 2003. Therefore, the vegetation on surrounding
lands will recover with the same species composition that existed before the fire. Fires starting
north to northeast of the site under Santa Ana wind situations will be the most dangerous to this
site. However, there will be fewer of these fires than during prevailing winds from the southwest
to the west. Statistics gathered by fire agencies tell us that as we add people to an area of
wildland vegetation, the number of ignitions increases (risk). As the brush grows back after a
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 17 4/29/2004
large fire, the intensity of a fire in the area will also increase (hazard). When homes and other
amenities are added to the same area (value), the need for increased fire protection and fuel
modification becomes apparent. The assessment of these factors for Henderson Creek is a
combination of high risk, high hazard, and high value.
Northern Boundary
The existing off-site native vegetative fuels along the northern boundary are classified as Fuel
Model NFFL FM 1-Grass. Under the proposed project, the developer will construct a 15-foot
wide equestrian trail north of the lots 25, 97-119 and 123. There will be a six-foot masonry wall
and a riprap drainage channel, and an area of trees, shrubs, and groundcover between the wall
and the residential backyards. This will provide 100 feet between the chaparral vegetation and
the homes. The homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs.
Wardman-Bullock Road is constructed north to its intersection with Colonbero Road. This
intersection is bounded by the Flood Control easement on the north. A parkway with trees,
shrubs, and groundcover will be in place between the street and the homes. There will also be a
masonry wall shielding lots 120-123 from any fire on the north or northeast side.
Western Boundary
The wildland fire threat from the western boundary is moderate. The fuels are light annuals.
There will be a six-foot masonry wall and landscaping between the native vegetation and new
homes. This set of circumstances will reduce the wildland fire threat to within acceptable limits.
The homes on the west side (lots 25-36) need to landscape with firewise vegetation that will not
compromise the homes to wildland fires (see mitigation measures below). The wall and irrigated
landscaping will provide defensible space for homes on the west side.
Southern Boundary
The Southern California Edison transmission lines are a very short distance south of this project
parallel to lots 53-66. The transmission line easement precludes any additional residential
construction between the above referenced lots and the transmission lines. The south exposure is
a low fire hazard.
Landscaping
The fuel modification plan designates two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) as standards for
landscaping around structures. Each homeowner will be responsible for maintaining the fuel
modification Zones 1 and 2 within their property. Common areas will be maintained as directed
by the Landscaping Plan and will be irrigated. The grass, groundcover, and ornamental trees will
add to the d6cor of this project as well as decreasing fire hazard for property owners.
Fuel Modification Zone 1 includes the first 30 feet around a structure. This landscaping zone is
usually irrigated and consists of fire resistant and maintained plants (lawn and ground cover)
usually less than 18 inches high. Zone 1 may contain occasional fire resistant trees or single,
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 18 4/29/2004
well-spaced ornamental shrubs taller than 18 inches intermixed with lawn and/or ground cover.
Trees must be planted so that when they reach maturity their branches are at least 10 feet away
from any structure. Zone 1 may extend beyond 30 feet and into Zone 2 as deemed appropriate.
Regular maintenance and continued irrigation is very important in Zone 1. Non-flammable
patios, walkways, rock, and gravel can be used to break up fuel continuity within this Zone as
well.
Fuel Modification Zone 2 includes the area 30 to 100 feet away from structures. This Zone may
include natural vegetation or manufactured slopes that will be treated and maintained to assure
fire-resistant conditions. Manufactured slopes may include a single shrub or small clusters of
thinned and well-pruned fire resistant shrubs taller than 48 inches and well-pruned single trees
limbed up 6 feet above the ground. All dead material must be pruned out of all shrubs annually
and disposed of appropriately.
Emergency Access
During the early stages of the Grand Prix fire in October 2003, fire officials were utilizing the
project site to stage water filling operations for some of the helicopters dropping water on the
fire. Emergency vehicles were also using Wardman-Bullock Road and other similar local streets
in the area to gain access to the fire area during this emergency. This would likely continue after
the project is developed because areas north of this site would continue to be undeveloped, and
emergency vehicles would continue to require access for emergencies.
The proposed project's road network must be developed to City street standards in order to allow
adequate emergency access. As a condition of approval, the project must include construction of
the westerly portion of Wardman-Bullock Road to "Collector Street" standards from Wilson
Road to the south project boundary. In addition, internal streets would be constructed to "Local"
standards that would provide adequate emergency vehicle ingress and egress.
Mitigation Measure HS-4
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape planffuel
modification plan that shall contain the following details:
Zone 1 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment. Zone 1 areas may be irrigated and/or
temporarily irrigated ornamental firewise landscaping. Single, well-spaced trees and
shrubs are allowed. These trees and shrubs will be planted and maintained so that at
maturity, their branches are at least 10 feet from any structure. The purpose of Zone I
landscaping is to create a non-combustible plant zone for a minimum of thirtyfeet around
each structure.
Zone 2 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment Areas. Zone 2 areas may be irrigated or non-
irrigated firewise ornamental landscaping and/or native vegetation treated and maintained
to Zone 2 Criteria. The purpose of Zone 2 Fuel Treatment is to reduce the amount of
combustible fuels to a level where wildland fire intensity is substantially reduced and to
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 19 4/29/2004
provide a safe zone for firefighters (defensible space) during their wildland fire protection
efforts.
Common Areas. These areas shall be maintained as directed by the Landscaping Plan, and
will be irrigated. The grass, ground cover, and ornamental trees will add to the decor of
this project and will decrease the fire hazard for property owners.
Mitigation Measure HS-5
The installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the design approach to
protect those properties that may be exposed to future wildland fires coming of the nearby
foothills.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds the combination of landscaping, residential
fire sprinklers and introduction of paved surfaces where none currently exist, and
implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential
fire into the proposed Henderson Creekproperties and thereby reduce impacts to a level of
less than significant.
7. Biological Resources
7a. Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project would result in the development of 65.3 acres of Upland sage scrub,
disturbed annual grassland and a small area offat-top buckwheat scrub.
Facts:
Vegetation
Prior to the fire, the proposed development would have impacted 1.5 acres of disturbed annual
grassland and 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed. These impacts
would not have been considered significant due to the relatively small area impacted
(approximately 1/3 of the total extent of the disturbed annual grassland on-site). In addition, the
project site had experienced substantial disturbance from previous impacts prior to the Grand
Prix fire such as weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads
and other roads that cross the property.
The proposed development would impact 53.5 acres of upland sage scrub. Upland sage scrub
dominated by white sage is unusual, but is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource
agencies that regulate biological resources. The loss of this plant community and wildlife habitat
is not considered to be significant, however, remains important from a cumulative sense.
The proposed development would have impacted 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. This is a
common species and is frequently an indicator of prior disturbance. No sensitive species were
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 20 4/292004
found in this plant community and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The loss of this
plant community is not considered to be significant in the absence of sensitive species.
Though much of the vegetation previously found on-site would likely grow back if no
development took place, the Biological Assessment found no substantial evidence of sensitive
plant or wildlife species on the site. The project site was already disturbed prior to the fire by dirt
roads from power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commercial harvesting of
white sage, and flood control activities. As a result of the Grand Prix fire, much of the
appropriate habitat was disturbed and many of the potential on-site species were displaced.
Approval of the Henderson Creek Properties residential development would not have an impact
on the biological resources.
Habitat Conservation Areas
The project site lies adjacent to the SBCFCD Flood Control Conservation area, which occurs
immediately south and west of the site. This conservation area is managed for the presence of the
alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, wetland resources and several sensitive species potentially
occurring in the area. The project site has been zoned for residential use and would not directly
impact the habitat conservation area.
In 1992, the County of San Bernardino formed the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat
Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) to identify existing open lands having special resource value
and to encourage the preservation of these lands. Resource values include critical habitats,
unique communities, riparian areas, and corridor connections. 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. The program encourages property owners to
preserve key parcels through various mechanisms. The Henderson Creek Properties residential
development occurs within the general boundary of the NEOSHPP and is within the County
Service Area(CSA 70) Improvement Zone OS-1.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall acquire and convey to County
Special Districts, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial
fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub. This measure is proposed to mitigate the
potential loss of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, and the loss of raptor
foraging land. This off-site mitigation land (OML) shall be equal or greater habitat value
than that of the project site. The identification and transfer of the OML will be to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Department, in accordance with the NEOSHPP. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 21 4/29/2004
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds that conveyance of off-site mitigation land to
County Special Districts CSA-70 for incorporation into the NEOSHPP would make this
impact less than significant.
D.2 IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT FIR AND DETERMINED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
1. Air Quality
la. Significant Unavoidable Impact:
Construction activities included in the Henderson Creek Development would cause the
release offugitive dust and combustion emissions from equipment.
Facts:
Construction emissions for projects this size and larger, typically exceed SCAQMD's thresholds
due mainly to the simultaneous operations of several pieces of heavy construction equipment for
site preparation. The construction activities are considered short-term (less than one year) and
temporary. They do not impact the long-term air quality of a region but can cause nuisance type
air impacts to adjacent land uses and in the local area (i.e. fugitive dust).
Grading of the site would also create short-term air quality impacts related to blowing dust. The
soils underlying most of the site is relatively loosely consolidated and subject to wind erosion
when disturbed by new construction and when unpaved roads are utilized.
An air pollutant emissions inventory was prepared to evaluate construction emissions. Emissions
were calculated using the Urban Emission Model 2002 (URBEMIS 2002). The criteria pollutants
screened include: reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NO.), carbon monoxide (CO),
and particulates (PMIo). Two of these, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors. Tables D.2-1 and
D.2-2 summarize the emission inventories.
Table D.2-1
Site Grading Emissions and Significance
Emissions (lb/da
Source ROG NOx CO PMI0
Off-Road Diesel 17.23 144.19 118.01 6.72
Worker Trips 0.19 0.37 3.93 0.02
Total 17.42 144.56 121.94 26.74
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150
Significant No Yes No No
Source:URBEMIS2002 Computer Model;Output in FIR Appendix C.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 22 4/29/2004
Table D.2-2
Construction Air Pollution Emissions and Significance
Emissions lb/day)
Source ROG NOx CO PMj0
Off-Road Diesel 30.09 243.39 212.64 11.19
Building Worker Trips 0.59 0.33 7.01 0.10
Arch Coating 494.50 --
Arch Coating Worker Tris 0.59 0.33 7.01
Asphalt Off-Gas 1.43 --
Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.34 6.75 1.27 0.09
Total 527.54 250.80 227.92 31.37
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150
Significant Yes Yes No No
Source:URBEMIS2002 Computer Model;Output in EIR Appendix C.
The estimated air pollutants emissions are not expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
criteria pollutants except for ROG and NOx, Construction mitigation measures listed herein
would reduce construction exhaust pollutants.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1
Dust Control
• Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical.
• Terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control procedures when winds exceed
25 mph.
• Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.
Emissions
• Require 90-day low-NO, tune-ups for off-road equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
Off-Site Impacts
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of construction materials during non peak traffic hours.
6961Final EIR/CEQA Findings 23 4/29/2004
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council finds implementation of the recommended
measures will further reduce construction emissions, minimizing the project's contribution
to regional emission of criteria pollutants. However, construction emissions (building
phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, would remain
a significant impact.
D.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT FIR
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative
impact as one that is created as a result of a combination of the proposed project together with
other projects causing related impacts. The guidelines provide guidance concerning the format
and content of a cumulative impact analysis by stating that an EIR shall discuss cumulative
impacts of a project when its incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The incremental
effect is defined as a significant irreversible environmental change that would be involved if the
proposed project should be implemented (CEQA Guidelines sections 15130(a) and 15165(c)).
An adequate discussion of cumulative impacts should be based on either 1) a list of relevant past,
present and reasonably anticipated future projects that would produce related or cumulative
impacts, or 2) a summary of projections contained in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan. Due to the location of the site in the northeast portion of the City, the identification of
related projects was limited to a specific geographic area of the City (both the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and Fontana) rather than the City as a whole. Related projects considered in this
cumulative analysis are identified in Table D.3-1.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 24 4/29/2004
Table D.3-1
Cumulative Projects
Development/Jurisdiction Locations Acres Units Population2
Rancho Etiwanda/City
(Formerly University) 2 miles southwest 251 685 2,226
Rancho Etiwanda Estates/City
Formerly Crest Project 1 mile west 247 632 2,054
Centex/City
(Formerly Etiwanda Heights) 2 miles southwest 325 200 650
Coyote Canyons/Fontana 1 mile east 25 660 2,145
Mastercraft/City 1 mile southwest 150 300 975
Standard Pacific/City 3 miles southwest 642 306 995
Richland/Wilson'/City
Now TT 16072 1 mile southwest 151 359 1,167
Trac TT 14749) /:mile west 169 269 874
TTM 16113-16116(4 maps)/City 2 miles southwest 87 109 354
Rancho Summit-County
(Now part of Etiwanda Preserve) 2 miles west NA NA NA
Los Osos High School/City 2 miles southwest 50 NA NA
Lauren Development/City
(Havenview Estates-TT 14771) 5 miles west 25 40 130
TT 16147/City 2 miles southwest 47 70 225
Lennar TT 14759/City 2 miles southwest 132 358 1,164
Subtotal 2,301 3,988 12,959
Henderson Creek/County(annex to
city), Proposed Project 100 125 400
Total 2,401 4,113 13 359
1 Approximate distance and direction from proposed project site. NA=not applicable
2 Estimate based on number of units times 3.25 person per unit TT=Tentative Tract
TTM=Tentative Tract Map
3. Henderson Creek has 123 single family lots and 2 Open Space lots.
Source:Planning Department,County of San Bernardino and City of Rancho Cucamonga,2001
Updated by Larry Henderson at Rancho and Pat McGuckian at County in March,2002,and Debra Meier in October 2003.
Results of the cumulative analysis were that the proposed project in conjunction with other
related projects would have a significant adverse cumulative effect on the following:
Air Quality - Construction of development projects in the vicinity would likely have cumulative
short-term impacts to air quality during construction. The proposed project would also add
incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions.
This is a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 25 4/29/2004
Noise - Noise levels associated with the proposed project are related to 1) short-term
construction impacts, and 2) vehicle trips that when combined with other related projects would
increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity.
Short-term construction impacts are mitigated by limiting the times construction activities can
occur on-site, and would cease after the construction schedule is completed. It is expected.that
any cumulative construction noise impacts can be mitigated at a project level. The developer will
mitigate roadway noise along planned residential areas that are not yet developed at the time of
design. Area roadways are expected to experience significant cumulative noise impacts due to
regional growth (+6 dB), therefore, growth will have cumulatively considerable impact on noise.
Long-term noise is associated with new vehicle trips. Because these are residential trips and
there are no land uses proposed in the vicinity other than residential, local noise would remain
less than significant. However, as residents combine with all other new residents increasing
traffic levels on the roadways, cumulative noise impacts would increase. Over time, area
roadways are expected to experience significant noise impacts due to city-wide growth in
general.
Public Services - The proposed project is within the Etiwanda Unified School District and
Chaffey High School District. CEQA allows the payment of developer fees as an adequate
mitigation for individual project impacts to schools. However, these fees may be inadequate over
the long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools, since no long-term funding
mechanisms have been successfully established. Based on this information, it can be reasonably
concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts on schools, and the
proposed project will contribute incrementally to this impact.
Findings:
The Council finds that the project on conjunction with future development of adjacent
areas for residential use would have a cumulative affect on air quality and noise generally
related to increased vehicle trips. In addition, public services (schools) would be
cumulatively affected by the increase in the number of school age residents in the area.
After consideration of feasible mitigation measures, noise and air quality impacts associated
with an increase in the number of vehicle trips, and public service (school) impacts
associated with the increased number ofschool aged residents would remain significant when
combined with other related projects. Therefore, these impacts are overridden by project
benefits (Section E) as set forth in Section G, Statement of Overriding Considerations.
E. PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits from approving the Henderson Creek Properties project include: 1)provides quality
housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market
demands; and 2) providing a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space
areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area. The District's
objectives are as follows:
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 26 4/29/2004
• Be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development
Code, and all other City Development guidelines;
• Annex the 90.4-acre project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of
Rancho Cucamonga;
• Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish
a development that results in logical, coordinated growth;
• Establish a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation
needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians;
• Provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and
landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an efficient
and timely manner;
• Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve project residents
and the surrounding community;
• Minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for, various public service
agencies, and
• Provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development
that responds to market demands.
Implementation of the Henderson Creek Properties residential project would benefit the
community by offering quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned
development. It would also provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails,
open space areas, and landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents.
F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of a reasonable range of
project alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (Section 15126.6(a). An
EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that: (1) offers substantial
environmental advantages over the proposed project, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a
successful manner and within a reasonable period of time considering the economic,
environmental, legal, social and technological factors involved.
The selection of alternatives for analysis is described in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Each
alternative to the proposed project was evaluated for its ability to reduce or eliminate impacts.
The project alternatives evaluated in detail in Chapter 6.0 of the EIR are the following:
• No-Project-No Development Alternative
• No-Project- Buildout Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 27 4/29/2004
The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is
capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly" (Section 15126.6[b]). The following discussion provides the Council's
evaluation of each of the alternatives to determine whether there are feasible alternatives to the
proposed action (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]) and whether the alternative can
eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts previously described in the document for the
proposed action. A discussion of those alternatives eliminated from further consideration is also
provided.
F.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE
In determining whether an alternative scenario could meet the project goals and reduce impacts,
the following alternatives were considered and rejected:
a) Alternative Location- An alternative location for the proposed project was not considered
because the project site is already designated in the City's General Plan as a residential
site. Several properties surrounding the site east, south and west are also designated for
residential development. Those not designated residential are designated as open space
associated with flood control or utility corridors.
b) Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative - An alternative for
development under the County of San Bernardino General Plan was not evaluated
because: 1) the site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and has been pre-zoned by
the City; and 2) under the County General Plan the developable area of the site
(65.3 acres) is designated Single Residential minimum 20,000 square-foot lots (RS-20m).
This is the same density as allowed under the City's Very Low designation.
c) Alternative Land Use - An alternative land use was not considered as an alternative
because: the City has planned for the area to be residential and has planned for other,
more intense land uses to be located along major thoroughfares.
F.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EIR
The environmental analyses in Chapter 4.0 of the EIR concludes that project impacts would be
less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant with mitigation for most issues.
Impacts that were found to be less than significant were related to Public Services, Utilities and
Service Systems, and Cultural Resources. Impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant
levels are related to Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, and Biological Resources.
During construction, air quality emissions cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with
mitigation. However, air quality impacts would be short-term and would cease once construction
activities are complete. Alternatives to the proposed project were evaluated for their ability to
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 28 4/29/2004
reduce or eliminate this significant impact. The following alternatives represent the range of
reasonable alternatives selected for evaluation.
Alternative 1: No Project Altemative
This alternative assumes that no development would occur on the site. The 65.3 acres of the site
proposed for residential development would remain vacant and not annexed to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. The no-project alternative would not meet the project's objectives to
provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development in
response to market demands.
Alternative 2: Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative.
Under this alternative the project would be developed as allowed under the current City of
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. For this analysis, it was assumed that development would
occur within the same development envelope as that of the proposed project. The area disturbed
by grading would be equal to that of the proposed project. Opportunities would exist to create
larger pad and lot sizes, and increased development setbacks. Development in this manner would
result in minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet with an average lot area of 25,000 square feet
verses the proposed development with an average lot size of over 18,000 square feet. The site
could be developed as a lot sales program with semi-custom tract homes. Equestrian uses could
occur at this density and location.
An alternative for development under the County of San Bernardino General Plan was not
evaluated, because: 1) the site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and has been pre-zoned by
the City; and 2) under the County General Plan the developable area of the site (65.3 acres) is
designated Single Residential minimum 20,000 square-foot lots (RS-20m).
Similar to the proposed project, under this alternative, annexation would need to occur. Currently
the project site is designated for Very Low Residential (refer to Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3.0 for
existing Land Use designations).
For this analysis, it was assumed that development would occur within the same development
envelope as that of the proposed project. The area disturbed by grading would be equal to that of
the proposed project. Opportunities would exist to create larger pad and lot sizes, and increased
development setbacks. Development in this manner would result in minimum lot sizes of
20,000 square feet and an average lot area of 25,000 square feet. The site could be developed as
a lot sales program with semi-custom tract homes. Equestrian uses could occur at this density
and location.
Under this alternative, due to the irregular shape of the property, the project could be developed
with.approximately 90 lots; a difference of 33 lots from the proposed project. Therefore,
development under the City's existing pre-zoned designation would have a similar impact on the
physical environment including similar traffic, noise, and light and glare because the difference
between the two projects is minimal.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 29 4/29/2004
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that the
screening criteria to identify alternatives that would lessen or reduce significant effects
were appropriate.
F.3 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE
EIR
a. No Project—No Development Alternative
Under this alternative, the project site would not be developed. The 65.3 acres of the site would
remain vacant, undisturbed land. The General Plan and Zoning designations would not change
and the property would not be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This alternative is
similar to the discussion of existing conditions for each issue addressed in Chapter 4.0
Environmental Impact Evaluation (e.g., land use, traffic, air quality, noise, etc.).
Land Use
The No Project-No Development Alternative would not have an impact on land use in the sense
that no development would occur and the site would remain an undeveloped area. The site could
be used by another developer as mitigation and incorporated into NEOSHPP lands. However, the
quality of the habitat on-site before the fire was marginal.
Traffic and Circulation
The No Project-No Development Alternative would not generate any new vehicle trips.
Air Quality
The No Project-No Development Alternative would not generate criteria pollutants that would
cause an adverse impact on air quality.
Noise
The No Project-No Development Alternative would not result in a new source of noise.
Public Services
The No Project-No Development Alternative would not generate a need for additional public
services.
Biological Resources
The No Project-No Development Alternative would not cause an increase in any adverse impacts
to sensitive plant or wildlife species.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 30 4/29/2004
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council concurs that the "No Project-No Development
Alternative" results in no significant impacts because no development would occur.
Therefore it is considered to be an environmental superior alternative. However, the "No
Project-No Development Alternative" would not meet the objectives of proving quality
housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, and
providing a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and
landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents.
b. Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative
Under this alternative the project would be developed as allowed under the current City of
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and not the County of San Bernardino General Plan, because
the site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and has been pre-zoned by the City. The
proposed project annexation would need to occur. Currently the project site is designated for
Very Low Residential.
For this analysis, it was assumed that development would occur within the same development
envelope as that of the proposed project. The area disturbed by grading would be equal to that of
the proposed project. Opportunities would exist to,create larger pad and lot sizes, and increased
development setbacks. Development in this manner would result in minimum lot sizes of 20,000
square feet with an average lot area of 25,000 square feet verses the proposed development with
an average lot size of over 18,000 square feet. The site could be developed as a lot sales program
with semi-custom tract homes. Equestrian uses could occur at this density and location.
Under this alternative, due to the irregular shape of the property, the project would have
approximately 90 lots, given ideal circumstances. However, development under the City's
existing pre-zoned designation would have a similar impact on the physical environment
including similar traffic, noise, air quality, land use, and biological resource impacts because the
difference between the two projects is minimal.
Traffic and Circulation
The alternative is estimated to generate less daily trips at buildout in comparison to the proposed
project. An estimated 877 daily trips would likely be generated by the project. Thus, although
considered minimal the alternative would result in an increase over existing daily trips.
Air Quality
Impacts to air quality would be slightly less with 33 fewer homes.
Noise
Short-term construction noise would be similar to the proposed development. However, long-
term traffic noise under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed development.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 31 4/29/2004
Public Services
The Development Under Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would generate a need for
additional services. However, the decrease from 123 to 90 lots, or 33 fewer homes would be
negligible.
Biological Resources
Adverse impacts (i.e. loss of potential habitat), would be similar.
Findings:
Based on the whole record, this Council concurs that the Development Under the Existing
Land Use Designation Alternative would be environmentally superior because traffic trips
and related air quality and noise would be less than the proposed project. However, the
Development Under the Existing Land Use Alternative would not meet the objectives of the
providing quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development
for the area, and providing a system of public%ommunity facilities, including trails, open
space areas, and landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents.
G. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the findings addresses the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. It
requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
significant impacts and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the
project benefits (outlined in Section E). As described in Section D.3 above, the Henderson Creek
Properties would produce project specific-unavoidable significant impacts in one environmental
area — air quality. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts would occur in air quality and
noise related to short-term construction impacts, and vehicle trips that when combined with other
related projects would increase vehicle emissions, and ambient noise levels in the vicinity.
Cumulative impacts would also result to Public Services (schools). Fees collected, as allowed by
CEQA, may be inadequate over the long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools.
Therefore it can be reasonably concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable
impacts to school services, and the proposed project would contribute incrementally to this
impact.
The Council finds that the previously stated major benefits of the Henderson Creek Development
as contained in the proposed action and described in Section E outweigh the unavoidable
significant adverse environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the
Henderson Creek Development project as cited in Section E is hereby determined to be, in itself
and independently of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable
environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these findings.
The Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse
environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to
insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible achievable levels where significant
impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed alternatives to the project (Section F) to
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 32 4/29/2004
determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether
they might reduce or eliminate the significant impact (air quality) of the proposed action. The
EIR presents evidence that implementing the Henderson Creek Development project will cause
one significant adverse impact which cannot be substantially mitigated to a less than significant
level. This significant impact has been outlined above and the Council finds that all feasible
alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the
City or other responsible agencies.
The Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial and override the following
unavoidable impacts of the project:
a. The Henderson Creek Development project would have a significant adverse impact on
air quality because construction emissions will remain higher than permitted by the
SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts to Air Quality would be short-term and
would cease once construction activities were completed.
Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts
a. Construction of development projects in the vicinity would likely have cumulative short-
term impacts to air quality during construction. The proposed project would also add
incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle
emissions. This is a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality.
b. Noise levels associated with the proposed project are related to short-term construction
impacts, and vehicle trips that when combined with other related projects would increase
the ambient noise levels in the vicinity.
Short-term construction impacts are mitigated by limiting the times construction activities
can occur on-site, and would cease after the construction schedule is completed. It is
expected that any cumulative construction noise impacts can be mitigated at a project
level.
Long-term noise is associated with new vehicle trips. Because these are residential trips
and there are no land uses proposed in the vicinity other than residential, local noise
would remain less than significant. However, as residents combine with all other new
residents increasing traffic levels on the roadways, cumulative noise impacts would
increase. Over time, area roadways are expected to experience significant noise impacts
due to city-wide growth in general. Area roadways are expected to experience significant
cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth (+6 dB), therefore, growth will have
cumulatively considerable impact on noise.
C. The proposed project is within the Etiwanda Unified School District and Chaffey High
School District. CEQA allows the payment of developer fees as an adequate mitigation
for individual project impacts to schools. However, these fees may be inadequate over the
long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools, since no long-term funding
mechanisms have been successfully established. Based on this information, it can be
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 33 4/29/2004
reasonably concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts on
schools, and the proposed project will contribute incrementally to this impact.
As the CEQA lead agency for the proposed action, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Council has
reviewed the project description in the EIR and Section A of this document and fully understands
the Henderson Creek Development project. Further, the Council finds that all potential adverse
environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts have been
identified in the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR (the EIR) and public testimony. These impacts and
mitigation measures are discussed in Section D. The Council also finds that a reasonable range of
alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document (Section F) and that no feasible
alternatives that substantially lessen project impacts are available for adoption.
The Council has identified benefits and objectives (Section E), which will result from
implementing the proposed project. The Council has balanced these benefits against the
unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project. Implementation of the
Henderson Creek Development project would benefit the community by offering quality housing
that would be compatible with existing and planned development in the area. It would also
provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and
landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents. The Council finds that the
benefits identified herein override the unavoidable environmental effects.
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 34 4/29/2004
H. Definition of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAQS Ambient air quality standards
ADA Average daily attendance
ADT Average daily traffic
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Program
BACT Best available control technology
BMP Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNEL Community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Endangered Species Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
F Fahrenheit
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
GPM Gallons per minute
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
Leq Equivalent noise levels
Lmax Maximum sound level
Lmin Minimum sound level
LOS Level of service
MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake
MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program
MPE Maximum probable [earthquake] event
mph Miles per hour
MSL Mean sea level
Mw Moment Magnitude
NAAQS National ambient air quality standards
NDDB Natural Diversity Data Base (California Department of Fish and Game)
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOA Notice of Availability
696/Final EIIUCEQA Findings 35 4/29/2004
NOC Notice of Completion
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
03 Ozone
Pb Lead
PCE Passenger car equivalent-generally one truck being equal to approximately 1.5
to 2 cars
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less)
PM10 10-micron or less particulate matter
PPM Parts per million
ppmV Parts per million by volume
ROG Reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
V/C Volume to capacity
VOC Volatile organic compound
VPHG Vehicles per hour of green
WDR Waste discharge requirements
696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 36 4/29/2004
10.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND LEAD AGENCY RESPONSES
The public comment period for the Draft EIR began February 20, 2004 and ended April 5, 2004.
A total of six comment letters were received. These are listed in Table 10-1 and are identified by
a number. Individual comments within each letter are identified with a unique numeric indicator.
For example, the comment letter from County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works
submitted a letter containing four comments. The letter has been identified as Letter 2 with
comments 2-1 through 2-4.
Table 10-1
Comment Letters Received on the Draft Environmental Im act Report
Letter Name Date
1 Southern California Association of Governments March 4, 2004
2 County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Aril 7, 2004
3 Mr. Lee Blattner March 25, 2004
4 Mr. Craig Sherman March 30, 2004
5 Mr. Craig Sherman Aril 4, 2004
6 Ms. Leeona Clippstein, Spirit of the Sae Council A ri13, 2004
1
Letter 1
Southern California Association of Governments, March 4, 2004
This letter states that SCAG staff has reviewed the EIR for the proposed Henderson Creek
tentative tract map and has determined that the project is not regionally significant per SCAG
Intergovernmental Review Criteria and CEQA Guidelines (section 15206). SCAG has no
comments.
2
Letter 2
San Bernardino County Flood Control District, April 7, 2004
Comment 2-1 This comments states that the site is located in Zone D on the most recent
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Response: Page 4.6-2, first paragraph under Applicable Policies, Plans and Regulations
has been revised as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The project site is currently located within a Inn year hazard area _elated to
Hetider-sen Creel. floodplain identified as Zone D. flood hazards are
undetermined, according to the most recent Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (March 18. 1996). The County of
San Bernardino Flood Control District is responsible for the maintenance of the
Henderson Creek Channel. The Henderson Creek Channel and improvements to
the levee have been designed to capture all flows entering the creek and
conveying the flows and then offsite. These improvements must occur prior to
development of the Henderson Creek property. Upon completion of the levee
improvements, the levee will protect the property from these flows and potential
flooding. FEMA will require the applicant to process a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) based on the proposed improvements to the levee and
a Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) following completion of the improvements.
Both actions must occur prior to implementation of the Henderson Creek
project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted FEMA regulations and
will enforce the most current FEMA regulations for develop_m_ent within a
floodplain, applicable to the Henderson Creek project.
In addition, the second paragraph under Impact Analysis on page 4.9-4 has been revised as
follows:
The County of San Bernardino Flood Control District is responsible for the
maintenance of the Henderson Creek Channel, which traverses the project site.
The Henderson Creek Channel and improvements to the levee have been
designed to capture all flow entering the creek and them offsite. These
improvements are scheduled to occur prior to development of the Henderson
Creek property. Upon completion of the levee improvements, the levee will
protect the property from these flows and potential flooding. The project site is
currently located within a .
floodplain identified as Zone D flood hazards are undetermined, according to
the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (March 18 1996) The
rn oiect will be required to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) based on the proposed improvements to the levee and a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) following completion of the improvements. Both
actions will be processed through FEMA.
3
Completion of levee improvements and approval of the Letter of Map Revision
would remove the project site from the 100-year flood zone. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Comment 2-2: The project site may be subject to infrequent flood hazards in the event of a
major storm event and breakout flows from Henderson Creek Channel/Etiwanda
Creek Channel until recommended improvement to the Channel are made.
Response: As discussed on page 4.9-4 of the Draft EIR under Impact Analysis,
recommended improvements to the Henderson Creek Channel/Etiwanda Creek
Channel will be completed prior to development of the Henderson Creek
property.
Comment 2-3: The County assumes that the City will establish adequate provisions for
intercepting and conducting accumulated drainage around and through the site
so as not to affect downstream properties.
Response: The project will be required to accommodate storm waters that could affect
adjacent or downstream properties or projects. As discussed on page 4.9-4 of
the Draft EIR: "The majority of the drainage from the annexation area will be
collected onto on-site underground storm drains and then conveyed into a
66-inch storm drain along San Segundo Drive. All streets will be designed to
accommodate storm waters that could exceed the top of curbs in the event of a
25-year storm as well as the right-of-way for a 100-year storm. All necessary
facilities will be localized in nature and will be inspected and maintained by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Department."
Comment 2-4: The City must enforce the most recent FEMA regulations.
Response: Please see response to Comment 2-1 above.
Comment 2-5: The County indicates that a permit would be required for encroachment onto
Flood Control District right-of-way.
Response: The project site is adjacent to lands under the ownership of the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). It is not the developer's intent to
encroach onto SBCFCD properties.
4
Letter 3
Mr. Lee Blattner, Local Resident,March 25, 2004
Comment 3-1: This comment states that appropriate improvements must be made to Wardman-
Bullock Road to ensure adequate access to existing and proposed
neighborhoods, including emergency access.
Response: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project and summarized in the
Draft EIR in Section 4.2 and included in its entirety as Appendix B.
The developer will be required to construct Wardman-Bullock Road along the
project frontage at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector roadway and to
complete the westerly portion of Wardman-Bullock Road from the south project
boundary to Wilson Avenue (see Mitigation Measure TC-3, page 4.2-29).
Future improvements to these roadways will occur when adjacent, currently
undeveloped properties are developed.
The proposed Henderson Creek project is estimated to generate a total of 1,206
trip-ends per day with an additional 90-95 vehicular trips during morning peak
hours (7:00 to 9:00 am) and an additional 121-127 vehicular trips in the
afternoon peak hours (4:00 to 6:00 pm). The intersections that would be
impacted by the project are:
• East Avenue at Banyan Street
• Wardman-Bullock Road at Wilson Avenue
• Cherry Avenue at Summit Avenue
• Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street
As discussed on page 4.2-28 of the Draft EIR, the project's fair share
contribution has been calculated based on the project's traffic volumes at two of
the intersections that will operate at deficient service levels with the project in
the year 2004 (project opening day). The project's contribution to improvements
ranges from 11.5 percent to 73.9 percent. The associated cost of the
improvements has been multiplied by these percentages to determine the
project's contribution. The total fair share cost is estimated to be $25,676.
This means that the developer of the Henderson Creek project will be required
to deposit funds with the City that will go toward future improvements at two
intersections. The improvements will be a stop sign to control east/westbound
traffic at Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road and a traffic signal at
Etiwanda Avenue and Banyan Street. These improvements and the developer's
fair share will alleviate the impacts associated with the projected 1,206 new
trips per day.
5
There are no means of providing sufficient and well-positioned parking/staging
areas, in any new or existing developments, for emergency response vehicles
during unpredictable times of major disasters.
Comment 3-2: This comment states that traffic is particularly slow during hours before the
three local schools begin the day, and at the end of the school day, and suggests
that the project should be postponed until Wilson Avenue can be extended to the
west.
Response: Future roadway system improvements, including the extension of Wilson
Avenue, will occur when adjacent development projects are approved and under
construction.
6
Letter 4
Mr. Craig A. Sherman, Attorney at Law, March 30, 2004
Comment 4-1: This comment is a request for a copy of the draft development agreement for the
project.
Response: A copy of the proposed development agreement is included in the Final EIR as
Appendix F.
7
Letter 5
Mr. Craig A. Sherman, Attorney at Law Letter, April 4, 2004
Comment 5-1: This comment indicates that the party represented by this counsel opposes the
project and requests that the City adopt the No Project Alternative.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review the proposed project
including the environmental impact report and its findings, hold hearings and
take public testimony, and weigh all of the evidence, including written public
comments received on the Draft EIR and lead agency responses, prior to taking
any action on the project.
Comment 5-2: This comment states that the list of cumulative projects identified in Table 5-1 is
outdated.
Response: The cumulative projects list for the proposed project was based on the list used
in the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Tracy Development project, a single-
family residential project located on 169 acres approximately %z mile west of the
proposed project site. The City updated the list to reflect any additional
proposed projects that may have come forward between the time the Notice of
Preparation was released for the Tracy Development Project (August 11, 2003)
and the time the Notice of Preparation for the Henderson Creek project was
released (November 10, 2003). The list was updated in October 2003 during the
time the NOP was being prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, the
cumulative project list was up to date and timely in its identification of related
projects to be evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Comment 5-3: This comment states that it is not possible to determine or analyze the potential
cumulative impacts to land use and planning without knowing the number of
projects listed in Table 5-1 that "required or obtained or are applying for"
general plan or specific plan amendments.
Response: The last paragraph on page 5-3 discusses land use and planning issues related to
cumulative projects. A good portion of the project vicinity is currently
undeveloped land, and development is largely single-family residential
neighborhoods, with some multifamily development and commercial uses along
major streets and the I-15 corridor. The issues raised in the Draft EIR
concerning land use and planning and the proposed project are generally those
of density and compatibility with existing land uses.
Both the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana have planned their spheres
of influence and have prezoned their respective areas to develop a mix of land
uses with low-density residential uses, as well as commercial uses along the
main thoroughfares (Summit Avenue near the I-15 freeway for example).
Because the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 represent new developments
on undeveloped land, the cumulative projects analysis was based on the change
8
in environmental conditions between baseline conditions (raw land) and the
development of the proposed projects rather than the environmental change
between two land use designations (i.e., Very Low vs. Low Density
Residential). This represents a worst-case scenario.
Comment 5-4: This comment asks what the cumulative effects of the City's general and
specific plan amendments are related to this project and the standards, densities
and open space goals as adopted in the 1991 general plan and any applicable
specific plan.
Response: The City of Rancho Cucamonga updated its general plan in 2001 and no longer
utilizes the 1991 general plan. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan is still in force
however.
Cumulative effects of incremental development in the City, whether requiring a
general plan or specific plan amendment or not, are discussed in the Draft EIR
in Chapter 5.0. Table 5-1 shows that development of all cumulative projects
would result in the development of approximately 2,400 acres and 4,113
residential units, predominantly single family homes, and an increase in
population of 13,359. Effects are considered to be less than significant because
land uses are designed to be compatible and consistent with the goals of the
City's general plan to protect single-family neighborhoods from development
densities and intensities that would diminish the quality of life.
Also see response to comment 5-3 above.
Comment 5-5: This comment states that cumulative impacts/effects analysis regarding open
space and/or biological resources is deficient.
Response: Cumulative impacts to biological resources and open space are addressed on
page 5-6 of the Draft EIR. The analysis acknowledges that continued"
development in the foothill area will further impact local flora and fauna,
mainly through the loss of Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS).
Wildlife will have fewer resource areas to use, although most of these are
already surrounded by development. Increased traffic will also result in
increased mortality of wildlife (road kills).
Project applicants are required to consult with the resource agencies to
determine adequate mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat. The applicant*for
the Henderson Creek project, like other developers in the area must purchase
off-site or otherwise set aside on-site, mitigation lands to replace habitat lost by
development, contributing or purchasing land that is in or can be included in the
North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP)
area which would mitigate potential cumulative impacts. The NEOSHPP was
established by the County of San Bernardino as a conservation area to set aside
RAFSS. The amount of mitigation land to be purchased is negotiated with the
9
agencies. Once this has been completed and mitigation lands are purchased, the
impact has been mitigated.
Comment 5-6: This comment requests identification of the number of acres and locations
where each project listed in Table 5-1 have mitigated the loss of natural open
space and biological resources.
Response: The number of acres and locations where development projects have purchased
mitigation land is ultimately between each developer and the resource agencies
and is established during consultation between the two. Where the lands will be
preserved and managed, and how many acres of mitigation land would
compensate for the loss, is established on a case-by-case basis depending on the
quality of habitat lost to each development proposal. As of December 2003,
2,559 acres of land in the NEOSHPP have been purchased and set aside with an
additional 429 acres in negotiation including the 58 acres proposed by the
applicant. This includes all development projects where the consultation has
been completed, but does not likely include all of the projects listed in Table 5-
1, because many of these may still be in consultation.
Comment 5-7: This comment states, "...to the extent that significant effects are occurring on a
cumulative basis, it is this project and its EIR to depict the same and attempt to
mitigate".
Response: This comment appears to be an incomplete thought. However, we can assume
that what is meant is that the project is responsible for mitigating impacts to
biological resources lost to development of the project site.
Please see response to comment 5-5 above.
Comment 5-8: This comment asks that the long-term supply of water during drought years for
this and cumulative projects be identified.
Response: The long-term supply of water for the region is identified in the Cucamonga
County Water District (CCWD) Master Plan. LARRY WE WILL NEED TO
WAIT FOR CHERYL TO GET BACK FROM VACATION ON 4/26 TO
RESPOND TO THIS.
Comment 5-9: This comment asks how this project and other cumulative projects adversely
affect groundwater discharge (recharge?) and the aquifer (aquifers) located at
and downstream of the project site.
Response: Storm flows (surface water) that presently cross the project site drain to
Henderson Creek and eventually contribute to groundwater recharge. The
proposed development will change the flow of surface water but not reduce the
amount of water Channeled to Henderson Creek and available for groundwater
recharge. The 49 cubic feet per second (cfs) of storm flows arriving at the
10
northwest corner of the project site will be picked up and carred to a Channel
and discharged to Henderson Creek. The storm flow of 141 cfs arriving at the
northeast corner of the property will be collected in a second Channel and
conveyed to Henderson Creek. Storm water that is generated on-site will be
collected in an on-site storm drain system and carried to an existing 66-inch
storm drain at the comer of Wardman Bullock Road and San Segundo Road.
This existing drainage system empties into the Henderson Channel at the east
end of Segundo Road (see EIR page 4.6-9).
Any potential impacts to groundwater quality in the underlying and downstream
aquifers will be controlled through the issuance and administration of a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to be issued for the
project by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (see EIR page 4.6-9).
Other project proposed for development in the area are also subject to the design
of drainage facilities to handle on and off-site storm flows while avoiding
impacts to downstream water supplies. These projects are also subject to the
requirements of an NPDES permit.
The water supply to meet the needs of the proposed project as well as other
projects in the area may include imported State Project Water and/or local
groundwater aquifers. The water supplier for the project and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is the Cucamonga County (now "Valley") Water District. The
District has indicated it has sufficient supplies to provide water to the project as
well as other planned projects within their jurisdiction(see EIR, Appendix H).
Comment 5-10: This comment asks for details of the proposed development agreement between
the City and the applicant identified in the last paragraph on page 3-5 of the
Draft EIR.
Response: A draft development agreement between the City and the applicant is included
in Appendix F of the Final EIR. Approval of the Henderson Creek Residential
Project Tentative Tract Map will require the following actions by the City
Council:
Certification of the EIR
Adoption of Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations
Approval of a General Plan Amendment
Approval of an Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment
Approval of a Development Agreement
Approval of the Tentative Tract Map
The project will also require the approval of an annexation by the San
Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission.
11
The Draft Development Agreement states that the project shall be developed in
accordance with the City's Low-Density Residential District of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan (Provision 2.C.7.).
The Development Agreement further states (Provision 21) that other than the
mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the EIR and Project
Entitlements (and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated
therein), no other mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the
Project, as presently approved and as evaluated in the EIIt, shall be required.
The Development Agreement therefore provides that the project be consistent
with the analysis provided in the EIR. The City Council will consider the
Development Agreement after it adopts the Final EIR.
Comment 5-11: This comment asks what the cumulative effects of enacting development
agreements for the projects listed in Table 5-1.
Response: Cumulative effects of the proposed projects listed in Table 5-1 are evaluated in
Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR. The results of the cumulative projects are the
development of approximately 2,400 acres with 4,113 units, and an additional
13,359 people. The fact that one or more of these projects includes a
development agreement does not change the findings of the cumulative impacts
analysis.
Comment 5-12: This comments asks how the terms of the development agreement differ from
existing City's adopted codes and ordinances.
Response: See response to comment 5-10 above. In addition, the draft development
agreement is included in the Final EIR in Appendix F.
Comment 5.13: This comment asks for a discussion of the "backbone public infrastructure" that
would serve other future development projects. Does this create "growth
inducing impacts" and if so, what potential impacts.
Response: For the proposed project, "backbone public infrastructure" would consist of
improvements to Wardman-Bullock Road, and extending infrastructure such as
water and sewer lines into the area.
Growth inducing impacts are addressed in Section 7.2 beginning on page 7-1
and includes the following discussion: "The proposed Henderson Creek
Properties residential project is one of several residential projects being
proposed, under construction, or recently developed in the upper portions of the
cities of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, in the West Valley Foothill
area of San Bernardino County. Rapid population growth in the southern
California region is anticipated to continue for at least the next 20 years.
Pressure to provide housing for additional residents is great, and new housing
projects in this area, such as the Henderson Creek project, are being rapidly
12
developed. To the extent that this project and other related projects in the
immediate vicinity are being developed to meet this need, they are considered
growth inducing by encouraging residents to move to the area. Pressure will
likely continue to be applied to provide additional housing opportunities in the
area until development reaches the National Forest boundary, or the NEOSHPP
boundary."
Comment 5-14: This comment asks how the project complies with the City's affordable housing
program, and low- or moderate-housing income housing opportunities, and asks
for data concerning developments approved in the last five years and what
percentage of housing types and income levels have been made available.
Response: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is responsible for ensuring that a variety of
housing stock is available for residents, including affordable housing. The
General Plan includes a Housing Element that must be updated every five years,
using a variety of tools and data, including the Southern California Association
of Government's (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Housing
Element identifies the number and types of housing units that are currently
available in the City, and provides projections for the types and number of units
that will be required to meet the needs of the projected population over that
five-year period. To understand where in the City various types of housing
(multi-family, single-family—medium density, or single family low or very low
density) occur, the City's General Plan Land Use Map and corresponding
Zoning Map should be referred to.
Comment 5-15: This comment includes a number of questions that concern annexation and
cumulative impacts associated with the annexation of several parcels in the area.
Response: As discussed on page 3-1 of the Project Description, The City is in the process
of submitting four separate annexations to the San Bernardino County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), including: 1) Henderson Creek
Properties (proposed project) to include an annexation of 100.4 acres; 2) Tracy
Development Project to include an annexation of 240 acres; 3) Richland
Development to include an annexation of approximately 160 acres; and 4) a
City initiated annexation to include a total of approximately 300 acres, for a
total of approximately 800 acres.
Direct and cumulative impacts of annexation of County lands would generally
be associated with development of residential and commercial uses. In other
words, creating new suburban development in an otherwise undeveloped
landscape. The result is typical or this sort of growth, i.e., increased traffic, the
need for public infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.), provision of additional public
services and resultant impacts on those public services, and loss of open space
and wildlife habitat.
13
Low and moderate income housing in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is located
in various locations around the City but particularly in the flatter areas of the
City to allow increased densities in order to create multi-family dwelling units,
smaller, more affordable single-family homes, and townhomes. Some of these
areas represent existing neighborhoods that predate incorporation of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, and have existing infrastructure in place that can be
extended to supply new projects.
Areas annexed into the City over the past ten years largely consists of areas in
the north, northeast and northwest portions of the City in areas where
infrastructure was not readily available and had to be extended greater
distances, or where development costs are higher. These areas also created
opportunities for the City to maintain more rural neighborhoods by creating
subdivisions with large lots, including equestrian lots.
Land annexed to the City and developed with housing cannot also be set aside
as natural open space. Once a site is developed, the vacant land is no longer
open space. However, it may be the intent of this question to identify how many
residential projects were required to purchase mitigation land to be set aside for
open space as a result of development. If so, please see response to comment 5-
6 above.
Comment 5-16: This comment asks the purpose of annexing the ten acres north of the project
site, why is it not part of the proposed subdivision, and what the potential future
uses and zoning of the ten-acre area. It also asks that any direct or indirect
impacts being caused to this ten-acre area be identified. Finally, the comment
asks if the proposed fuel modification plan will affect this ten-acre area.
Response: The ten-acre site being annexed in conjunction with the proposed project is a
flood control easement/utility corridor. As discussed on page 3-9 of the Project
Description, the site is currently used for utility easement and flood control
purposes and is not a part of the tentative tract map, and no development is
proposed. The 10-acre site is being annexed in order to prevent the creation of a
County island, surrounded by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The fuel
modification plan will not affect this ten-acre area, the plan is specific to the
development project.
Comment 5-17: This comment raises a number of questions concerning mineral resources, asks
if the project site is identified by the city, county or state as possessing mineral
or aggregate resources and what other areas of the city, county or region contain
mineral resources available for extraction.
Response: As identified in the November 3, 2004 Initial Study prepared for the project and
included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A, the site is not designated as a State
Aggregate Resources Area according to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan.
14
The State of California Division of Mines and Geology Mapping of Regionally
Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Areas shows the project site
overlying the area zoned as MRZ-3. These areas contain mineral deposits the
significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data and therefore are
not classified by the State as having regional significance for construction
aggregate. Because there is no potential for the proposed project to impact
designated mineral resources, the issue was not evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Likewise, since the project site and vicinity are not classified by the State, no
mitigation is required.
Public Resources Code Sections 2762 and 2763 pertain to the State's Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Section 2762 pertains to a lead agency
designating an area of statewide or regional significance, within 12 months of
the State assigning such a designation to the area. Section 2763 requires that if a
proposed project would threaten the potential for extraction of minerals, the lead
agency must prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the
proposed use, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2762.
Since the site is not classified as a having regional significance for construction
aggregate, these sections of SMARA do not apply.
Comment 5-18: This comment raises a number of questions about the proposed Fuel
Modification Program for the project.
Response: The Fuel Modification Plan, included in the Draft EIR in Appendix G,
represents a site-specific design for protection of future structures on the site
and would be limited to that portion of the site being developed (65.3 acres). No
fuel modification outside the boundary of the project site would be done as a
result of the proposed project. What existing vegetation remains on the site after
the October 2003 fire would be removed during grading. The Henderson Creek
Channel and the flood control/utility easement on the northerly 10 acres would
not be affected by the fuel modification plan.
The proposed project is a residential subdivision that would establish 125 lots
with 123 buildable lots and two lettered lots. Fuel modification zones would be
established on individual lots in backyards separated at the property boundaries
by a block wall. In addition, the project includes a 15-foot wide equestrian trail
to be located adjacent to the northerly parcels (see Figure 3-4 on page 3-10 of
the Draft EIR for the location of the trail). This 15-foot wide trail would be
maintained and kept clear of brush.
A plant palette for backyard landscaping using frrewise vegetation has not been
established yet but would typically include those types of plants referred to in
the Fuel Modification Plan (thick succulent or leathery species).
15
Comment 5-19: This comment asks for clarification on the number of acres being annexed and
the number of acres being developed.
Response: The entire project site is approximately 100 acres. Ten acres are designated as
Flood Control/Utility Corridor and would not be developed. An additional
25.1 acres are in Flood Control easement associated with Henderson Creek and
would not be developed. This leaves approximately 65.3 acres for residential
development. For the purposes of annexation, the project site is 100.4 acres.
For the purposes of residential development and related entitlements, 65.3 acres
would be developed.
Comment 5-20: This comment suggests that the City and County are partners in the
development of the flood control lands that traverse the site and that this should
be clarified.
Response: It is not the City's intent to obtain Flood Control lands for the purpose of
development or any other reason. This issue is part of the Tracy Development
project site located approximately %z mile west of the site. The City is not
purchasing or otherwise negotiating with the County to develop Flood Control
lands. The Flood Control and Utility Corridor designated lands within the
boundaries of the 100.4-acre project site would be located within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga but would not be controlled by the City. The San
Bernardino County Flood Control District would continue to maintain its
facilities through the project site. The additional land is included in the
annexation application because without annexation, the Flood Control land
would be a County island within the City's corporate boundaries.
Comment 5-21: This comment requests clarification on the number of lots and number of acres
to be developed.
Response: The text contained in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, is consistent in its
depiction of the project site and the various components and accompanying
acreages.
The last paragraph on page 3-5 reads as follows: "Henderson Creek Properties
is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre site into 125 lots to
include 123 residential lots and two open space lots (the remaining 25.1 acres of
the 90.4-acre site will be used for flood control improvements along Henderson
Creek and will have a General Plan designation of Flood Control, Utility
Corridor, and Open Space). The proposed project consists of a General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement,
and Tentative Tract Map for a 125-lot residential subdivision (123 residential
lots and two open space lots) located at the northerly end of Wardman-Bullock
Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San
Bernardino County in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
16
a
The two open-space lots would be unbuildable due to their size and/or
configuration and will be maintained by the homeowners association.
Comment 5-22: This comment asks why the proposed project is not being processed through the
County instead of annexing into the City.
Response: The project site and surrounding area are within the Sphere of Influence of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and have been prezoned for residential use. When
an area is prezoned it is assumed that annexation would occur in conjunction
with other entitlements for development. In addition, the project site is adjacent
on the east and south to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and would be served
by extending existing infrastructure now serving neighborhoods in the City.
Therefore this annexation is a logical progression of annexation and
development.
Comment 5-23: This comment asks how many times the City's General Plan has been amended
because proposed developments have been inconsistent.
Response: When a project is proposed on a site where the land use designation does not
match the proposed land use, a general plan amendment is required. Likewise,
when the project site is located in an area that is also governed by a specific
plan such as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, that plan would also have to be
amended to accommodate the proposed project. This situation occurs
periodically and amendments can be accommodated by both plans which are
dynamic documents designed to be flexible and remain relevant. When either
plan becomes less flexible, or the needs of the City and/or its citizens change,
plans are updated or new plans are adopted to replace outdated plans. For
example, the City adopted a new General Plan in October 2001 to reflect the
changes in the physical, social and economic landscape of the City in order to
remain relevant as the planning document to continue to guide growth and
development. Therefore, the number of times a plan has been amended is not
relevant.
Comment 5-24: This comment asks for clarification of the relationship between the proposed
project and the Flood Control easement and asks why the City is encouraging
residential development in a flood hazard area.
Response: As discussed in Response to Comment 5-20, it is not the City's intent to obtain
Flood Control lands for the purpose of development or any other reason. The
City is not purchasing or otherwise negotiating with the County to develop
Flood Control lands, and is not attaching a residential project to Flood Control
lands, or redesignating Flood Control lands for residential use.
The Flood Control and Utility Corridor designated lands within the boundaries
of the 100.4-acre project site would be located within the City of Rancho
17
Cucamonga but would not be controlled by the City. The San Bernardino
County Flood Control District would continue to maintain its facilities through
the project site. Likewise, SCE would continue to maintain its powerline
easement.
With regard to other hazard issues identified in this comment, flooding, wildfire
and earthquake, the project requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to
revise the FEMA flood maps to remove the project site from the flood zone.
This is being done because improvements to the Henderson Creek Channel have
been completed. Once this has occurred, the residential development would not
be in a flood zone. Wildfire issues were addressed in the Draft EIR in
Section 4.7 and can be mitigated through the adoption of the Fuel Modification
Plan. Finally, with regard to earthquake hazards, these are addressed in Section
4.5 of the Draft EIR. The project site, as the rest of southern California is
located in an area known to produce earthquakes and all residents are subject to
similar hazards if they choose to live in the region. Proper site grading and
preparation, and adherence to the Uniform Building Code for structures
adequately addresses impacts associated with seismic events.
Comment 5-25: This comment asks why the City would amend the General Plan and Specific
Plan to encourage residential development in an area that resource agencies
want to see conserved.
Response: The proposed general plan and ENSP amendments do not change the designated
land use from Open Space to Residential but merely from one residential
designation to another. The result is a similar number of lots but slightly smaller
lot sizes.
With regard to the issue of conservation lands, the project site's relationship to
the NEOSHPP is discussed in Section 4.10 beginning on page 4:10-16. Maps A-
5 through A-9 of the NEOSHPP have been reproduced and are included at the
end of Appendix I. These show the located of the project site in relation to the
NEOSHPP area. As indicated, the project site is not shown as possible future
open space preservation (Map A-5). The site is shown as containing RAFSS
(Map A-6) and containing two species of concern (Map A-7), but is not
considered to be a biologically sensitive site (Map A-8). The site is also
constrained by the Henderson Creek Flood Control Channel (Map A-9).
Therefore project development on this site would not be significant once
mitigation land of higher quality is purchased.
Comment 5-26: This comment asks that information related to EPA approval and that any
correspondence between the City and EPA be included in the Final EIR.
Response: The Draft EIR includes technical appendices that contain the various studies and
reports used to prepare the document. Other correspondence between agencies,
background material, and other data and/or documents used in the preparation
18
of the Draft EIR are on file and available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Counter. No correspondence with EPA is included in the
Draft EIR or Appendices because no approvals from EPA are required.
Comment 5-27: This comment suggests that the proposed development agreement has been
excluded from the Draft EIR.
Response: The proposed development agreement was identified as being one of a number
of entitlements the applicant has requested, and is referred to in the Notice of
Completion at the front of the Draft EIR and on page 3-5 of Chapter 3.0, Project
Description. The agreement is the result of on-going discussions between the
City and the applicant and has been drafted in a form to be forwarded to the
City Council for approval. A copy of the agreement is included in the Final EIR
in Appendix F and is attached for the reader's convenience.
Comment 5-28: This comment asks for clarification on the tentative tract map and whether the
proposed map is consistent with the Tentative Tract Maps Act.
Response: The proposed project includes a tentative tract map referred to in the Notice of
Completion at the front of the Draft EIR as "Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16324. The tract map identifier of"SUB" is no longer used by the City
and more recent tract maps include the identifier of TT only. Regardless of what
identifier is used, the tract map number is unique to each project site and
remains with the tract and is recorded with the final map, consistent with the
Subdivision Map Act.
Comment 5-29: This comment identifies a number of issues that have not been addressed in the
Draft EIR.
Response: The issues identified in this comment were evaluated in the Initial Study
prepared for the project and included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Issues not
addressed in the Draft EIR were either found to be less than significant or that
no impact would occur in that area with the proposed project.
A discussion of Aesthetics and Visual Quality and why no significant impacts
would occur is included on page 5 of the Initial Study where impacts were
found to be less than significant. Fiscal impacts were not addressed either in the
Initial Study or the Draft EIR because they are not germane to the physical
environment and therefore, do not need to be evaluated under CEQA.
Population/Housing, Parks and Recreation and other services and utilities,
including water supply are discussed in the Initial Study beginning on page 15.
Because the proposed project would be similar in size and density as what is
designated in the General Plan for the site, and because the General Plan was
recently updated (October 2001), potential impacts of the proposed residential
19
subdivision were included and considered in the EIR prepared for the General
Plan Update. Therefore, no additional analysis was required.
Finally, there is no wetland or riparian habitat on the project site that would be
disturbed due to development of the proposed project
Comment 5-30: This comment asks that additional graphics be included in the EIR showing the
various hazard overlay districts that the project is located in.
Response: LARRY DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ANY NEW MAPPING?
Comment 5-31: This comment asks for a description of housing types envisioned by the
applicant.
Response: The City has an extensive design review process that the project must go
through in conjunction with entitlement processing. Housing stock envisioned
by the applicant would be typical of other similar neighborhoods in the vicinity
and would not affect aesthetics of the area because it would blend in with other
residential developments. The City will require that project development be
consistent with the aesthetic requirements in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
including setback requirements, minimum distances between houses, maximum
height/number of stories, use of perimeter block walls, building material
including roofing material, etc. The specific design features of the project would
be left to the discretion of the housing developer as long as the product was
developed to the high standards maintained by the City through its design
review committee process.
Comment 5-32: This comment asks for additional information on equestrian trails and potential
impacts associated with use of these trails.
Response: The equestrian lots described in the Draft EIR (page 3-11) would be adjacent to
the proposed 15-foot wide equestrian trails that would be constructed along the
north property boundary and south side of Henderson Creek Channel.
Figure 3-4 in the Draft EIR shows the equestrian lots and adjacent trails. These
are intended to allow equestrians to access the existing equestrian trails in the
City not to give them access to dedicated open space north or northwest of the
property. Rancho Cucamonga has several existing equestrian neighborhoods
and encourages this use, particularly in the more rural North Alta Loma and
Etiwanda areas of the City. It is the intent of the City to continue to provide and
to add to the equestrian trails in the City by linking them to other multipurpose
trails (pedestrian, bicycling, and equestrian trails). The proposed project would
be consistent with the City's goals.
Comment 5-33: This comment asks for an evaluation of fiscal impacts arising from
environmental hazards to the proposed project.
20
Response: Fiscal impacts associated with the loss of property due to a natural disaster are
usually born by the property owner and insurance company. In such natural
disasters, property owners may be eligible for low interest loans to rebuild. The
loss of areas of water recharge is addressed by the local and regional water
agencies that have established groundwater recharge areas in their respective
jurisdictions to ensure effective groundwater recharge. These areas are usually
in historic creek or riverbeds such as Day Creek, Cucamonga Creek and
Etiwanda Creek or in the case of the NEOSHPP area, portions of the alluvial fan
being preserved as open space. Often agencies with jurisdiction in these area
will lease property to aggregate mining companies to excavate resources and
leave the pits as groundwater recharge basins as an end use, thus allowing water
agencies to effectively recharge their systems. Finally, the issue of air pollution
is a regional issue, addressed at the regional level by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, which has a number of programs to reduce
regional air pollution.
Comment 5-34: This comment asks why the County Open Space District did not receive a Draft
EIR for review.
Response: County agencies or departments who received the Draft EIR include the
Department of Public Works Transportation and Flood Control Divisions, as
well as the Land Use Services Department. The County Office of Special
Districts was sent a Notice of Availability as an adjacent property owner. The
County Special Districts Office often relies on other County departments to
review and respond to Draft EIRs or Mitigated Negative Declarations because
this office is actually the administrator of Special Districts (Pers. Comm. Terry
Rahall, Senior Associate Planner, April 23, 2004). The County Department of
Public Works, responded to the Draft EIR (see Letter 2).
Comment 5-35: This comment asks for clarification on vegetation types and wildlife that could
occupy the project site and states that a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must
be prepared.
Response: The project site was surveyed and documented as containing a mix of grassland
and grassland/deerweed mix (16.8 acres), a stand of scrub dominated by
buckwheat (2.5 acres), Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) (11.3
acres), and upland sage scrub (61.3 acres). The remaining area included a paved
road. Figure 4.10-1 of the Draft EIR shows the approximate location of each of
these vegetation types. The RAFSS is located in the Henderson Creek Channel
area of the site and would not be affected by the proposed project since no
disturbance is proposed there. The site was disturbed prior to the October 2003
fire, and was dominated by the Upland sage scrub vegetation type, which is not
a sensitive vegetation type. Because there is no sensitive habitat on-site that
would be disturbed, no HCP is required. .
21
Upland sage scrub is actually a vegetation type identified in Holland, Robert F.,
Ph. D., Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California, California Department of Fish and Game, October 1986. The system
of describing natural communities published by the California Department of
Fish and Game is a hierarchical system. The Scrub and Chaparral communities
(30000) are subdivided into four types of which, Riversidian Sage Scrub is one
(32700). Differentiation of Riversidian Sage Scrub includes both Riversidian
Upland Sage Scrub (32710) and Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (32720).
Upland sage scrub is less affected by fluvial process, occurs on stable portions
of fans and intergrades with other types of chaparral at higher elevations.
Comment 5-36: This comment asks for clarification on the documents incorporated by reference
in the Draft EIR.
Response: Documents incorporated by reference consisted of the City's 2001 General Plan
and the Final EIR for the General Plan. In addition, the 1989 Master
Environmental Assessment was utilized for historic purposes. Other documents
used in the preparation of the Draft EIR included studies and reports prepared
specifically for the project that are included in the technical appendices included
in the Draft EIR. Finally, some documents, such as the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan (discussed in Section 4.1) and the County's NEOSHPP (discussed in
Section 4-1, Land Use and Section 4.10, Biological Resources), were used in
the preparation of the Draft EIR. These two documents will be added to
Section 1.5, Documents Incorporated by Reference.
Comment 5-37: This comment includes a number of recommendations for the City Planning
Commission and City Council.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review all pertinent
documents, correspondence, and staff report related to the entitlements
requested by the project applicant and make a decision based on the whole of
the record.
Comment 5-38: This comment includes a number of recommendations for the
applicant/developer.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review all pertinent
documents, correspondence, and staff report related to the entitlements
requested by the project applicant and make a decision based on the whole of
the record. The project applicant/developer would adhere to the findings of the
City Council and act accordingly with regard to mitigation measures and
conditions of approval as set forth in the project approvals.
22
Letter 6
Ms Leeona Klippstein Spirit of the Sage Council, April 3, 2004
Comment 6-1: This comment states that since signing the Multiple-species Habitat
Conservation Plan contract, the City has continued to approve development on
habitat lands that should be conserved.
Response: The proposed general plan and ENSP amendments do not change the designated
land use from Open Space to Residential but merely from one residential
designation to another. The result is a similar number of lots but slightly smaller
lot sizes.
With regard to the issue of conservation lands, the project site's relationship to
the NEOSHPP is discussed in Section 4.10 beginning on page 4.10-16.
Maps A-5 through A-9 of the NEOSHPP have been reproduced and are
included at the end of Appendix I. These show the located of the project site in
relation to the NEOSHPP area. As indicated, the project site is not shown as
possible future open space preservation (Map A-5). The site is shown as
containing RAFSS (Map A-6) and containing two species of concern
(Map A-7), but is not considered to be a biologically sensitive site (Map A-8).
The site is also constrained by the Henderson Creek Flood Control Channel
(Map A-9). Therefore project development on this site would not be significant
once mitigation land of higher quality is purchased.
Comment 6-2: This comments is a request that the City deny the proposed project and adopt
the No-Project Alternative.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review the proposed project
including the environmental impact report and its findings, hold hearings and
take public testimony, and weigh all of the evidence, including written public
comments received on the Draft EIR and lead agency responses, prior to taking
an action on the project.
Comment 6-3: This comment states that there is inadequate mitigation of on-site biological
impacts.
Response: The ratio determined by the project biologist for mitigation land was based on a
number of factors as follows:
• The proposed project does not impact RAFSS or other sensitive habitat.
The RAFSS on site is within the Flood Control easement for Henderson
Creek and will not be disturbed.
• The habitat on-site was not occupied, and due to the fire, remains
unoccupied.
23
• The habitat that will be eliminated is predominately Upland sage scrub,
consisting of white sage and California sagebrush.
There is no similar suitable habitat in the area so the project biologist
recommended an alternative, which was to conserve a site with a
riparian/chapparal mix farther up the Etiwanda fan from the project site within
the NEOSHPP. The proposed mitigation site has been visited by San
Bernardino County Museum staff who believe that the mitigation land
represents higher quality habitat than that would be lost on-site and is adequate
for the loss of the on-site Upland habitat.
Comment 6-4: This comment presents a series of recommendations to the Planning
Commission and City Council regarding the proposed project.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review all pertinent
documents, correspondence, and staff report related to the entitlements
requested by the project applicant and make a decision based on the whole of
the record.
Comment 6-5: This comment presents a series of recommendations to the project
applicant/developer regarding the proposed project.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review all pertinent
documents, correspondence, and staff report related to the entitlements
requested by the project applicant and make a decision based on the whole of
the record. The project applicant/developer would adhere to the findings of the
City Council and act accordingly with regard to mitigation measures and
conditions of approval as set forth in the project approvals.
Comment 6-6: This comment states that there are inconsistencies in the Project Description in
the Draft EIR and the"Revised 3-31-99"Form A (p 23).
Response: Form A (p 23) is the Notice of Completion that is included at the front of the
Draft EIR. As described in the Project Description, the entire project site is
approximately 100 acres. Ten acres are designated as Flood Control/Utility
Corridor and would not be developed. An additional 25.1 acres are in Flood
Control Easement associated with Henderson Creek and would not be
developed. This leaves approximately 65.3 acres for residential development.
For the purposes of annexation, the project site is 100.4 acres. For the purposes
of residential development and related entitlements, 65.3 acres would be
developed.
Comment 6-7: This comment asks that if the City desires to purchase flood control property,
that it does so elsewhere in the County and do a separate annexation.
24
Response: It is not the City's intent to obtain Flood Control lands for the purpose of
development of the Henderson Creek project or any other reason. The City is
not purchasing or otherwise negotiating with the County to develop Flood
Control lands related to this project. The Flood Control and Utility Corridor
designated lands within the boundaries of the 100.4-acre project site would be
located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga but would not be controlled by
the City. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District would continue to
maintain its facilities through the project site. The additional land is included in
the annexation application because without annexation, the Flood Control land
would be a County island within the City's corporate boundaries.
Comment 6-8: This comment asks a series of questions concerning the project description.
Response: The text contained in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, is consistent in its
depiction of the project site and the various components and accompanying
acreages.
The last paragraph on page 3-5 reads as follows: "Henderson Creek Properties
is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre site into 125 lots to
include 123 residential lots and two open space lots (the remaining 25.1 acres of
the 90.4-acre site will be used for flood control improvements along Henderson
Creek and will have a General Plan designation of Flood Control, Utility
Corridor, and Open Space). The proposed project consists of a General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement,
and Tentative Tract Map for a 125-lot residential subdivision (123 residential
lots and two open space lots) located at the northerly end of Wardman-Bullock
Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San
Bernardino County in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga."
The two open-space lots would be unbuildable due to their size and/or
configuration and will be maintained by the homeowners association.
When a project is proposed on a site where the land use designation does not
match the proposed land use, a general plan amendment is required. Likewise,
when the project site is located in an area that is also governed by a specific
plan such as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, that plan would also have to be
amended to accommodate the proposed project. This situation occurs
periodically and amendments can be accommodated by both plans which are
dynamic documents designed to be flexible and remain relevant. When either
plan becomes less flexible, or the needs of the City and/or its citizens change,
plans are updated or new plans are adopted to replace outdated plans. For
example, the City adopted a new General Plan in October 2001 to reflect the
changes in the physical, social and economic landscape of the City in order to
remain relevant as the planning document to continue to guide growth and
25
development. Therefore, the number of times a plan has been amended is not
relevant.
Comment 6-9: This comment asks questions concerning the Flood Control easement through
the project site.
Response: As discussed in Response to Comment 6-7 above, it is not the City's intent to
obtain Flood Control lands for the purpose of development of the Henderson
Creek project or any other reason. The City is not purchasing or otherwise
negotiating with the County to develop Flood Control lands, and is not a
attaching residential project to flood control lands, or redesignating flood
control lands for residential use.
The Flood Control and Utility Corridor designated lands within the boundaries
of the 100.4-acre project site would be located within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga but would not be controlled by the City. The San Bernardino
County Flood Control District would continue to maintain its facilities through
the project site.
With regard to other hazard issues identified in this comment, flooding, wildfire
and earthquake, the project requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to
revise the FEMA flood maps to remove the project site from the flood zone.
Once that has occurred, the residential development will not be in a flood zone.
This would be completed prior to completion of the residential project. Wildfire
issues were addressed in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7 and can be mitigated
through the adoption of the Fuel Modification Plan. Finally, with regard to
earthquake hazards, these are addressed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR. The
project site, as the rest of southern California is located in an area known to
produce earthquakes and all residents are subject to similar hazards if they
choose to live in the region. There is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone located
to the southwest of the site but the project site is not within that zone. A
geotechnical survey of the site (Appendix E) found that there are no faults on
the project site. Proper site grading and preparation, and adherence to the
Uniform Building Code for structures adequately addresses impacts associated
with seismic events.
Comment 6-10: This comment asks why the City is encouraging residential development in
wildlife habitat areas.
Response: The General Plan and ENSP amendments do not encouragement residential
development.
The project site is already designated for single-family residential use. As
described on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, the proposed GPA would change the
current designation of Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre
26
parcel; the remaining 25.1 acres of the site is reserved for a combination of
Flood Control improvements for Henderson Creek and Utility Corridor for an
SCE power line. The gross project density of approximately 1.3 dwelling units
per acre is within the parameters of the current land use designation of Very
Low Residential; however, due to the flood control and utility corridor
easements, the 65.3-acre developable area has been designed to provide
residential lots that will range from 14,025 square feet to 45,755, with an
average lot area of over 18,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes therefore
necessitate the proposed land use designation amendments.
In addition, the project site was surveyed and documented as containing a mix
of grassland and grassland/deerweed mix (16.8 acres), a stand of scrub
dominated by buckwheat (2.5 acres), Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub
(RAFSS) (11.3 acres), and upland sage scrub (61.3 acres). The remaining area
included a paved road. Figure 4.10-1 of the Draft EIR shows the approximate
location of each of these vegetation types. The RAFSS is located in the
Henderson Creek Channel area of the site and would not be affected by the
proposed project since no disturbance is proposed there. The site was disturbed
prior to the October 2003 fire, and was dominated by the Upland sage scrub
vegetation type, which is not a sensitive vegetation type.
Upland sage scrub is actually a vegetation type identified in Holland, Robert F.,
Ph. D., Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California, California Department of Fish and Game, October 1986. The system
of describing natural communities published by the California Department of
Fish and Game is a hierarchical system. The Scrub and Chaparral communities
(30000) are subdivided into four types of which, Riversidian Sage Scrub is one
(32700). Differentiation of Riversidian Sage Scrub includes both Riversidian
Upland Sage Scrub (32710) and Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (32720).
Upland sage scrub is less affected by fluvial process, occurs on stable portions
of fans and intergrades with other types of chaparral at higher elevations. The
RAFSS located on-site will not be disturbed by the proposed project since it is
within the Henderson Creek Channel area.
Comment 6-11: This comment asks that information related to EPA approval and that any
correspondence between the City and EPA be included in the Final EIR.
Response: The Draft EIR includes technical appendices that contain the various studies and
reports used to prepare the document. Other correspondence between agencies,
background material, and other data and/or documents used in the preparation
of the Draft EIR are on file and available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Counter. No correspondence with EPA is included in the
Draft EIR or Appendices because no approvals from EPA are required.
Comment 6-12: This comment suggests that the proposed development agreement has been
excluded from the Draft EIR.
27
Response: The proposed development agreement was identified as being one of a number
of entitlements the applicant has requested (see page 3-5 of Chapter 3.0, Project
Description). The agreement is the result of on-going discussions between the
City and the applicant and has been drafted in a form to be forwarded to the
City Council for approval. A copy of the agreement is included in the Final EIR
in Appendix F.
Comment 6-13: This comment states that the project uses Flood Control easements as
mitigation, even though the easement has been previously encumbered.
Response: As discussed on pages 4.10-20 and 4.10-21, the proposed project provides a 1:1
ratio for mitigation of the loss of habitat. The Flood Control easement will
remain as is, unencumbered by any entitlements or mitigation associated with
the project.
Comment 6-14: This comment states that the project is controversial.
Response: The proposed project has a number of potential environmental effects and
therefore an EIR has been prepared.
Comment 6-15: This comment states that the introduction of horses will cause trampling and
erosion.
Response: The intent of the equestrian lots is to allow residents access to existing and
future equestrian trails. It is not the City's intent to encourage equestrians to go
off the trails.
Comment 6-16: This comment asks for clarification on the tentative tract map and whether the
proposed map is consistent with the Tentative Tract Maps Act.
Response: The proposed project includes a tentative tract map referred to in the Notice of
Completion at the front of the Draft EIR as "Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16324. The tract map identifier of"SUB" is no longer used by the City
and more recent tract maps include the identifier of TT only. Regardless of what
identifier is used, the tract map number is unique to each project and remains
with the tract and is recorded with the final map, consistent with the Subdivision
Map Act.
Comment 6-17: This comment identifies a number of issues that have not been addressed in the
Draft EIR.
Response: The issues identified in this comment were evaluated in the Initial Study
prepared for the project and included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Issues not
addressed in the Draft EIR were either found to be less than significant or it was
found that no impact would occur in that area with the proposed project.
28
A discussion of Aesthetics and Visual Quality and why no significant impacts
would occur is included on page 5 of the Initial Study.
Fiscal impacts were not addressed either in the Initial Study or the Draft EIR
because they are not germane to the physical environment and therefore, do not
need to be evaluated under CEQA.
Population/Housing, Parks and Recreation and other services and utilities,
including water supply are discussed in the Initial Study beginning on page 15.
Because the proposed project would be similar in size and density as what is
designated in the General Plan for the site, and because the General Plan was
recently updated (October 2001), potential impacts of the proposed project were
included and considered in the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update.
Therefore, no additional analysis was required.
Finally, there is no wetland or riparian habitat on the project site that would be
disturbed due to development of the proposed project.
Comment 6-18: This comment asks for clarification on the documents incorporated by reference
in the Draft EIR.
Response: Documents incorporated by reference consisted of the City's 2001 General Plan
and the Final EIR for the General Plan. In addition, the 1989 Master
Environmental Assessment was utilized for historic purposes. Other documents
used in the preparation of the Draft EIR included studies and reports prepared
specifically for the project that are included in the technical appendices included
in the Draft EIR. Finally, some documents, such as the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan (discussed in Section 4.1) and the County's NEOSHPP (discussed in
Section 4-1, Land Use and Section 4.10, Biological Resources), were used in
the preparation of the Draft EIR and will be added to Section 1.5, Documents
Incorporated by Reference.
Comment 6-19: This comment contains a list of documents that the commentor has used in the
preparation of the comment letter.
Response: No response required.
Comment 6-20: This comment suggests that studies and environmental review have been
deferred to a future time and that the formulation of mitigation measures at a
future time violates CEQA. However, no specific example has been identified.
Response: The Draft EIR does not identify any mitigation measures that would result in the
deferral of a study or environmental review to some future date. There are three
mitigation measures that require the developer to submit plans (landscaping,
grading, and fuel modification), however these plans must meet performance
standards (specific engineering standards for grading and preparing the site for
29
development) or other criteria (the City's requirement for landscaping).
Therefore, no new impacts, not already considered in the Draft EIR would
occur.
Comment 6-21: This comment states that the project should be denied because there are
reasonable and feasible alternatives, which should have been explored, that
significant impacts have not been avoided, and that the City has substantially
failed to make a reasonable attempt to avoid the riparian area, which runs
through the project site.
Response: A good faith effort was made to identify a reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed project, including the no-project alternative. In addition, there were a
number of opportunities for responsible agencies and interested parties to
identify any alternatives to be evaluated in addition to those identified in the
Draft EIR. Neither in response to the Notice of Preparation, nor in the public
scoping meeting or Planning Commission public hearing held during the public
review period was there a request to consider additional alternatives that would
substantially lessen environmental effects.
With regard to avoidance of significant impacts, it should be noted that with
implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts would be less than
significant except for air quality associated with construction, which would be
short-term.
Finally, in the last part of the third paragraph of this comment, regarding the
City's failure to avoid riparian habitat, no riparian habitat will be disturbed with
development of the proposed project. The Henderson Creek Channel that
traverses the site in a northwest to southeast direction will be left intact and the
County Flood Control District will maintain the existing fence around the
facility. However, it should be noted that vegetation/habitat on this portion of
the site was also destroyed by the October 2003 fire.
Comment 6-22 This comment is related to the consideration and rejection of an alternative site
and states that the facts of the case indicate that additional known and related
land holdings have been arbitrarily withheld from consideration, and that the
Draft EIR has made false and misleading statements concerning the land use
status and designation of the project site.
Response: The applicant for the Henderson Creek project owns one other parcel of land in
the area, which would be used as mitigation for the development of the project
site. This is the mitigation land purchased in the NEOSHPP that was determined
to be adequate mitigation for the loss of lesser quality habitat on the project site.
As stated in the Draft EIR on page 2-3, an alternative site was not considered
because the project site is designated for single-family residential use and the
proposed General Plan Amendment is simply to allow a similar number of units
30
as under the existing designation, on smaller lot sizes, to accommodate the
irregular configuration of the site due to the location of the Henderson Creek
Channel. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, the project
site is not an example of quality habitat for a number of reasons, including
proximity to existing residential neighborhoods (see Figure 3-2), disturbance
due to the construction of Flood Control Channel improvements, the
predominance of Upland sage scrub on-site rather than Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub (RAFSS), and the recent wildfire that burned the entire site and
vicinity.
The second paragraph of this comment states that the Draft EIR makes false and
misleading statements concerning the rejection of an Alternative Location and
points to the description of Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation
in the Notice of Completion in the front of the Draft EIR. This line should be
read as follows: Present Land Use — Undeveloped Land Area/Zoning — North
Etiwanda Specific Plan/General Plan Designation — Very-Low Residential and
Flood Control. Therefore, the statement on page 2-3 that the site is prezoned for
residential use is accurate.
Finally, with regard to the question at the end of the paragraph concerning the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan and whether it should be "formally reopened", at
such time as the City believes that the ENSP is no longer adequate to serve as
the planning guide for the Specific Plan area, it would be updated. The City's
General Plan was updated in 2001. There is no state statute that requires that a
Specific Plan be updated at regular intervals.
Comment 6-23: This comment states that the Draft EIR made false and misleading statements
regarding the feasibility of changing the density of the project and asks why the
City didn't consider a higher density (four dwelling units per acre) for 31 acres
of the site, which would allow conservation of up to 32 acres of habitat on-site.
Response: The reasoning used to determine that a higher density use would have greater
impacts is that by allowing, for example, four dwelling units per acre the
applicant could get over 250 units on the 65.3 developable acres of the project
site. This, however, did not take into consideration preserving 32 acres for
habitat. Splitting the project site in half with housing on 31 acres and habitat on
32 acres would not be an environmentally superior alternative for several
reasons. First, leaving 32 acres as habitat would create an isolated area of
wildfire fuel, near a residential neighborhood. This is because the most likely
area of the site for this habitat is the western portion of the site which is
contiguous to Flood Control land, which is also the optimum location for the
residential lots because of the Henderson Creek Channel traversing the project
site. Figure 3-2 on page 3-1 of the Draft EIR shows an aerial photograph of the
site.
31
Second, anywhere else on the site for the 32 acres of habitat would isolate it
creating a noncontiguous area. The project site has a residential subdivision and
improved road to the east, a maintained/graded powerline easement to the north
with properties north of that designated as Hillside Residential; and a
maintained/graded powerline easement to the south with properties south of that
designated as Very-Low Residential.
Comment 6-24: This comment states that the DEIR made false and misleading statements
because "the area has not been prezoned residential". This comment also states
that the project needs approval from the EPA. Finally, the comment states that
the City has been unable to provide any evidence of habitat conservation even
though it signed on to the County's Multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP).
Response: With regard to prezoning of the property, because this site and other properties
in the North Etiwanda area are within the Sphere of Influence of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, the City has a legal obligation to prezone these properties
in anticipation of annexation at such time as development proposals move
forward. Figure 3-4 on page 3-3 of the Draft EIR shows an aerial photograph of
the area with the prezone designations overlaid on the photo. The project site is
currently prezoned VL or Very Low Residential with the upper 20 acres
designated as Flood Control and Utility Corridor. As part of the General Plan
Amendment, the Henderson Creek Channel will also be designated as Flood
Control because it is currently designated for Very Low Residential.
With regard to EPA approval of the project, neither City staff nor the applicant
has been able to identify a reason for EPA approval of the proposed project.
With regard to the County's MSHCP, the City is a co-signer on this plan,
however, it should be noted that to date this plan has not been adopted by the
County. In the absence of an approved or adopted MSHCP, EIRs for
development proposals must include a requirement for consultation and a plan
for the purchase of mitigation lands to replace the acreage to be developed. The
ratio depends on the quality of the habitat on-site, but can range from 1:1 up to
5:1. The applicant has already purchased mitigation land within the boundaries
of the NEOSHPP.
Also see response to comment 6-27 below.
Comment 6-25: This comment asks that the three additional alternatives identified (Comments
6-22 through 6-24) be considered in the Final EIR.
Response: For reasons stated in responses to comments 6-22 through 6-24, evaluation of
the three alternatives identified by the commentor can be rejected for the
following reasons:
32
1) Alternative location — there are very few properties in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga that remain unencumbered by development, an approved project
awaiting development, or a project in process. In addition, any alternative
location in the ENSP area would have the same issues as the proposed
project on the proposed site.
2) Alternative density — as discussed in response to comment 6-24, an
alternative density would not be feasible because both the development and
the habitat would be vying for the same piece of the project site. In addition,
the proposed density of 4 units to the acre would be inconsistent with other
existing or proposed neighborhoods in the vicinity.
3) Alternative land use—it is not clear in comment 6-24 that an alternative land
use was being proposed, but for the purposes of this discussion it is assumed
that the alternative land use is open space. As stated in response to comment
6-23, the site is not an example of quality habitat being adjacent to existing
residential uses and a local road and being traversed by the Henderson Creek
Channel, which is fenced. In addition, the majority of the vegetation on-site
was, before the fire, Upland sage scrub rather than RAFSS. The former is
not considered by the resources agencies to be sensitive habitat.
Comment 6-26: This comment states that since 1995 when the MSHCP was signed 7,000 acres
of habitat has been lost to development and that there is no substantial evidence
that any has been conserved as a result of the MSHCP or NEOSHPP efforts. In
addition, the City should not approve the project without requiring the 5:1 ratio
recommended by the resources agencies. The MSHCP is a contract and guiding
document for proposed development and habitat conservation within the
mapped planning area.
Response: To date the MSHCP has not been formally adopted by the County, and although
it can be used as a guide, without being formally adopted or approved,
developers must still enter into consultation with the resource agencies to
negotiate mitigation land. As discussed in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR
beginning on page 4.10-17, a number of projects have contributed to the
NEOSHPP through the purchase of mitigation land for conservation. This does
not include pending purchases or agreements with developers such as
Henderson Creek Partners. The project applicant has purchased land to be
included as conservation land (see response to comment 6-27 below). During
consultation with the resources agencies, additional lands may be negotiated.
Comment 6-27: This comment discusses the MSHCP and how the City has not demonstrated a
"good faith" effort to conserve natural resources as recommended by USFWS
and CDFG experts. This makes the project inconsistent with other planning
documents.
33
Response: It should be noted here that although the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and a
number of other cities in the San Bernardino Valley, signed the agreement for
the MSHCP, the plan has not been adopted by the County.
The ratio determined by the project biologist was based on a number of factors
as follows:
• The proposed project does not impact RAFSS or other sensitive habitat.
The RAFSS on site is within the Flood Control easement for Henderson
Creek and will not be disturbed.
• The habitat on-site was not occupied, and due to the fire, remains
unoccupied.
• The habitat that will be eliminated is predominately Upland sage scrub,
consisting of white sage and California sagebrush.
There is no similar suitable habitat in the area so the biologist recommended an
alternative that was to conserve a site with a riparian/chaparral mix farther up
the Etiwanda fan from the project site. The proposed mitigation site has been
visited by San Bernardino County staff who believes that the mitigation is
adequate for the loss of the on-site Upland habitat.
With regard to the issue of the 5:1 ratio, this ratio was suggested by the resource
agencies in a 2000 memo to the County planning staff and, like the MSHCP,
has not been adopted. Given the ambiguous status of Upland sage scrub at the
agencies, the 5:1 ration is not consistent with the standards set forth for more
sensitive habitat such as RAFSS.
Comment 6-28: This comment concerns impacts to Special Interest Species and asks why the
project biologist did not use the list contained in the County's NEOSHPP
documents. In addition, the USFWS has included the project site and vicinity
within the critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino
kangaroo rat.
Response: The NEOSHPP area includes 2,077 acres of potential future open space,
according to the 1994 Program. The project site is approximately 100 acres but
development would occur on 65.3 acres, with the remaining acreage remaining
in Flood Control or Utility Corridor easements or rights-of-way. Not all of the
sensitive species identified in the 1994 NEOSHPP document range across the
entire 2,077-acre area. The project biologist, focused on those species that were
likely to be found on and in the vicinity of the project site based on a search of
the CDFG California Natural Diversity Database, various species natural
histories, and review of other survey reports for projects in the vicinity.
During the survey of the site, the project biologist determined that the site
contained approximately 61 acres of Upland sage scrub, a community that has
not been identified as sensitive, nor is it regulated by any resource agency. In
34
addition, protocol surveys for the California gnatcatcher were conducted and
findings were negative. No survey for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was
conducted because recent trapping work in the vicinity had found few
individuals and the potential for the species to use the project site was
considered to be low. After surveys were conducted, the October 2003 wildfire
burned the entire site.
Comment 6-29: This comment states that the Draft EIR relied on the Initial Study to focus out
certain issues so that no further evaluation was done in the Draft EIR and fails
to describe what lies north of the project site, and that scenic highways or road
were not addressed. Aesthetics should be addressed for these as well as impacts
of light and glaze on wildlife. The Draft EIR should also include a project
design description.
Response: The Project Description includes a discussion of surrounding land uses and
includes photographs of the site and vicinity. Table 3-1 on page 3-9 identifies
surrounding land uses along with existing General Plan and Zoning
designations. It does not however, call out individual properties by name such
as the nature sanctuaries.
The purpose of an Initial Study (Appendix A) is to allow the lead agency to
focus on issues that are germane to the proposed project and the existing
environment, by asking a series of questions to determine if there is a potential
for a or significant impact to occur. The City has adopted an environmental
checklist that allows the environmental analysis to be focused and specific.
With regard to Aesthetics, the proposed project would not have a substantial
effect on a scenic vista because the site is not located within a designated view
corridor (City or County). In addition, the project is a residential subdivision
that must be developed to the City's standards as set forth in the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan and would be similar in style to existing neighborhoods in the
vicinity. New light would be typical of a residential neighborhood but because,
according to the project biologist, the project site is not considered to be a
wildlife corridor with wildlife passing through the site at night, impacts would
be less than significant.
With regard to design review, all similar projects must be reviewed by the
City's Design Review Committee and must comply with the Development
Standards and Guidelines as set forth in the ENSP.
Comment 6-30: This comment discusses cumulative impacts on plant and animal life and that
the Draft EIR contains no real description of the cumulative impacts on plant
and animal life.
Response: The discussion of cumulative impacts (Chapter 5.0) concluded that continued
development in the foothill area would further impact local flora and fauna,
mainly through the loss of RAFSS. Wildlife will have fewer resource areas to
35
use, although most of these are already surrounded by development. Increased
traffic will also result in increased mortality of wildlife (road kills). Potentially
significant impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed project
and related projects are related to the potential for impacts to endangered or
threatened species or their habitat. The biological assessment conducted on the
site determined that no endangered or threatened species would be affected by
project. The applicant, like other developers in the area must purchase off-site
or otherwise set aside on-site, mitigation lands to replace habitat lost by
development contributing or purchasing land that is in or can be included in the
NEOSHPP, which would mitigate potential cumulative impacts. The NEOSHPP
was established by the County of San Bernardino as a conservation area to set
aside RAFSS.
The issue here is that although the project site is located within the NEOSHPP
area, it does not contain the type of habitat that resource agencies are intent on
conserving — RAFSS. The RAFSS found on the project site will not be
disturbed by the development because it is located in the Henderson Creek
Channel easement. The Upland sage scrub that is prevalent on the site is not the
focus of the agencies conservation efforts.
Comment 6-31: This comment concerns Growth Inducing Impacts and states that the project
would be growth inducing.
Response: As stated on page 7-1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Henderson Creek project is
one of several residential projects being proposed, under construction, or
recently developed in the upper portions of the cities of Upland, Rancho
Cucamonga and Fontana, in the West Valley Foothill area of San Bernardino
County. Rapid population growth in the southern California region is
anticipated to continue for at least the next 20 years. Pressure to provide
housing for additional residents is great, and new housing projects in this area,
such as the Henderson Creek project, are being rapidly developed. To the extent
that this project and other related projects in the immediate vicinity are being
developed to meet this need, they are considered growth inducing by
encouraging residents to move to the area. Pressure will likely continue to be
applied to provide additional housing opportunities in the area until
development reaches the National Forest boundary, or the NEOSHPP boundary.
Comment 6-32: This comments states that there needs to be a greater analysis on Air Quality
and that reducing the project's size should be considered a mitigation measure.
Response: The Air Quality analysis (Section 4.3) was conducted according to South Coast
Air Quality Management (SCAQMD) guidelines. The findings of the analysis
were that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on air
quality except during construction. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
36
Comment 6-33: This comment asks what resources and literature were reviewed "to reach such
a flippant and inaccurate conclusion. "
Response: The Cultural Resources Report is included in Appendix J of the Draft EIR. The
survey done for the project site included a field review and a records search at
the San Bernardino County Museum (Archaeological Information Center). The
site survey was conducted in February 2004 four months after the wildfire
burned the site so that there was a clear view of the site with no vegetation to
obstruct the ground.
It was not the intent of the Cultural Resources Survey to provide a history of
people who may have used the site but instead to determine if there were any
resources on-site that would be disturbed by development.
Comment 6-34: This comment concerns the City's "Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan" and Health,
Safety and General Welfare. The Draft EIR fails to use the County's Hazards
Overlay maps, City Hazards Overlay maps, EPA Hazards and Flood Map. In
addition, the comment discusses the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act.
Response: Hazards that could befall the project site are evaluated in Section 4.5 — Geology
and Soils; Section 4.6 —Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.7 —Public
Health and Safety.
Seismicity and Earthquakes. Section 4.5 includes an evaluation of seismic
hazards in the vicinity and region and shows on Figure 4.5-1 where local faults
are in relation to the project site. The project site does not fall within an Alquist-
Priolo Fault Zone. A geotechnical evaluation was conducted on the site
(Appendix E), which included a fault investigation and provided preliminary
recommendations for grading and design. The conclusion of the project
geologist was that conducting earthwork and grading in accordance with
recommendations of the geotechnical report and design of on-site structures to
meet current building standards presented in the Uniform Building Code and/or
Structural Engineers Association of California would result in the effects from
seismic shaking being less than significant.
Floodine. The project site is currently located within a flood zone according to
FEMA's FIRM map. However, with the Henderson Creek Channel
improvements completed, the site is no longer in a flood hazard area. The
applicant must file a conditional letter of map revision to have the site's
designation changed.
Wind and Wildfire. Other hazards in the area include high winds and wildfires.
Local residents are familiar with high wind conditions. However, people new to
the area must be warned. For the project, this would be done through a
disclosure in the escrow papers explaining the hazards associate with high
winds. Likewise, wildfires like those experienced in southern California in
37
October 2003, are also an issue in the ENSP area. The Draft EIR includes a
draft Fuel Modification Plan that in conjunction with the landscaping
requirements would reduce the risk loss of life and property to wildfires.
Comment 6-35: This comment states that "the Sage Council is extremely concerned" about
project impacts of water extraction activities that would effect the County
preserve and other habitat sanctuaries.
Response: Water extraction activities are conducted by water agencies to supply their
customers. These agencies depend on groundwater recharge areas such as the
NEOSHPP area to recharge the system. The loss of areas of water recharge is
addressed by. the local and regional water agencies that have established
groundwater recharge areas in their respective jurisdictions to ensure effective
groundwater recharge. These areas are usually in historic creek or riverbeds
such as Day Creek, Cucamonga Creek and Etiwanda Creek or in the case of the
NEOSHPP area, portions of the alluvial fan being preserved as open space.
Often agencies with jurisdiction in these area will lease property to aggregate
mining companies to excavate resources and leave the pits as groundwater
recharge basins as an end use, thus allowing water agencies to effectively
recharge their systems.
The project's demands for water supply will be met by service from the
Cucamonga County (now "Valley") Water District. A water storage tank will be
constructed northeast of the project site and will provide approximately 2/3 of
the daily demand of 106,110 gallons. A second tank will be constructed in the
future northwest of the project (See Appendix H page 11). The source of water
to supply these tanks will not impact any areas of habitat.
Comment 6-36: This comment states that the Sage Council recommends solar energy be used
for all residences.
Response: The Planning Commission and City Council will review the proposed project
including the environmental impact report and its findings, hold hearings and
take public testimony, and weigh all of the evidence, including written public
comments received on the Draft EIR and lead agency responses, prior to taking
an action on the project.
Comment 6-37: This comment suggests that greater evaluation and mitigation needs to be done
for Noise, Population/Housing and Traffic.
Response: Impacts associated with Noise were adequately addressed in Section 4.4 of the
Draft EIR. A Noise Study was conducted for the proposed project that is
included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR.
Population/Housing, Parks and Recreation and other services and utilities
related to residential development are discussed in the Initial Study beginning
38
on page 15. Because the proposed project would be similar in size and density
as what is designated in the General Plan for the site, and because the General
Plan was recently updated (October 2001), potential impacts of the proposed
residential subdivision were included and considered in the EIR prepared for the
General Plan Update. Therefore, no additional analysis was required.
Traffic impacts associated with the proposed project were evaluated in the Draft
EIR in Section 4.2. The Traffic Study is also included in Appendix B of the
Draft EIR. Traffic impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels
through payment of fair-share costs for road improvements as well as the
construction of a half-width of Wardman-Bullock Road from south of the
project boundary to Wilson Avenue.
Comment 6-38: This comment asks who will be responsible for fiscal impacts associated with
the loss of water recharge, as well as results of natural disasters.
Response: Fiscal impacts associated with the loss of property due to a natural disaster are
usually born by the property owner and insurance company. In such natural
disasters, property owners may be eligible for low interest loans to rebuild. The
loss of areas of water recharge is addressed by the local and regional water
agencies that have established groundwater recharge areas in their respective
jurisdictions to ensure effective groundwater recharge. These areas are usually
in historic creek or riverbeds such as Day Creek, Cucamonga Creek and
Etiwanda Creek or in the case of the NEOSHPP area, portions of the alluvial fan
tieing preserved as open space. Often agencies with jurisdiction in these area
will lease property to aggregate mining companies to excavate resources and
leave the pits as groundwater recharge basins as an end use, thus allowing water
agencies to effectively recharge their systems. Finally, the issue of air pollution
is a regional issue, addressed at the regional level by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, which has a number of programs to reduce
regional air pollution.
Comment 6-39: This comment states that the project is impacting offsite habitat for phone,
water, electricity and gas and has no economic benefits to the City that would
allow a statement of overriding considerations to be made. Nor has the City
demonstrated any need or benefit greater than upholding the publics' trust,
health, safety, and general welfare. The project negatively affects the
MSHCP/NCCP efforts as well as causing ongoing regional environmental
problems. The highest and best use of the property is for habitat conservation.
Response: With regard to impacts to offsite habitats, the project can be served by existing
infrastructure that can be extended to the site from existing systems without
effecting habitat.
The benefits to the City that justifies a statement of overriding consideration are
many-fold and are set out in the Project Objectives identified in Section 3.5 of
39
the Project Description. For example, two of these objectives are to provide
quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned
development that responds to market demands, and to provide a system of
public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping
to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an efficient and
timely manner. Providing housing for a burgeoning population in the region as a
whole is becoming increasingly difficult as people continue to move into
California and cities and developers work to meet a variety of housing needs
from apartments to single-family residences. Developer contributions to the
NEOSHPP, creation of conservation easements, or on-site mitigation areas, are
examples of how attempts to balance housing needs with habitat conservation
are being made.
Comment 6-40: This comment states that evidence does not support determinations in the NOP
and EIR that there are no impacts to schools.
Response: Developer contributions to school districts in the form of developer impact fees
were established in State Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) which mandates that payment
of lawfully required school impact fees shall constitute full and complete
mitigation of school related impacts under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment
to capacity conditions of the affected school districts. However, recognizing that
school enrollment throughout the state of California is burgeoning and that most
school districts have to resort to supplementing their facilities with portable
classrooms, many districts also request that a developer enter into or establish a
Community Services District to better serve the district's needs. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga, like many other cities, encourages developers to
coordinate with the school districts on this issue. For example, the Chaffey Joint
Union High School District; in which the project site is included, has
established a Community Facilities District.
Comment 6-41: This comment states that the City does not have recreational amenities for those
who enjoy nature hikes and studies. There is an overemphasis on equestrian
trails. Parkland that has been acquired has not been developed. This comment
also addresses the issue of the negative impacts that horses have on sage scrub
habitats and wetlands.
Response: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a relatively young city having recently
celebrated only its 25`h birthday. The City's growth rate is one of the highest in
the region due to several factors including proximity to job centers, variety of
housing stock, and amenities such as parks, libraries and cultural facilities. For
parkland and open space, the City's emphasis has been on parks and
recreational facilities to meet the needs of a greater percentage of its citizens.
According to Rancho Cucamonga's 2001 General Plan, the population is
relatively young with approximately 47 percent of the households having
children. Therefore, the City has concentrated on providing an extensive system
of neighborhood parks, fields and courts, offering all forms of family recreation
40
including a wide range of tournaments and league play. Most parks include
picnic areas and children's play areas.
Open space for hiking and nature study require a different strategy as well as a
tremendous amount of land that benefits far fewer residents than the City park
and recreation facilities. The City's decision to concentrate on providing park
and recreation opportunities to as many residents as possible may be at the
expense of recreation for a few hikers, however, it is the City's intent to
continue to serve its residents, by providing the types of recreational activities
they desire. The City is supportive of the need to conserve open space and
habitat in the NEOSHPP area. As the conservation area grows through
mitigation set asides, residents interested in nature study would take advantage
of the close proximity and visit the NEOSHPP.
Finally, the intent of the equestrian lots is to allow residents access to existing
and future equestrian trails. It is not the City's intent to encourage equestrians to
go off the trails.
Comment 6-42:This comment presents a paper prepared by a Chaffey College professor on the
threat of edge effects to habitat preservation. The commentor has indicated that
this paper is already on file with the City.
Response: The City acknowledges receipt of the paper.
Comment 6-43: This comment summarizes the City's Resource Management Plan for the ENSP
with regard to Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) and lists a design
feature to preserve the maximum feasible amount of RAFSS. This feature is that
RAFSS removed from open space designations shall be replaced at a ratio of not
less than 2:1.
Response: This design feature related to properties that have been designated as open
space. The project site is currently designated as Very Low Residential.
Therefore, this design feature would not apply to the project site. In addition,
although the project site does contain RAFSS that area of the site is located in
the Henderson Creek Channel easement and would not be disturbed by the
proposed project. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required since the
RAFSS will be reserved.
Comment 6-44: This comment asks for clarification on vegetation types and wildlife that could
occupy the project site and states that a Habitat Conservation Plan must be
prepared.
Response: The project site was surveyed and documented as containing a mix of grassland
and grassland/deerweed mix (16.8 acres), a stand of scrub dominated by
buckwheat (2.5 acres), Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS)
41
(11.3 acres), and Upland sage scrub (61.3 acres). The remaining area included a
paved road. Figure 4.10-1 of the Draft EIR shows the approximate location of
each of these vegetation types. The RAFSS is located in the Henderson Creek
Channel area of the site and would not be affected by the proposed project since
no disturbance is proposed there. The site was disturbed prior to the October
2003 fire, and was dominated by the Upland sage scrub vegetation type, which
is not a sensitive vegetation type.
Upland sage scrub is actually a vegetation type identified in Holland, Robert F.,
Ph. D., Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. California Department of Fish and Game, October 1986. The system
of describing natural communities published by the California Department of
Fish and Game is a hierarchical system. The Scrub and Chaparral communities
(30000) are subdivided into four types of which, Riversidian Sage Scrub is one
(32700). Differentiation of Riversidian Sage Scrub includes both Riversidian
Upland Sage Scrub (32710) and Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (32720).
Upland sage scrub is less affected by fluvial process, occurs on stable portions
of fans and intergrades with other types of chaparral at higher elevations.
Comment 6-45: This comment stated that the project will have negative impacts to wildlife
movement on-site and will extend indirect negative impacts on the North
Etiwanda Preserve. The NEOSHPP boundaries include the project site and the
Sage Council disagrees that the NEOSHPP does not apply. In addition, the
applicant is required to mitigate the loss of habitat at a 5:1 ratio.
Response: The project biologist has determined that the project site is not part of a wildlife
corridor. This is because the site is located adjacent to existing development. In
addition, .the area of the site that could be used as a corridor, the Henderson
Creek Channel is fenced, and southeast of the project is channelized in a
concrete channel.
Section 4.10, Biological Resources, includes a discussion of the project's
relationship to the NEOSHPP. Its relationship is that it is within the boundaries
of the NEOSHPP, but according to the mapping, is not identified as a site to be
used as future open space preservation, and is not considered to be a
biologically sensitive site. This is born out by the project biologist's findings in
the field.
The 5:1 ratio identified in this comment is a recommendation from the resource
agencies to the County planning staff in response to comments on the proposed
San Bernardino Countywide Multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP), submitted in October 2000. To date, the MSHCP has not been
adopted so is still a draft plan. In the absence of an adopted plan, each
development project must go through the consultation process with CDFG and
negotiate the ratio of habitat to be preserved, based on the quality of habitat
found on a particular project site. For the proposed project, the project biologist
42
has recommended a 1:1 ratio. However, since no Upland sage scrub habitat was
available, the project biologist, in conjunction with San Bernardino County
Museum staff, including Mr. Robert McKernan, determined that an
approximately 58-acre site containing a mix of riparian and chaparral vegetation
represented a far superior habitat to be preserved, than what would be lost on
the project site. To reiterate, previous responses, the RAFSS habitat located on
the project site, will not be disturbed by the proposed project because it is
located in the Flood Control easement where no project development has been
proposed.
Comment 6-46: This comment asks why the County OS District Board (County Office of
Special Districts), being an adjacent property owner, has not received a copy of
the Draft EIR.
Response: LARRY CAN YOU CHECK THE MAILING LIST AND SEE IF SPECIAL
DISTRICT'S WAS MAILED A COPY OF THE DRAFT. I KNOW THEY
WERE ON THE LIST TO RECEIVE THE NOP.
Comment 6-47: This comment provides a list of references and literature on the biological
significance of the project site and surrounding habitat area.
Response: The list of references and literature will be made a part of the administrative
record. The Planning Commission and City Council will review the proposed
project including the environmental impact report and its findings, hold hearings
and take public testimony, and weigh all of the evidence, including written
public comments received on the Draft EIR and lead agency responses, prior to
taking an action on the project.
Comment 6-48: This comment states that the City plans to allow horses into the North Etiwanda
Preserve and that this should not be allowed.
Response: The concept of allowing equestrian use in the North Etiwanda Preserve area has
not been formally proposed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As such, this
concept is speculative and cannot adequately be addressed in the EIR for the
Henderson Creek project. At such time as such a proposal is formalized, a
separate environmental review would be conducted specific to that proposal.
Comment 6-49: This comment states that impacts to state and federal listed species require full
and complete mitigation and do not have provisions to be overridden by the City
Council and that destroyed habitat must be replaced with like habitat.
Response: The project site has been surveyed and was found not to contain any listed or
threatened species, and that the habitat found on-site prior to the fire, that would
be disturbed by the project is not considered by the resource agencies to be
important. Therefore, the replacement of the Upland sage scrub habitat to be
lost with a higher quality of habitat (albeit a riparian/chaparral mix) is
43
considered by the project biologist and the County Museum staff, to be
adequate. The RAFSS habitat located on-site would not be disturbed by the
proposed project as it occurs in an area that would not be developed with
residential lots, but would remain within the Flood Control easement.
Comment 6-50: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify the
cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Response: As stated on page 5-6 of the Draft EIR, cumulative impacts to biological
resources are mitigated through the purchase and set aside of habitat located in
the NEOSHPP. According to the NEOSHPP, it is not anticipated that the project
site will be used for future preservation. However, the applicant is still required
to mitigate the loss of acreage. The project would replace the loss of Upland
sage scrub habitat (a vegetation type that is not considered to be as important as
RAFSS) with a like amount of riparian and chaparral mix. Based on the fact that
the project site is not recognized as containing quality habitat and the fact that
the applicant has agreed to purchase acreage that contains better habitat than is
currently found on-site, the project would not contribute to significant
cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Comment 6-51: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to identify and quantify the projects
approved by the City that have reduced biological resource levels to below
significant levels.
Response: The number of acres and locations where development project have purchased
mitigation land is ultimately between each developer and the resource agencies
and is established during consultation between the two. Where the lands will be
preserved and managed, and how many acres of mitigation land would
compensate for the loss, is established on a case-by-case basis depending on the
quality of habitat lost to each development proposal. As of December 2003,
2,559 acres of land in the NEOSHPP have been purchased and set aside, with an
additional 429 acres in negotiation including the 58 acres proposed by the
applicant. This includes all development projects where the consultation has
been completed, but does not likely include all of the projects listed in Table 5-
1,because many of these may still be in consultation.
Comment 6-52: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify and quantify
the past direct and cumulative loss of blue-line streams within the pre-
incorporation area of the City.
Response: The project site does not affect any blue line streams.
Comment 6-53: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to identify and describe the
approval process that will be done for the project.
44
Response: Please see pages 3-12 and 3-13 of the Draft EIR for a list of Required Agency
Review, Permits and Approvals for the proposed project.
Comment 6-54: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify and fully
describe the delineation of all the land, which the City plans to annex at the
same time and/or in connection with the approvals for this instant project. The
Draft EIR is deficient because it fails to identify all significant adverse impacts
at this time.
Response: Please see page 3-1 of the Draft EIR, under Section 3.2 Local Setting, for a
discussion of the four annexations being processed (including Henderson
Creek). In addition, Figure 3-2 on page 3-3 of the Draft EIR shows the four
projects in relation to each other.
Comment 6-55: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify and describe
off-site and indirect impacts caused by the project, including water supply, off-
site water infrastructure, and edge effects to sensitive biological lands. Impacts
arising from construction of infrastructure must be fully analyzed.
Response: Water supply issues are addressed on page 4.9-2 in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR.
Infrastructure for the project's water supply is currently available for the project
from a 12-inch main located in Wardman-Bullock Road. In addition, the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), the local water purveyor is
planning to construct a water tank near the site to support growth in the area.
Edge effects associated with residential development adjacent to undeveloped
land, can have adverse impacts to biological resources. However, this project
site abuts two powerline easements (north and south of the project site) that will
act as buffers between the site, and undeveloped areas. In addition, a block wall
will separate the project site from adjacent Flood Control land, minimizing
access of project residents to these open space areas.
Comment 6-56: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify, quantify and
describe impacts from the comparative developments from which prior (and
relied upon) EIRs were based. The use of table and charts for this purpose is
mandated by CEQA for comparing impacts.
Response: For the purposes of this comment, it is assumed that comparative developments
are the same as cumulative developments or projects.
Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR lists the cumulative projects identified for a
reasonable radius around the project site in order to evaluate cumulative
impacts. In addition, Figure 5-1 shows the location of the proposed projects
presented in Table 5-1.
45
Comment 6-57: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately describe why the
proposed project is not mitigating each of the project impacts to below a level of
significance.
Response: As presented at the end of each impact discussion in Sections 4.1 through 4-11,
and again in Table 2-1 of the Summary Chapter (2.0), all impacts identified for
the proposed project can be mitigated to less than significant levels except for
air-quality impacts associated with construction which is considered a short-
term, temporary impact.
Comment 6-58: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify and analyze
traffic impacts from the project and cumulative projects to regional roadways
and highways.
Response: Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR contains a summary of the Traffic Study, which is
included in its entirety in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Project specific impacts
are addressed as are impacts from cumulative projects as required by the City
and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) the agency
responsible for administering the County's Congestion Management Plan.
Comment 6-59: This comment states that full and complete mitigation is required.
Response: A Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in the Draft EIR in Chapter 9.0.
As required by CEQA, the City must adopt the MMP when certifying the EIR
for a project. The MMP includes provisions for monitoring including frequency
of monitoring or reporting, the method of verification, and sanctions for non-
compliance.
Comment 6-60: This comment is a request to remain notified by the City regarding the project
and any other proposals in the West Valley Foothills area.
Response: The Sage Council will remain on the mailing list for projects within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. However, please be advised that the City cannot be
responsible for notification of projects outside its jurisdiction.
46
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
in PROGRAM
Project File No.: SUBTT16324/Henderson Creek
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the above-listed project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components -This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance.The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management -The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation)that relate to that department.
Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants'fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action,what action will be taken and when,and
to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will
be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the
project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Ex�ir3 <r
Mitigation Monitoring Program
SUBTT16324
Page 2
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed,as
determined by the project planner or responsible City department,to monitor specific mitigation
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring afterwritten
notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the
authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached
hereto is not occurring.The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to
hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division.The Division shall require the
applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee)with the City. These funds
shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report
on the mitigation measure for the required period of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or
City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 16324 Applicant: Henderson Creek Properties
EIR Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Date: February 20, 2004
MonitoringMitigation Measures No. Responsible . . of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification D, Non-Compliance
Land Use and Planning
LU-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project CP B Review of C 2
proponent shall submit and obtain approval of a landscape Landscape Plans
plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's
neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan.
LU-2: The project proponent must pay an in-lieu fee to the CP B Prior to issuance C 2
City of Rancho Cucamonga for the development of an ofradio
equestrian center as specified in the development agreement. 9 g permits
Transportation/Circulation
TC-1: The developer shall participate in the phased CP B Prior to issuance C 2
construction of off-site traffic signals through payment of of grading permits
established fees.
TC-2:On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3
conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project.
TC-3:The developer shall construct Wardman-Bullock Road CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3
along the project frontage at its ultimate half-section width as
a Collector roadway(66-foot right-of-way)in conjunction with
development;and complete the westerly portion of Wardman-
Bullock Road from the south project boundary to Wilson
Avenue. Improvements shall include curb/gutter,traffic signs,
striping, etc.
TC-4: Modify stop sign placement to control easUwestbound CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3
traffic at the intersection of Wardman-Bullock (NS) and
Wilson Avenue(EW).
TC-5:Install a Traffic Signal at the Etiwanda Avenue(NS)and CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3
Banyan Street intersection.
The project should contribute towards the cost of necessary
study area improvements on a fair share or"pro-rate'basis.
1
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring
g of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verif ication Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
Air Quality
AQ-1: CP/BO C Throughout A q
Dust Control construction
• Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small
an area as practical.
Terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control
procedures when winds exceed 25 mph.
• Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent
construction is delayed.
Emissions
• Require 90-day low-NO. tune-ups for off-road
equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and
heavy equipment.
Off-Site Impacts
• Encourage car-pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of construction materials during
non-peak traffic hours.
Noise
N-1: Construction contractors shall adhere to the City gQ —C --
Throughout A q
Development Code for hours of construction activity— 6:30 construction
am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday. No construction
activity shall take place on Sundays or holidays.
N-2: The developer shall install air conditioning units as a BO D Review of plans A/C 2,3
standard to allow for window closure for future residences in
the development that front on Wardman Bullock Road.
2
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
Date/initials Non-Compliance
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Prior to recording of the first final map of the project, CP B Review of plans B/C 2
the property owner shall transfer to the County of San
Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other qualified
conservation entity approved by the City,in fee,a minimum of
54-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and
habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be
mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the
conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of
said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the
environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the
City Sphere of Influence,other properties may be considered
based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat
Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner.
Geologic Problems
GS-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer CE B Review of plans C 2
shall submit grading plans that incorporate the general
earthwork and grading specifications for rough grading asset
forth in the geotechnical report for the project(Appendix D).
GS-2: Prior to issuance of building permits,including permits CE B Review of plans C 2
for utilities,the developer shall submit development plans that
incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report
(Appendix D)for preliminary foundation work,utility trenching,
and concrete slabs.
GS-3: All structures shall be built to Uniform Building Code BO B Review of plans C 2
and/or Structural Engineers Association of California
standards for seismic safety.Building officials shall review all
plans at the time of submittal.
Public Health and Safety
HS-1: The developer/builder shall consult with the Building BO B Review of plans C 2
Official to determine the optimum building materials and
construction techniques to minimize wind damage to property
as set forth in Division III,Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building
Code.
HS-2:The home builder/sales agent shall disclose to potential CP D Review of plans C 3
buyers, that the project is in a High Wind Area. This
disclosure shall also be included in escrow papers or other
mechanism for future buyers.
HS-3: See Mitigation Measure AO-1a for control of PMrD CP/BO C Throughout A 4
emissions during grading and construction. construction
3
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible . . of Verif led Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
HS-4:Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall CP B Review of plans C 2
submit a landscape plan/fuel modification plan that shall
contain the following details:
Zone 1 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment.Zone 1 areas may
be irrigated and/or temporarily irrigated ornamental firewise
landscaping. Single well-spaced trees and shrubs are
allowed. These trees and shrubs will be planted and
maintained so that at maturity,their branches are at least 10
feet from any structure.The purpose of Zone 1 landscaping is
to create a non-combustible plant zone fora minimum of thirty
feet around each structure.
Zone 2 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment Areas. Zone 2
areas may be irrigated or non-irrigated firewise ornamental
landscaping and/or native vegetation treated and maintained
to Zone 2 Criteria. The purpose of Zone 2 Fuel Treatment is
to reduce the amount of combustible fuels to a level where
wildland fire intensity is substantially reduced and to provide a
safe zone for firefighters (defensible space) during their
wildland fire protection efforts.
Common Areas.These areas shall be maintained as directed
by the Landscaping Plan, and will be irrigated. The grass,
ground cover, and ornamental trees will add to the decor of
this project and will decrease the fire hazard for property
owners.
Hydrology and Water Quality
HWQ-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant CE B Review of plans D 2
shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (N01)to
comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)General Construction
Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of
the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for coverage underthe NPDES
General Construction Permit.
4
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible
ActionImplementing Date/initials Non-Compliance
HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant CE B Review of plans D 2
shall submit to the City Engineer for approval,a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) including a project description
and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will
be used on-site to reduce pollutants from entering the storm
drain system to the maximum extent practicable.The WQMP
shall identify the structural and non-structural measures
consistent with the Guidelines For New Development and
Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
June 2000.
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of verification sanctions
CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development A-On-site Inspection 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP-City Planner or designee B-Pdor To Construction B-Other Agency Permit/Approval 2-Withhold Grading or Building Permit
CE-City Engineer or designee C-Throughout Construction C-Plan Check 3-Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO-Building Official or designee D-On Completion
PO-Police Captain or designee E-Operating D-Separate Submittal(Reports/Studies/Plans) 4-Stop Work Order
5-Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC-Fire Chief or designee 6-Revoke CUP
5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: SUBTT16324
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
APPLICANT: HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.
NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE,AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD
LOCATION: AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION,(909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents,officers,or employees,because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT16324 is granted subject to the approval of
annexation.
3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No.04-60, Standard
Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The
sheet(s)are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and
are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
B. Time Limits
1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning _/_/_
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the
date of the approval.
SC-1-04 1
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans,architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision,or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all __J_/_
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided,all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming,and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single-
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed.in underground vaults.
9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
10. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed
control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings,shall be submitted for City Planner review
and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of
street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails,including
fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced
with two-rail,4-inch lodgepole"peeler"logs to define both sides of the easement;however,
developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material.
b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as
veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance
shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs.
C. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a
distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching
the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official
d. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at
least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with
appropriate fencing.
SC-1-04
2
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine _/_J_
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot
owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs.
12. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners'Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners'Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
13. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners'association,or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements,special street posting,phone listing for community concerns,hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
15. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's
perimeter.
16. Construct block walls between homes(i.e.,along interior side and rear property lines),ratherthan
wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
17. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood
gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC.
18. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
19. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and
enhance views.
20. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The
5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the
required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including
trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The
developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance
requirement, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
21. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
1. For all residential development,provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the
street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5
copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of
occupancy(fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for City Planner and Building
Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
SC-1-04
3
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
E. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan,including slope planting and model home landscaping in
the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope,but less than 2:1
slope,shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft.of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq.ft.of slope area,and appropriate ground cover. In addition,slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required. This requirement
shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in
the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner,prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special
Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner,prior
to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the 210 and 1-15 Freeways
in a standard format as determined by the City Planner,prior to accepting a cash deposit on any
property.
SC-1-04
4
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBT716324
Completion Date
4. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $1,000.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory
performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used bythe City to
retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures.
Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be
considered grounds for forfeit.
G. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION,(909)477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S)
H. General Requirements
1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
C. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size
of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans,including isometrics, underground diagrams,water and waste
diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air
conditioning; and
g. Planning Division Project Number(i.e., SUBTT#,SUBTPM#, DRC#)clearly identified on
the outside of all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report.
Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet"signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to
the City prior to permit issuance.
4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls.
5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can
contact the Building and Safety Division staff for information and submittal requirements.
I. Site Development '
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT16324). The applicant shall comply with the
latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in
SC-1-04
5
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
completion Date
effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of
the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition,the applicant
shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include,but are not limited to:
City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,Transportation Development Fee, Permit and
Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School
Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division
prior to permit issuance.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map
recordation and prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays.
J. New Structures
1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions.
2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." —/—
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading
Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed,
submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building
permits.
5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site
drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Official prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over
adjacent parcels,are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and
Safety Official prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
C. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division
for approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits (this may be on an
incremental or composite basis).
SC-1-04
6
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or
planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This
requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope
planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code.
6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for
existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared,stamped,and signed by a California
registered Civil Engineer.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public paseos,public landscape areas,street trees,traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets(measured from
street centerline):
33 feet total feet on W ardman Bullock Road
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or _J_/_
noted on the final map.
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
6. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and
66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the
improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred
by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with
the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the
amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City,at developer's cost. The appraiser shall
have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies
in particular, but not limited to: Wardman Bullock Road (from southerly boundary to Wilson
Avenue).
M. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements(interior streets,drainage facilities,community trails,paseos,landscaped _/_/_
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to,curb and gutter,AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, streetlights, and street trees.
SC-1-04
7
i:lplanning\finaltpingcommtsubtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No.88-557,no person shall make connections from a source
of energy,fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes
and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and
ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been
completed and accepted by the City Council,except:that in developments containing more than
one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of
those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by
conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or
units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by
these conditions of approval of development.
3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb& A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other
Wardman Bullock Road X X X X X
Colonbero Road X X X X X
Streets A, B, C, D, E, F, X X X X X X
G, H, and 1
4. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements,prior to
final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
C. Pavement striping, marking,traffic signing,street name signing,traffic signal conduit,and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No.6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets,a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving,which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
SC-1-04
8
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtti6324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
5. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
6. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street
improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction
legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet—(typically
sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be
per the public landscape improvement plans.
The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other
variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer.
Min.
Grow
Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size city.
SEE ATTACHED SEE ATTACHED SEE ATTACHED
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting,an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to
the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil
amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Division.
4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall _/_/_
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Lots "A" and "B."
2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas ( % of mortared cobble
or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone'D'designation removed
from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities
sufficient to obtain an unshaded "x" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of
SC-1-04
9
i:\planning\finaf\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
Project No. SUBTT16324
Completion Date
building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) shall be issued by
FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
2. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
3. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the
property from adjacent areas.
4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system,water,gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District(CCW D),Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCW D is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved.
Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from
them.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline,Secondary Regional,and Master Plan Drainage
Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is
involved.
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,covering the estimated operating costs for all
new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits,a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall _/_/_
be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if
at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from
landfills,and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to
the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and
Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the
completion of the construction and/or demolition project.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING
SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
SEE ATTACHED
SC-1-04
10
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' ENGINEERING DIVISION
•STREET TREE REQUIREMENT FORM LAST UPDATED 6/3/03
DATE: 8-12-03 TO: WILLIE VALBUENA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
COMMENTS PREPARED BY: DAWN ROURK, CONTRACT LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECKER
PROJECT: SUBTT16324
LOCATION: W/S WARDMAN-BULLOCK RD, N/0 WILSON AVE
DESIGN NOTES:
1. STREET TREES ON NEW STREETS ARE TO BE SELECTED FROM THE CITY'S APPROVED STREET TREE LIST, BASED UPON
AVAILABLE PLANTING AREA (TYPICALLY BETWEEN BACK-OF-CURB AND THE SIDEWALK). ESTABLISHED STREETS
SHOULD ALREADY HAVE DESIGNATED TREE SPECIES. CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, LANDSCAPE SECTION AT
909-477-2740 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
2, STREET TREES ARE TO BE SHOWN ON STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS SIGNED BY THE CITY
ENGINEER,AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE SAME.
3. STREET TREES SHOWN ON PLANNING DIVISION SUBMITTALS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY
4, INTERIOR STREETS WILL BE REQUIRED TO SELECT DECIDUOUS TREES FOR EAST-WEST STREETS AND EVERGREEN
TREES FOR NORTH-SOUTH STREETS FROM THE CITY'S APPROVED STREET TREE LIST. WIND-PRONE AREAS MAY BE
REQUIRED TO UTILIZE A MORE DECIDUOUS PALETTE.
5. INDICATED SPACINGS AND SIZES ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-MAINTAINED TREES ONLY. WHERE THE TREE
CONCEPT GOES BEYOND AREAS OF INFLUENCE NEAR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR ANY CITY MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT,SPACINGS AND SIZES WILL BE PER THE ONSITE PLANS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION. ON-SITE
0: AND OFF-SITE PLANS SHALL BE COORDINATED.
g. STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS SHALL REFLECT THE LEGEND AND NOTES INDICATED BELOW. IN SOME CASES, WHEN
DETAILS ABOUT PARKWAY SIZES OR UTILITIES ARE UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF CONDITIONING, OPTIONS ARE
PROVIDED FOR VARIOUS SITUATIONS. IT IS THE DESIGNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ASCERTAIN THE CONTEXT OF THE
TREE PLANTING,SELECT THE APPROPRIATE TREE OPTION,AND OMIT ANY ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ON THE FINAL
LEGEND.
7. STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS SHALL REFLECT A LINE
n
D TO STATE:
STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE NOTES AND LEGEND ON SHEEP THIN THE CONSTRUCTION CLAELLYNSHEET 1)
"COM W�_ .GQ
X7 4 .
PROVIDE STREET NAME SELECT APPROPRIATE TREE FROM THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE
APPROVED STREET TREE LIST FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA. LIST EACH STREET AS A
SEPARATE LINE ITEM WITHIN THIS LEGEND.
STREET TREES LISTED BELOW ARE TO APPEAR ON LMD PLANS,LISTED FOR REFERENCE ONLY—
NOT TO APPEAR ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
WARDMAN BULLOCK RD 6000 ijera parviflora Australian Willow 5' 20'O.C. 15 GAL FILL IN
30%Platanus racemosa Caldomia Sycamore 8' 35' O.C. 15 GAL
10%Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 8' 25' O.C. 15 GAL
ACCENT Lagerstoemia indica Crape Myrtle Hybrid 3' 20'O.C. 24°BOX
SELECT FROM APPROVED
VARIETIES
•
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT
Standard Conditions
January 5, 2004
Henderson Creek
E/O Wardman Bullock @ Dona Wy.
S/O Henderson Creek
Tentative Residential Tract
SUBTT16324
FIRE STANDARD CONDITIONS
The following items are listed only as information to the applicant regarding procedures and
requirements as they relate to this project.
FSC-1 General Requirements for Public and Private Water Supply
1. General Guidance for Fire Hydrants: The following provides general guidance for the spacing and location of fire
hydrants. Remember these are the maximum permitted distances between fire hydrants:
a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in commercial/industrial projects is 300-feet. No portion of the
exterior wall shall be located more than 150-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance
shall not exceed 100-feet.
b. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in multi-family residential is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior
wall shall be located more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not
exceed 150-feet.
C. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family residential projects is 500-feet. No portion of the
exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 250-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-
sacs the distance shall not exceed 200 ft.
d. For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area the maximum distance between fire
hydrants is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 200-feet from
an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 150 ft.
e. Fire hydrants are to be located:
1. At the entrance(s) to a project from the existing public roadways. This includes subdivisions and industrial
parks.
2. At intersections.
3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible.
4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs.
5. The location of fire hydrants is based upon the operational needs of the Fire District to control a fire.
6. Fire hydrants shall be located a minimum of forty-feet (40')from any building.
Contact the Fire Construction Services 909 477-2713
2. Minimum Fire Flow: The required minimum fire flow for this project is undetermined until square footage of proposed
homes are given. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix III-A, as amended, and Fire
District Ordinances and Standards.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT
STANDARD CONDITIONS —SUBTT16324
January 5, 2004
3. Hazardous Fire Area: The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire area
shall be not less than 1750 gpm at 20 p.s.i. residual. For structures in excess of 3600 square feet use Table A-III-A-1.
This flow may be reduced when the structure is protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Contact the
Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713
4. Hydrants Used to Supply Fire Flow: Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project
may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on
adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow.
5. Show Existing Fire Hydrants and Mains: Existing fire hydrants and mains within 600-feet of the project shall be
shown on the water plan submitted for review and approval. Include main size.
6. Single-family Residential Plans: For single-family residential and accessory structures show all fire hydrants
located within 600-feet of the proposed project site.
FSC-2 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems-Technical Comments
1. Hazardous Fire Area Installations: The following buildings constructed in the designated Hazardous Fire Areas
(wildland interface areas shall be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system:
a. All structures that do not meet Fire District access requirements (See Fire Access)
b. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate flow or pressure.
FSC-3 Fire District Site Access-Technical Comments
1. Access Roadways Defined: Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets, and highways, as well as
private roads, streets, drive aisles and designated fire lanes.
2. Location of Access: All portions of the structure or facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story shall be
located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measured by an unobstructed approved route around the exterior of
the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates, and fences are an obstruction.
3. Vegetation: Trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 144eet, 6- inches from the
ground up,so as not to impede fire vehicles.
4. Mitigate or Correct Access Problems: Amend the proposed site access to accommodate Fire District emergency
vehicle access or provide Fire District approved mitigation. Any proposed mitigation measures are subject to the
approval of the Fire District and other agencies having jurisdiction.
FSC-4 Hazardous Fire Area
Designated Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located within the"State Responsibility Area' (SRA),the "Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga"Hillside District,"or within the area
identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan,Exhibit V-7 as High Probability-High Consequence for Fire
Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District.
This determination is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans stating -Prior to
the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the
designated"Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the
following:
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT
STANDARD CONDITIONS — SUBT716324
January 5, 2004
a. Class A roof assemblies,
b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans,
C. Approved Fire District access roadways,
d. One-hour fire-resistive construction with protected openings may be required,
e. Fire sprinkler system may be required,
f. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from an on-site water supply.
g. Visit www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/landuseservices/DevCode/805-Overlay%20Districts.pdf, for an Adobe copy.
The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety(FR) Overlay District.
2. Construction Standards: Summary of construction requirements for the Hazardous Fire Area:
a. The roof shall be a Class A fire-resistive assembly approved by Building and Safety. Fire-retardant Class A
wood shakes and shingles shall have completed a 10-year "natural"weathering test. Class A roof assemblies
shall be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions.
b. The space between rafts at exterior walls shall be solidly filled with tight-fitting wood blocks at one and one-half
(1-1/2) inches thick. May be"boxed"
C. The exposed surface of exterior wall must be listed as one-hour fire-resistive construction.
d. All exterior doors must be solid core or wood portions shall be solid core wood.
e. All windows, sliding glass doors or glass insets in does shall be constructed of approved dual-pane glass.
f. Cantilevered or standard type desks shall be constructed of 1.) A minimum of at least one and one-half (1-1/2)
inch wood deck; and/or 2.) Protected on the underside by materials approved for one (one) hour fire-resistive
construction; and/or 3.) Be of non-combustible materials, as defined in the Building Code.
g. Patio covers attached or within 10-feet of a residential structure shall be constructed of materials not less than
one-half (1/2) inch. Plastic, bamboo, straw, fiberglass, or wood-lattice less than one-half (1/2) inch are not
permitted.
h. All required fences adjacent to fuel modification areas or wildland areas as conditions of approval for a project
shall be of non-combustible materials as defined in the Building Code. Any fence within 10-feet of the fuel
modification area or wildland area shall be non-combustible. Beyond 10-feet the may be constructed of any
approved material. All other fences, including those on the interior of the project are not subject to this
requirement.
i. Visit www co.san-bernardino.ca.us/landuseservices/DevCode/805-Overlav%2ODistricts.pdf, for an Adobe copy.
The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety(FR) Overlay District.
3. Perimeter Roadway Required: A roadway shall be provided along the project perimeter exposed to a fire hazard or fuel
modified area. The roadway is to allow fire district vehicle access. Such roadway shall be a minimum twenty(20)feet in
width, with a grade not to exceed fourteen percent (14%), and capable of supporting fire fighting vehicles.
4. Power-operated Equipment Use in a Hazardous Fire Area: Submit a "Fire Prevention and Control Plan"to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fire Safety Division for review and approval. The plan shall include job
location, specific fire tools to be maintained on-site, person(s) responsible for supervising the project (on-site),
method of reporting a fire (cell phone, etc.), City or County Permit Number, contractors license number, address,
telephone number, etc.
5. Fire District Approval Required for Equipment Use: No power-operated equipment, including mobile, stationary,
or portable, shall be used without Fire Safety Division written approval.
6. Combustible Vegetation: During the declared 'fire season"or at any other time when ground litter and vegetation
will sustain combustion permitting the spread of fire, contact the Fire Protection District during normal business hours
to determine if"special fire protection measures"are required to operate power equipment. Call (909) 477-2713,
Monday through Thursday, between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The purpose of the call is to determine if extreme fire
weather conditions are present or expected to occur.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT
STANDARD CONDITIONS — SUBTT16324
January 5, 2004
7. Special Fire Protection Required: "Special fire protection measures" include, but are not limited to;
a. A stand-by water tender with operating pump; tested and maintained fire hose and nozzles.
b. Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks, i.e., contact between blades or tracks and rocks, etc.
C. The Fire District requires the contractor to maintain a fire watch for a minimum of one-hour following cessation
of operations each day.
d. For welding, cutting or grinding clear away all flammable material from the area around such operation for a
minimum distance of 10-feet. A"hot-work" permit will be required.
e. Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one
five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate
area during the operation.
FSC-5 Fuel Modification/Hazard Reduction Plan (Required Notes for All Maps and Plans)
1. Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located in the"Hazardous Fire Area"based on proximity to or exposure urban—
wildland interface. Mitigation measures are required. The building(s) shall be constructed in accordance with the
standards contained in the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District-Area FR-1 or Area FR-2.
2. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed
vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with three(3)
published references. Refer to the following web site http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/vegetati.htm for additional
information. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all
native species proposed for retention.
3. Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of a preliminary grading the applicant shall obtain the Fire
District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan(s)shall be prepared by
an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning.
a. Show all property lines,contour lines, locations of proposed buildings or structures,
b. Show the 30-foot minimum defensible space for slopes less than 15% and 100-feet for slope 15% or more
(Zone 1- Setback Zone) around the perimeter of each building or structure.
C. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning).
d. Show existing vegetation impacted by the required fuel modification and, if available, proposed vegetation to be
planted in the fuel modification area. The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened, or
endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans.
e. Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing; include height and density;
and relationship to grade.
f. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or
manual.
g. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all
directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. State on the plan who will have
ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones.
4. Final Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit,the applicant shall obtain Fire District
approval of a final fuel moddication/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of
achieving an acceptable level of risk to the structures by vegetation.
a. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning). Indicate locations of
permanent zone identification markers.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT
STANDARD CONDITIONS — SUBTT16324
January 5, 2004
b. Include irrigation plans and specifications.
C. Attach a landscape plan. The landscape plan must identify the location and type of supplemental plantings.
The plans and specifications shall include both the common and botanical names of new and existing plants
within the fuel modification area. Clearly indicate on the plans the disposition of impacted existing vegetation.
d. The landscape plan shall include any special or specific maintenance intended for the site such as pruning,
"limbing" up, mowing, etc.
e. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or
manual.
f. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all
directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc.
g. State on the plan who will ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones.
h. Include on the title sheet any tract/project conditions of approval, CC&R's, and/or deed restrictions related to the
site or final fuel modification area. Include a copy of the approved preliminary fuel modification plans with this
submittal.
i. Provide an appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder showing continued maintenance
responsibility in the event of property transfer, change in membership of directors, change in CC&R's.
j. Maintenance responsibility requirements and appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder
5. Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the
Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire
District, before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site
inspection.
6. Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel
modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel
modification areas. Further,the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the
approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including
the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to(annual)triennial inspections.
6. Phased or Temporary Plans: Phased projects or temporary fuel modification plans must meet the requirements for
permanent plans and be approved by the Fire District.
8. Single-family In-fill Projects: For a single-family dwelling project located in the Hazardous Fire Area, a simplified
landscaping/fuel modification plan may be acceptable. The plan shall detail the defensible space. Provide a minimum
thirty-foot (30') space for slopes less than 15%and a minimum one hundred-feet (100')space for slopes of 15%or more.
Show proposed and/or existing vegetation. Refer to the following web site for further information-
hftp://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XlV/vegetati.htm. The Fire District can provide a single page sheet of standardized
notes for inclusion on the construction plans. Call (909)477-2770 to obtain a copy, and to determine if your project is
eligible.
FSC-6 Single-family Residential Sales Models
1. Minimum Access and Water: Residential sales model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water
supply from a public or private water main system.
FSC-7 Alternate Materials and Methods
The Fire Safety Division will review requests for alternate materials and methods within the scope of our authority. The
request must be submitted on the Fire District"Application for Alternate Method"form along with supporting documents.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT
STANDARD CONDITIONS —SUBTT16324
January 5, 2004
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS- Complete the following:
1. Private/On-site Fire Hydrants: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction
plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the
Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District standards. Contac the Fire Safety Division for a
copy of "Fire District Notes for Underground and Water Plans."
2. Public Fire Hydrants: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the
locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District. On the
plan show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project.
3. Public Installation: All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any
combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District personnel shall inspect the
installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit a copy of the Water District inspection
report to the Fire Safety Division. Contact Water District to schedule testing.
4. Hazardous Fire Area Construction: The building or project is located within the designated Hazardous Fire Area.
All buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of County Fire Safety Review Area
(One or Two) [FR-1/FR-2] standards. In the Hazardous Fire Area the applicant shall provide a modified one-hour fire-
resistive exterior wall(s) based on exposure to unmodified native vegetation or potential exposure to embers or debris
from a wind-driven fire, as determined.
No vent openings are permitted on or in building components or surfaces that are parallel to any wall
required to be constructed of modified one-hour fire-resistive construction.
5. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans stating -Prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the
designated"Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the
following:
a. Class A roof assemblies;
b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans;
C. Approved Fire District access roadways;
d. One-hour fire-resistive construction for exterior walls may be required;
e. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from the public water system or an on-site water
supply.
6. Architectural Plans-Single-family Residential Hazardous Fire Area: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the
applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Safety Division. The Fire Safety Division
review is intended to ensure that conditions established during the development review have been included in the design
of the project.
7. Fuel Modification Plan-Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall have
completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan
determined to be necessary by the Fire District before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area.
Approval is subject to final on-site inspection.
8. Combustible Construction Letter- Required Letter: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible
construction, the builder shall submit a letter to the Fire District on company letterhead stating that the minimum water
supply for fire fighting purposes and the all-weather fire protection access roadway that meets Fire District Standards
shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on-site. The roadway shall be maintained at
all times.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT
STANDARD CONDITIONS — SUBTT16324
January 5, 2004
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION- Complete the following:
1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location
on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho
Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers." On private property these
markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner.
2. Fire Sprinkler System- Plans and Permit: Plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted
to Fire Construction Services for review and approval. No work is allowed without a Fire Construction Services
permit.
3. Fire Sprinkler System- Final Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler
system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services.
4. Construction Access: Fire District access, a minimum 26-feet in width and 14-feet,6-inches minimum clear height shall
be provided. These minimum clearances shall be maintained free and clear of any obstructions at all times, in
accordance with Fire District Standards.
5. Phased Construction: Each phase shall be provided with approved Fire District access roadways. Dead-end
roadways shall not exceed the maximum permitted by the Fire Code or Fire District standards.
6. Address Single-family: New single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a
contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The
numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4-
inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry.
7. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed
vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants,and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with at least three(3)
published references. Refer to the following web site for additional information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/1-
Zone/XIV/vegetati.htm. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall
identify all native species proposed for retention. Contact the Fire Construction Services (909)477-2713
8. Fuel Modification Plan-Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,
the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve
the completed fuel modification areas. Further,the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree
meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones,
including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to(annual)triennial inspections.